Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:08am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 2:45am UTC, wrote Dear Jeffrey Nicholls I also believe, and can be confirmed by science of a...

James Putnam: on 9/21/12 at 15:15pm UTC, wrote Jeffrey Nicholls, "...From a lifetime of trial and error I conclude that...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 15:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Joe Fisher: on 9/3/12 at 15:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Nicholls, I have read your terrific essay and in my opinion it...

Jeffrey Nicholls: on 9/3/12 at 2:00am UTC, wrote Hi Helmut, My underlying point is that God is not an outside agency but...

Jeffrey Nicholls: on 9/3/12 at 1:45am UTC, wrote Dear James Putnam, As I see it we cannot possibly answer the question "why...

Jeffrey Nicholls: on 9/3/12 at 1:27am UTC, wrote I must apologize for the frequency of my typos. Two ruin the sense: page...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Did God Make the World? by Jeffrey H Nicholls [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jeffrey Nicholls wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 17:40 GMT
Essay Abstract

Did God make the world? My answer is that God did make the world. But I identify God and the world. The world made itself. This hypothesis, I suggest, has deep epistemological consequences for both physics and theology. The world can create itself without inconsistency because as well as deterministic processes modelled by computing machines, it contains the indeterminate processes predicted by the theorems of Turing and Goedel.

Author Bio

Born 1945, Roman Catholic education, entered a Roman Catholic monastery after school and stayed five years until asked to leave over doctrinal differences. Since then have worked as a builder and handyman while thinking over the theological questions of my youth.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John A. Macken wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 00:07 GMT
Jeffrey,

I liked your essay and I think that you should get it published somewhere that deals with the intersection of theology and science. However, I think that it does not properly address the topic, "Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?" My interpretation of this question is that a discussion that incorporates God and religion is outside the definition of a "basic physical assumption".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:15 GMT
Hi John,

What I am thinking is that the tacit assumption (where it is made) that the Universe is a system constrained by some initial conditions is wrong. Instead I would like to explore a physical world (and its emergent psychology) constrained only by internal consistency.

Jeffrey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 00:53 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Nicholls,

It seems to me that you bought into theoretical physics instead of considering the universe as an un-mechanical effect. By un-mechanical, I mean there is intelligent life to consider. These two grand effects of the abilities of the universe are not part of theoretical physics. I am not sure from reading your essay about your understanding of Darwinism, but, if you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 02:19 GMT
Dr Nicholls

My essay point out where can find the reconciliation science and religion.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 02:42 GMT
Hi Yuri,

Could you please say something here about what is the 'reconciliation science and religion" I would lie to include it in a discussion with Jeffrey H Nicholls should he be interested. Thank you.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Nicholls replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:45 GMT
Dear James Putnam,

As I see it we cannot possibly answer the question "why does the physical world exist" but we may be able to make progress with the question "why does the dynamic world have the particular set of invariant features that we observe?" Were they "put in" at the beginning, or are they the consequence of an evolutionary process that tries everything and keeps those structures that are consistent with its current state.

From a lifetime of trial and error I conclude that my "intelligence" is simply an instance of the overall intelligence of a creative and evolving world. Faced with a problem, I imagine possible solutions and criticize them until I find one that seems to fit the current constraints. I then set out to implement it, often finding (either immediately, or after some time) that my imagination omitted some relevant details and my plan does not work, sending me "back to the drawing board".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 04:27 GMT
Dear Jeffrey, we have already discussed in 2009. May be you remember?

I wrote a paper about a similar topic. The title of my paper: "Taming of the One" - an outline about a modern metaphysics.

I think studies concerning the relationship between religion and science are highly important, because religion is still the only branch of human knowledge that is unenligthened and often irrational.

But in most studies that I have seen up to today the relationship between God and the Universe remains in the dark. No one is seriously investigating the physical meaning of transcendence.

I think if we want introduce GOD as the most fundamental level of the Universe, we have to meet the challenge to deal with such an "outside agency" that conditions everything without being conditioned itself. In a world that creates itself, constrained only by internal consistency, GOD, in particular transcendence, is simply an empty word - without any tangible physical meaning.

That is at least my opinion.

Kind regards

Helmut

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Nicholls replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 02:00 GMT
Hi Helmut,

My underlying point is that God is not an outside agency but identical with the system we inhabit. The ancients conceived God a pure dynamism -- Aristotle and Aquinas would say "pure act" with no extended spatial static structure like the world we experience. My new point, since our previous discussion, is that dynamic systems that map onto themselves have fixed points which are part of rather then outside the dynamics. We might say that physics studies fixed points that are (as far as we can tell) relatively permanent, like, perhaps the general theory of relativity. Other fixed points, like ourselves, large stars and radioactive nuclei have a limited lifetime which we can explain in terms of more durable fixed points.

Jeffrey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 07:38 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

I see that we were raised in the same smell of incense, only I did not enter a monastry. I can appreciate your text, but have some remarks :

First of all it is my opinion that the IDEA of GOD or GODS is a result of the human consciousness, and not an external "eternal existing creature".

If you could take a little time to read ""THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", you can see my perception of what you are calling GOD.

There are in the thread also questions about the Theological results of this way of thinking. Indeed I also introduce the so called "TOTAL SIMULTANEITY", which is a non causal chaos of all possible probabilities, including the non causal consciousness part, which is in fact part of ourselves (the causal part of consciousness , the "I"). "God created humanity in conformity with his own image". Only I do not interprete it as a "creation" but as the collapse of a wave probability and the resulting entanglement in our causal universe, which cannot be other as fine tuned to our existance in this way.

The second problem with the "GOD" perception is that the religions that are created by us around those ideas have "DOGMA'S" that cannot be discussed, a little bit the same as in science where there are "LAWS" which certain scientists also say that the cannot be discussed, that is why we are now participating in this specific contest: "QUESTIONING THE FOUNDATIONS" .

Hope to hear from you here or on my thread, good luck with the contest, but I think that for you just as for me participating is already a great chance to be heard.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jeffrey Nicholls wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT
I must apologize for the frequency of my typos.

Two ruin the sense: page 1, paragraph 3, line 2: "because" should read "became";

page 5 in "7. A network world" para 2, line 3, "out" should read "put"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT
Dear Mr. Nicholls,

I have read your terrific essay and in my opinion it does belong in this contest. The reason it belongs here is that physics is only a religion with numbers. Your insertion of comparative factual information about fractious scientific theories and unifying Godly belief clearly shows that all scientists have historically ignored the most important finding of religion, yet...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 02:45 GMT
Dear Jeffrey Nicholls

I also believe, and can be confirmed by science of a transcendent power (or God) but maybe I understand about God is different from you.

How do you think about God?

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:08 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.