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.

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

Joe Fisher: on 8/19/19 at 14:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...

Joe Fisher: on 8/16/19 at 14:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...

Joe Fisher: on 8/14/19 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...

Joe Fisher: on 8/12/19 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...

Joe Fisher: on 8/9/19 at 15:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...

Joe Fisher: on 8/7/19 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...

Joe Fisher: on 8/5/19 at 15:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...

Joe Fisher: on 8/2/19 at 15:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this...



FQXi FORUM
August 20, 2019

ARTICLE: First Things First: The Physics of Causality [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 16, 2019 @ 23:14 GMT
Despite what physicists might say, the actual physics’ view is that the universe is like a perfect machine that is fuelled by number change: i.e. the equations of physics would indicate that an initial number change is the fuel that perfectly drives the universe forever afterwards. In this view, quantum mechanics might be seen, by some, as an anomaly that will be brought into line just as soon as the right equations are found.

The physics’ view is that initial number change is the perfect fuel that runs the universe ever after, and no number-change (i.e. fuel) top-ups are ever required. But what if top-ups are required in the form of quantum jumps of number? It seems more likely that the number jumps of quantum mechanics are the essential sources of change in the universe [1].

But what is causing quantum number jumps? Seemingly the only candidate is matter itself. So instead of the view of physicists and philosophers, including physicists Anthony Aguirre [2], Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli [3], of a numb, dumb matter that is ruled by laws, and where genuine free will [4] is an impossible anomaly, we come to the view that matter itself has the free will to “jump the numbers”, i.e. matter itself is driving change in the universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 16, 2019 @ 23:17 GMT
The above post was from me, Lorraine Ford.

Above post continued:

1. Note that time, energy, mass, and position etc, are in effect merely categories that can be represented by numbers; time, energy, mass, and position can’t themselves cause number change: a lot of people get confused by this issue. Similarly, law of nature relationships are merely relationships: they can’t cause number change.

2. Cosmological Koans, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3261

3. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236

4. Free will: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate”, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free_will (Oxford dictionary)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 02:36 GMT
My view is that physicists are making this idea of time way harder than it needs to be. Specifically, my comments are:

1. I may not be understanding this correctly, but do physicists think that the equations of physics work fine when time runs backward and forward because they can put negative numbers in their equations and still get some result? To me, it seems like just because a person...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Roger Granet replied on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 02:37 GMT
By the way, this post was from Roger.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 05:53 GMT
I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that Sean Carroll prefers as a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

To illustrate the problem, let's do a gedankenexperiment:

Suppose that tomorrow i will go to the quantum laboratory and make a superposition experiment with two distinct possible outcomes. No matter what measurement outcome i will see tomorrow, my "clone" will the the complementary outcome.

My question now is: does this clone already exist today? If yes, in what sense does it exist already today?

If not, i must take the usual narrative of a branching universe seriously (for the sake of the argument) and infere that a whole universe is generated at the moment the wave function collapses.

The puzzle now is twofould, namely who was the original person in the lab and who is the clone. If i am the clone then i merely have a false memory about my past - i did not live that past but the original did live it. The clone therefore lives in a virtual reality equal to a boltzmann brain that believes its full blown memory about the past indicates that it lived it in the past.

If an infinitude of "original me's" has lived my life from birth to tomorrow (when i go into the lab and perform my experiment) and after the experiment one of those "original me's" is differentiated from me (by seeing the complementary measurement result), I have to ask in what sense it was *not" me before the measurement outcome took place. Are there an infinitude of identical universes stacked upon each other at every point in time? And last but not least - does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?

I would be thankful for some enlightening answers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 21, 2019 @ 16:21 GMT
"does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?"

No. See my comments here

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 18, 2019 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Reality Fans,

The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.” Physicists have only ever proven that all real matter has a real VISIBLE surface. They have never proven that any invisible empty space has ever existed. Physicists have only ever ASSUMED that a void once existed and that there was a finite “early universe”. Physicists have only ever ASSUMED that there were three finite dimensions. Obviously, NATURE must have provided only one VISIBLE reality. The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork concerning finite laws of invisible thermo-dynamics. There has only ever been and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERLALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 19, 2019 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Peter van Inwagen is the John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus. While he works in a wide variety of areas of philosophy, much of his work has been in metaphysics, the philosophy of action, and the philosophy of religion. Watch his interview below on the Bible addressing philosophical questions.”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXI.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

In the year 1611, an invisible white male god somehow managed to meander into the room where English scholars were seeking divine guidance in order to write the best true version of the Bible for King James. One of the scholars was bothered by the fact that although he had suspected that the Israelites who were wandering about in the wasteland had no food and had to rely on manna pouring down from above, they had somehow found enough gold dust or gold nuggets to smelt and manufacture the golden calf idol. This bothered him because when Moses came down from the mountain toting the Ten Commandments slates, a bunch of Israelites were breaking the First Commandment for the very first time by dancing round the brand new minted golden calf yelling “Holly Cow” before Moses could let them know they were all going to Hell.

Jo0e Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 20, 2019 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

The July 19th 2019, Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Peter van Inwagen is the John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus. While he works in a wide variety of areas of philosophy, much of his work has been in metaphysics, the philosophy of action, and the philosophy of religion. Watch his interview below on...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 21, 2019 @ 13:23 GMT
"it gave him a way to define "meaningful information"—and that even slipperier idea, "meaning" itself."

But his definitions leave something to be desired. Here are some better ones

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 22, 2019 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Everyone knows that the universe is huge, but no one could have imagined how staggeringly immense the universe, or multiple universes, may actually be. It stops your breath. How to get a measure of the size of the cosmos? What would it mean if the cosmos were literally infinite?

In this interview, we speak with Max Tegmark on the vastness of the cosmos.”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

It am not the mathematicians’ mathematical universe that am INFINITE. NATURE produced one real VISIBLE Universe. The only truth the physicists have ever proven was that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before Max Tegmark ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning finite numbers. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. The symbolic number 1 am the only VISIBLE infinite number. Bertrand Russell erred when he wrote the proof that 1+1=2. He was mistakenly proclaiming that a VISIBLE infinity equaled an invisible infinity.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 05:10 GMT
These interviews of Carroll and Rovelli are both quite interesting since they show two very smart people with many related but very different narratives about the nature of reality. Narratives with measurement are what guide science and without measurements, there really is no role for science. However, narratives without measurement are what guide philosophy and there are philosophy is a perpetual discourse among many very smart people about the nature of physical reality.

“Every philosopher believes they are correct in disagreeing with every other philosopher and so only one philosopher could ever actually be correct.” Paul Skokowski.

Neither Carroll nor Rovelli acknowledge the unknowable precursors that result from quantum phase correlation and superposition, but both accept the notion that the universe changes and that outcomes all have precursors, i.e., cause and effect. However, they do not discuss the two very different kinds of changes that make up things that happen: First there is the very slow change of the universe due to gravity; Second, there are the very fast changes of atoms due to charge.

Black holes are endpoints of time and space, but black holes are still subject to the slow changes of universe matter and action. In mattertime, the universe pulse destiny is a single black hole and that destiny births the next antiverse/universe pulse. An antiverse expansion is the first half pulse that grows with antimatter precursors then a universe matter pulse decay is the

second half pulse.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 06:46 GMT
But the philosophers belief in the correctness of their disagreement could be wrong. E.g. Sometimes people are talking about the same things in different words. And so there need not be just one correct philosopher. I think the statement by Paul Skokowski is just a put down regarding philosophy; as if the explanation of things is unimportant. Is agreement without understanding, or the attempt to understand, better? I think not.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Please remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical

proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think,

therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia

René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: Je suppose que,

comme tout le monde sur la planète “I guess, just like everybody else on the

planet does.” All philosophers and theoretical physicists would come closer to telling

the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term:

“I guess.” Professor Markus Mueller of the Vienna Institute for Quantum Optics

and Quantum Information has confirmed to me by email that all philosophers and theoretical physicists have always guessed about the real structure of the Universe. But he insists that he only makes “good” guesses, not arbitrary ones.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 22:56 GMT
Does this mean all of your statements about reality will be prefaced with "I guess" from now on?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 06:30 GMT
Hi Kate, BTW re. your "Does drinking a glass of red wine with dinner make you live longer? Does it make cancer cells less likely to grow?". "In its Report on Carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services lists consumption of alcoholic beverages as a known human carcinogen." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a
lcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet

Worth knowing I think. However it may reduce likelihood of other stress related illnesses.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 22:41 GMT
The 2019 FQXi conference [1] has pinned this article [2] to the top of its twitter page. The speakers and attendees have spent a lot of time trying to decide what life, agency and free will are, and whether they are compatible with current physics, or whether new physics is required.

But the topology of life, agency and free will is completely different to the topology of determinism:

…..Determinism means that laws of nature determine all outcomes for matter.

…..Agency/ free will means that matter itself determines some of its own outcomes. This is new physics only in the sense that it is a different view of matter.

The other issue is that the nature of life, agency and free will is only representable as (but not determined by) algorithms; the nature of life, agency and free will is not representable as equations and numbers alone. Yet there is no way that equations and numbers can transmogrify into algorithms. This is new physics only in the sense that the behaviour of matter needs to be represented by algorithms.

1. Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World, 20-25 July 2019.

2. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236 .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 26, 2019 @ 15:40 GMT
...however, it is not possible to know all of the precursors for agency/free will...otherwise, agency free will would also be determinate.

This is why quantum uncertainty plays a key role in agency/free will...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 24, 2019 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Alan Guth is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He is currently serving as Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Most of Alan Guth's research has centered on the application of theoretical particle physics to the early universe: what can particle physics tell us about the history of the universe, and what can cosmology tell us about the fundamental laws of nature?”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

There never was an “early universe”. Humanly contrived invisible supposedly finite quantum particles are unnaturally obtained, and are unrealistically destructive. NATURE permanently provided only one VISIBLE reality. The only physical truth the physicists have ever proven was that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Alan Guth ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning invisible particles. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There was never an empty void, and there has never been any empty Einstein imaginary curved space. To think that the VISIBLE Earth would change its VISIBLE appearance because Alan Guth and Albert Einstein appeared on its VISIBLE surface am unnatural.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 26, 2019 @ 15:37 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Sir Martin Rees is a leading astrophysicist as well as a senior figure in UK science. He has conducted influential theoretical work on subjects as diverse as black hole formation and extragalactic radio sources, and provided key evidence to contradict the Steady State theory of the evolution of the Universe. Watch his interview below on the vastness of the cosmos.”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

The real VISIBLE universe never evolved. NATURE permanently produced the only VISIBLE structure of the real Universe possible. The only truth about the real universe the physicists have ever been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Sir Martin Rees ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning invisible black holes that somehow caused the finite invisible commencement of the universe. NATURE provided that there had only ever been, and there would only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Why on earth would NATURE change the only physical VISIBLE structure of the Universe just because Sir Martin Rees recently appeared on earth? After the loony white male scientists have destroyed the planet with their unnatural use of finite technology, the real Earth will still retain its VISIBLE surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 30, 2019 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“How can God's perfect knowledge not eliminate free will? Since God-to-be-God can never be wrong and knows everything, including propositions about future events, how can those propositions about future events, which God knows now, not come to pass in the actual future? Hence, if we cannot do otherwise than what God knew prior, how can we have free will?

Matthews Grant is an Associate Professor in the Deparment of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minneso..”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

The only proven fact the physicists have ever been able to prove am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE Matthews Grant ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. Obviously, NATURE permanently provided only one VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There has never been an invisible white male god. The Bible am a book of white male fiction. The Periodic Table am a white male fictional listing.

Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 31, 2019 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Peter van Inwagen is the John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame. While he works in a wide variety of areas of philosophy, much of his work has been in metaphysics, the philosophy of action, and the philosophy of religion. He...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 2, 2019 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Katherin Rogers is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Delaware. Her areas of specialization are Medieval Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion. Watch her interview below on 'Does God's Knowledge Quash Free Will?'”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

NATURE permanently provided only one VISIBLE physical reality. The only truthful fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real planet Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE Katherin Rogers ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing her unnatural guesswork concerning an imaginary invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Although white people seem to think that they have some sort of invisible imaginary intelligence fizzing around in their brains that allows them to decide how an invisible white male god created a finite universe piecemeal out of nothing, such am not the case. Nobody who has ever lived has had any sort of finite will.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 5, 2019 @ 15:34 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“What are the classical arguments used to prove the existence of God? In this interview, we speak with Robert Spitzer.

Robert J. Spitzer, SJ, is a Jesuit priest, philosopher, physicist, educator, author, speaker, and retired President of Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington.”

I have posted this sensible remark at the website and on the FQXI.org Community Board and on my own Face book page :

Why do white men try to prove that an invisible white male god exists? The only true fact credentialed physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before Robert J. Spitzer, SJ, ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural finite classical guesswork concerning invisible white male deity. Nature must have provided only one visible reality, and made that reality visible so that all creatures could deal with it for all of their lives. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Alert Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 7, 2019 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“What are the classical arguments used to prove the existence of God? For the Cosmological Argument we argue First Cause; from the Ontological Argument we argue Necessary Being; from Teleology we argue Design and Purpose. All are refuted and in turn defended in what seems to be a philosophical arms race. In the end, no one believes in God because of arguments, but they do help to develop our thinking about God.

Greg Ganssle is a Senior Fellow at the Rivendell Institute and lectures in the Department of Philosophy at Yale University. His work explores the intersection of Christian faith and contemporary scholarship.”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.

Although white males have argued for centuries over the possible existence of an invisible white male god, NATURE made sure that only one real VISIBLE reality would ever exist. White male physicists have only ever proven that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years BEFORE Greg Ganssle ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork about an invisible white male deity.

There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Even after all human white males go toes up due to the effects of global warming, the hot planet Earth will still retain its VISIBLE surface.

Joe Fisher, The Sensible Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 9, 2019 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Yujin Nagasawa is a Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion in the School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham. Yujin specializes in the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of mind and applied philosophy. Watch his interview below on classical arguments for God.”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

The problem with white male contrived supposedly finite guesswork about the possible existence of an invisible white male god, even when it is expounded by an Asian professor of Religious Philosophy, am that it is utterly unnatural and therefore provably untrue. NATURE provided only one VISIBLE reality. The only truthful statement about the singular physical structure of the planet Earth that the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years BEFORE Yujin Nagasawa ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural attempted finite guesswork concerning an invisible white male god. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. If all supposedly finite scientific, religious, philosophical and political information were deleted, the same infinite amount of VISIBLE surface would remain.

Joe Fisher, Pretend Samurai Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 12, 2019 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“If the deep laws of the universe had been ever so slightly different human beings wouldn't, and couldn't, exist. All explanations of this exquisite fine-tuning, obvious and not-so-obvious, have problems or complexities. Natural or supernatural, that is the question.

Leonard Susskind is an American physicist, who is professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University, and founding director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests include string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology.”

Ihave patiently posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.

NATURE am not questionable. The only truth about the physical state of the universe the physicists have ever been able to prove was that the real planet Earth had a real naturally provided VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Leonard Susskind appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning abstract finite laws of physics. NATURE provided only one VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There have never been any multiple invisible universes. There have never been three finite dimensions. There have never been any finite amounts of dark and light matter swirling round finitely in curved invisible space.

Joe Fisher, The Constant Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 14, 2019 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Russell Stannard is a retired high-energy particle physicist, and a current Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Open University. He Studied Physics at University College London, where he earned a BSc in Special Physics and a PhD in Cosmic Ray Physics.

Watch his interview below on the 'Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

It should be obvious to all sensible folk, that NATURE must have provided the only VISIBLE UNIVERSE possible. The only truthful statement the physicists have ever been able to prove was that the real planet Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE Russell Stannard ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural supposedly finite guesswork about his “fine-tuning” of his abstract notions about imaginary universes. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Natural VISIBLE Reality requires no humanly contrived finite pretentious fine, fair-to-middling, or course-tuning of any description.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 16, 2019 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.

Penrose has made contributions to the mathematical physics of general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.

Watch his interview below on 'Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page.

Every sensible person ought to know that NATURE must have produced the only singular VISIBLE universe possible. The only true fact about the structure of the universe that Stephen Hawking ever provided us with was that the real planet Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years BEFORE Stephen Hawking ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning invisible finite black holes. Just as you would think that a person who had only seen the last ten minutes of William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, then started describing what the whole play was about was a fool, it follows that Hawking and all of the philosophers and physicists were completely wrong about the single VISIBLE physical propensity of the Universe. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 19, 2019 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Dr. Kuhn,

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of misinformation:

“The existence of both cosmos and consciousness, each in its own way, constitute deep problems, perhaps grand mysteries beyond human knowing. Some claim that the two mysteries can only be solved in parallel, together, not in series, alone. Some base their claim on religion, a few on science, others on the belief that consciousness is ultimate reality.

Max Tegmark is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute.”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

Which has existed longer, the VISIBLE cosmos or white male suspected invisible finite consciousness? The only true fact the physicists have ever proven was that the real planet Earth (and all of the other real planets) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years before Professor Max Tegmark ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural guesswork concerning invisible quantum particles. Obviously, every sensible person knows that NATURE could have only permanently produced one single VISIBLE reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

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.