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

Current Essay Contest

Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

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 Fnd.

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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

January 18, 2018

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: What is "Fundamental" by Nainan K. Varghese [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 4.3; Public = 2.5

Author Nainan K. Varghese wrote on Dec. 20, 2017 @ 21:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract: Only an entity that provides substance to all real entities can be the most fundamental. All others are derived from it. In material world, existence of matter is absolute truth. Therefore, matter qualifies as the most fundamental and it provides substance to all real entities.

Author Bio

Independent researcher.

Download Essay PDF File

Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 02:01 GMT
Hi Nainan, I like your premise and conclusion. I agree that existence itself is a fundamental for everything else, and I would add foundational, where the consideration of the universe ought to start. One could build a very elegant structure of multiple dimensions but without existence to occupy them it, the imagined universe, is nothing. You have put forward a very detailed lengthy argument in favour of your premise. (Sorry I couldn't make myself read all of it, but I might return to it another time.) I agree the existence is not just material things but what is around those things. Host to fields (and actualizations of the fundamental forces, I'd say), that are casual. I would add other kinds of disturbance of the host existence too, that mediate other kinds of interactions; and electromagnetism, which i think you didn't discuss, though I might have missed that. Thank you for standing up for existence : ) Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese wrote on Jan. 5, 2018 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear Georgina,


If any entity (which we currently consider as material or non-material) exists, it should have objective reality, irrespective of our ability to sense or observe them. Objective reality provided by substance. Matter is the only thing that can provide substance. Real entities have positive existence, form and structure, irrespective of our ability to appreciate some of them. All entities and actions, you mentioned (fields, actuators of fundamental forces, electromagnetism, natural disturbances, media of inter-actions, etc.), are all real entities or actions of real entities, made of matter. Our ability to observe them differentiates between material and non-material objects. Imaginary (functional) entities are invented by rational beings and they exist only in our minds and in mathematical analyses. They have no substance, real existence, form or structure but they fulfil all functions assigned to them. If interested in details, kindly refer to .

Regards, Nainan.

Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Nainan K Varghese,

You wrote: “In order to have fundamental laws of physics to hold true under all conditions, they should all be based on a single fundamental entity. All logical theories in physics should be based on a single assumption.”

My research has concluded that Nature must have produced the only real physical structure obtainable. The earth had a real visible surface millions of years before any English language fluent man, woman, child, or parrot ever appeared on the earth’s surface. It would be illogical for Nature to devise different physical conditions in different places at different times. The real Universe consists of only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Author Nainan K. Varghese replied on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 13:46 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

Thanks for the comment. You are very correct to conclude that “Nature must have produced the only real physical structure obtainable”. Such structures would have most fundamental constituents, which are real and definitely should have substance that makes them real. However, we, the three-dimensional rational beings, are not perfect and our abilities are limited to observe only 3D entities. Entities, which we do not sense or experience but have substance, are also real. Our inability to experience them would not make them unreal. Therefore, the universe consist of all real entities with substance (whether they are visible or not). Hence, the entity that provides substance to all real entities should be considered most fundamental of all other structures.

Best regards.

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Nainan K. Varghese,

I do believe you have focused on the most fundamental of the fundamental. You say "only an entity that provides substance to all real entities can be the most fundamental." Yes!

You then qualify this by saying "it is essential that all entities are developed from one type of fundamental constituent that has no definite property except its ability to exist." I would suggest that one more property is essential; the ability to interact with itself. As there is nothing else existing, interaction must be self-induced and self-sustained. This allows for dynamic evolution, and also yields a generalized change equation.

You distinguish between functional entities and real entities. The first are models or ideas and are treated by Korzybski, who says:

"The map is not the territory."

You agree with Einstein that space is an imaginary container – "there is no space absent of field." and you note "action-at-a-distance" is incorrect. Your idea of lower dimensional states of matter as medium of interaction is very interesting and innovative. I don't think it's necessary, nevertheless, I will try to imagine how one might mathematically describe such media.

You don't mention time, but I assume you do not think that every moving object has its own time dimension, stretching from minus eternity to plus eternity. My essay reviews the historical development of Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity". I hope you will read it and comment on it.

Your essay is short, but well reasoned and well stated. It deserves more attention. With the exception of the lower dimensional matter-particles, our ideas are much alike. In fact when you say that these particles behave as a perfect fluid, we agree on that too.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

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.