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 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

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.

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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

Peter Morgan: on 10/22/08 at 13:49pm UTC, wrote Regarding the "What about 'spooky' action at a distance?" comment, you...

Ken: on 10/16/08 at 21:20pm UTC, wrote There is a basic logical mistake here just like Russell's paradox. It also...

Elroy: on 10/16/08 at 3:54am UTC, wrote Is this a description or a recipe of something? There is about four maybe...

Rowan GRIGG: on 10/7/08 at 4:44am UTC, wrote If it were possible to visualize these devices, then it might be as a...

Mick: on 10/6/08 at 23:51pm UTC, wrote What about 'spooky' action at a distance?

Rowan GRIGG: on 9/10/08 at 9:36am UTC, wrote Essay Abstract Introducing the notion that the fundamental quantum...


Eckard Blumschein: "Robert, While Carroll and Rovelli are looking for an explanation of..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: ""At the risk of stroking physicists’ egos, physics is hard" But every..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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.

October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest (2008) [back]
TOPIC: On the Origin of Time by Rowan GRIGG [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Rowan GRIGG wrote on Sep. 10, 2008 @ 09:36 GMT
Essay Abstract

Introducing the notion that the fundamental quantum of time arises from the absolute period of the execution cycle in pairs of mutually supportive (simulating) computations.

Author Bio

Rowan GRIGG is a computing systems engineer with a keen interest in elemental questions. He lives in Canberra, Australia.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Mick wrote on Oct. 6, 2008 @ 23:51 GMT
What about 'spooky' action at a distance?

Bookmark and Share

Rowan GRIGG wrote on Oct. 7, 2008 @ 04:44 GMT
If it were possible to visualize these devices, then it might be as a sequence of digits running along a tape that has been looped back on itself with a half twist, to form a single surface – the familiar Möbius strip. Because the machines are merely simulating each other, and then simulating some simple aspect of the physical world, they require only a short length of tape, as distinct from the infinitely long tape required in Turing’s original proposal to compute every decidable statement.

Pursuing the analogy of the Möbius strip, two devices would divide the surface in half down its centre; four devices would divide it into quarters, and so on. As the number of devices grows, there is no limit to the longitudinal division of the surface to accommodate them, for in actuality they are not numbers written on a tape, they are dimensionless digits.

These devices do not occupy space. Rather, each device is actually simulating a quantum of space (a Planck volume), and doing so at a regular frequency. Despite the large number of these devices, and hence the vast expanse of space and quantity of matter that they present, every one of them actually resides at a singularity, a dimensionless mathematical reality that precedes the creation of a distended universe. It is for this reason that even the most separated quanta of our Universe (in simulated physical terms such as space and the transmission of light and gravity through it), can communicate with each other instantaneously (within a clock cycle). They do so directly across the ‘surface’ of the singularity.

Bookmark and Share

Elroy wrote on Oct. 16, 2008 @ 03:54 GMT
Is this a description or a recipe of something? There is about four maybe even five big ideas going on, and likewise with the terms for example nested reality, and contingent, so it's a series of hypotheses that care just vaguely proposed.

Bookmark and Share

Ken wrote on Oct. 16, 2008 @ 21:20 GMT
There is a basic logical mistake here just like Russell's paradox. It also implies that one can know and also be ignorant at the same time.

Bookmark and Share

Peter Morgan wrote on Oct. 22, 2008 @ 13:49 GMT
Regarding the "What about 'spooky' action at a distance?" comment, you might perhaps find the work on Bell-EPR by Hans De Raedt's group of interest. eg: arXiv:0712.3693v1 [quant-ph], "Event-by-event simulation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments"; click on his name on the arXiv page for a list of more recent publications, but I haven't kept up-to-date on the evolution of his group's thinking. His group has published numerous papers on this approach, and the attitude they adopt is an interesting finesse of usual criticisms of model building, but it should be approached critically.

Bookmark and Share

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.