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

Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

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 22, 2018

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Taming of the One by Helmut Hansen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 12:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

A new approach towards a Modern Metaphysics is presented. It shows which physical implications might be connected with the condition of transcendence.

Author Bio

Helmut Hansen is author. He is convinced that metaphysics can be conducted as an exact science like nuclear physics. Out of this conviction have now emerged several books, f.e. Von der Entdeckung Gottes am Rande des Universums (From the discovery of God on the edge of the universe), published in 2005. It deals with the history of metaphysics and shows how a scientific proof of the existence of the One could look like.

Download Essay PDF File

J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 11:44 GMT
Would the Catholic Church which you mention in your essay be the same Catholic Church which burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that the stars might be other suns? That sort of "unpleasantness" tends to give metaphysics a bad name. Scientists have long memories.

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 07:07 GMT
Dear Mr. Smith,

you're absolutely right in pointing to the case of Giordano Bruno, and it is extremely important that such cases should never be forgotten. Since the Catholic Church still believes she is in the possession of the ultimate truth about reality, it is necessary to investigate this truth in a systematic and openminded way. As long as there is no real scientific basis for the One, something like a modern metaphysics, the Catholic Church will continue to threaten the freedom of the human mind.

But until now no one has found a way to conduct metaphysics in such a scientific fashion. As far as the One, that is, the assumption of a transcendent foundation of the Universe, is concerned, the belief in the guise of religion is still the dominant force: It decisively determines how we think about this One. This force is profoundly irrational. In its fundamentalistic form it is even highly dangerous. In other words: If we leave the interpretation of the One faith, then we leave it irrational forces.

In the past we had to accept this dominant role of faith because no one knew how to conduct metaphysics in a scientific fashion. But this task can as conceived by me be done. The key to it is precisely the property of transcendence, which previously represented an insurmountable barrier of knowledge. This barrier can actually be overcome, because transcendence is with respect to the physical universe such a restrictive condition that the possibilities of how the universe might look like, are so far limited that only one structure is likely.

Juan ramos wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 15:34 GMT
Mr. Hansen:

Metaphysics and physics bouneries and foundations are very much the same thing.

I agree that these disciplines could be managed as sciences , and I am sure they could tell us at least some of the characteristics of The One (as you call Him).

Now, what would you say is possible to know scientificaly about God in terms of the following questions.

Is God a person?

If so, how is God personality? - Loving Father, Judge, Playfull Creator?


we could only expect to know the existance of The One as "allways existing matter and/or energy" and Its transformation rules.?

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 13, 2009 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Mr. Ramos.

if the theological property of invisibility is really the result of a specific conception of our Universe, that is, the result of a certain kind of radical non-duality conception, as I tried to show in my essay, then the One cannot, in principle, be a God, who is for example able to reveal himself in a burning bush. If nature does follow the Principle of Radical Non-Duality then the One is literally invisible. Invisibility is no longer usable as a diffuse philosophical description of a hidden God. It maintains instead of that a very precise physical meaning. But this does not mean that the One cannot be experienced by human beings. It can. All mystical traditions are talking about the experience of limitless bliss which comes up if a human being is going to enter this invisible sphere.

Juan Ramos wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 03:59 GMT
Very clear. Thankyou.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Sep. 14, 2009 @ 22:26 GMT
Dear Helmut Hansen,

I am very interested in your essay. My question is: Is it your position that the One must, by definition, physically contain the universe? In other words, do you ascribe any physical attributes to the One? In particular, is physical largeness a necessary condition for the One to exist?


report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear James,

physical largeness is a necessary condition for the One. To put it more plainly: The existence of the One can only and if be assumed if the coincidence of the Smallest (= infinite Small) and the Largest (= infinite Large) is physically realized, because this very specific condition describes, how the One is encoded into the physical universe in such a way, that it can be everywhere (i.e. of being omnipresent), but no one (= no observer) can see it (i.e. of being invisible). If this condition is empirically not realized, then the existence of the One must be denied. Actually it is the crux of the entire research program of a modern metaphysics.

To make this program more understandable, let me give a basic explanation: The starting point of it was the class of all those attributes which were usually ascribed GOD; attributes like Omnipresence, Invisibility, Absoluteness (to be uncoditioned). Although we are aware of these properties for more than two millennia, it has never been examined in more detail, what physical implications are involved. For me, a point from the beginning was very clear: If the ultimate foundation of our Universe was really characterized by such unusual properties, like invisibility (i.e. transcendence), then it must have an equally unusual structure. The coincidence of the Smallest and the Largest is integral part of this structure. Physically we would talk about it as a boundary condition at infinity.


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 17:29 GMT
Hi Helmut,

Thank you for your reply. I did read your essay carefully before asking my question. When you assign a property like largeness, it indicates to me that you may be speaking about something with substance. If this is the case, then there are other physical properties that need to be addressed. Do you envision the One as having physical properties other than largeness and invisibility? Also, with regard to attributes usually assigned to God, do you see a property of omniscience for the One?

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 11:19 GMT
Hi all ,Mr Hansen,

It's interesting to appraoch this spiritual point of vue .Thanks for that .

How could we resume this entity? ,this builder ,this God ,this uniqueness,this all,......perhaps only with love ,confidence in the ultim equation ,and respect with the fact what we are creations of light in fact thus we must act like catalyzers of this universal love ,this universal...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 15:17 GMT
To Mr. James Putnam:

Hi James,

the One itself (!) does not have any physical property: it is beyond of every physical property. The One f.e. is neither large nor small. It is beyond of every spatial relation. This demand is guaranteed by the demand of the coincidence of the Smallest and the Largest. Properties like invisibility are not usual physical properties. We can say that the...

view entire post

James Putnam wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Helmut Hansen,

Beginning with your words:

"...the One itself (!) does not have any physical property: it is beyond of every physical property."

It is the differences that eliminate God that I was wondering about.

"In line No. 3 of my table you can find the notion v = infinite. If the One shall be the omnipresent foundation of the universe, the speed of light...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 08:19 GMT
Hello ,

Dear Mr Putnam ,very beautiful words ....

the One may be indescribable, but the physical consequences for the structure of the universe could be considerable

Yes indeed like a contemplation of the creations



report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear James,

to say the One is omniscient is suggesting that there is a Being who knows everything. but as far as there is any who or ego omniscience is impossible. But if you are able to leave your personal restrictions and habits behind you will realize more and more that at the most fundamental level of the Universe there is no difference between knowlegde and thingness. If we were even...

view entire post

attachments: Do_Space_and_Time_have_an_Archetypal_Design_Hansen_2007.pdf

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 18:32 GMT
Amen !

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 10:29 GMT
Hello ,

If one people can resume a little the meaning of MANDALA ,I will be happy .

What is it exactly .

Thanks .



report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 10:42 GMT
Oh my God ,incredible .

I saw on wikipedia,

it's evident all is linked by the spheres and the sphere .

Sometimes ,I say me ,thanks to have found that ,thanks to the uniqueness in fact ,it's a little if this theory of spherisation is his theory ,not mine .

You know when I have had the trigger ,the catch if I can say ,it was a big effect .I said me ,oh my God ,it's that ,my joy was enourmous .

You know more I search in the spheres more I find this reality everywhere .

It's fantastic in fact ,it's a real hope this spherisation for me .I see the world differently ,I contemplate these spheres ,a simple human the eyes in the sky .



report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 20, 2009 @ 12:39 GMT
I have read Siddartha from Herman Hesse ,a beautiful book really ,but I don't know the buddhism

Could you explain more about The IT BIT and Mandala if it's possible of course .



report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear Steve,

thank you very much for your different posts. I did not understand them all, but the last two I did.

MANDALA: To my opinion this archetypal structure describes how space and time are organized at the most fundamental level. The (inner) sphere and the (outer) square can be read as different expressions of the constancy of light. If you set c = 1, this possiblity becomes visible. It means, that the constancy of light, that is c, is not an unambiguous constant as we still believe today. There are, in fact, two geometrical versions how it is physically realized.

IT from BIT: The binary digit (bit) can be interpreted as the most elementary way to measure form. The German physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker has elaborated this approach in detail. He used it to derive the 3-dimensionality of space. Hence, it seems to me that there is a hidden connection between IT from BIT and the structure of the MANDALA.


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 21, 2009 @ 08:11 GMT
Hello dear Helmut ,

You are welcome .

Sorry for my poor english .I write in english like in french ,too litteral ,I am going to improve it .

Thanks for your explainations ,I see now .

Best Regards


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 20:42 GMT
You know ,I don't see an other reason that an Universe which becomes a perfect balance of spheres inside an universal sphere ,and if the quantum particles are spheres and if they all rotate thus the mass is ....and the time build this equation ,a big equation where it exists thus an ultim physical aim .

Our particles ,these quantum spheres buld a beautiful spheres .

The complexity...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 09:58 GMT
About the Mach Principle ,it's a little fight with the general relativity and the inertie .

I don't think what the origin of mass is the whole of universal mass ,of course all is linked and is dependant ,but the mass I think appears with the physical rotations of quantum spheres .This motion ,this rotation is a main part of all .

I think what evidently the whole of fundamental laws...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 19:59 GMT
I speculate that quantum gravity might exhibit a layering of structure as one approaches the Planck scale. These structures might become more complex or abstract. Then at the Planck scale it is possible that physics in some sense ends, and what we identify as the quantum vacuum amounts to completely self-referential elements with no discernable structure. Physical reality at a scale larger than L_p = sqrt{G hbar/c^3) are then accidents of sorts, just as Chaitan has said that mathematics which obeys axiomatic rules are accidents which emerge from a vast set of self-referential propositions.

So beneath it all there might then be something similar to what Leibnitz speculated about with monads. Monads are fundamental structureless elements which mirror each other in a great net to define this grand unity underneath existence.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Leshan wrote on Sep. 25, 2009 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear Helmut Hansen,

You wrote in Crane's page: the most central problem of making starships is surely the unsolved question: How can we overcome the lightbarrier?

I have another solution how to overcome the light barrier. If Universe has a limited volume, we can teleport a body by sending one outside of universe. (The original paper is here). Since a body cannot exist outside of universe, one reappears at random in the real Universe. If the disappearance and reappearance places do no coincides, it is faster than light teleportation. The distance between start and finish points can be very long. Outside of Universe is nothing, it is a hole in space-time. To send a body outside of the universe we must envelope a body with a closed hole surface consisting of holes in space-time. There are some methods how to create holes.

Sincerely, Leshan

report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Nicholls wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 07:23 GMT
Hi Helmut,

I have left a comment for you on the end of my essay.

Looks like we are on similar tracks, with regard to metaphysics/theology. In my picture, all data is both physical and metaphysical data, everything depends on the model we use to interpret it. I go with Landauer's hypothesis that all information is represented physically.

I spent quite a while in the Roman Catholic Dominican Order before being let go for unorthodoxy. My essay is the next step in a long project to formulate a reconciliation of the God of Aquinas' Summa with the universe I experience. I have a rather ramshackle website at which might convey a bit more detail. It is rather unmaintained, but hope to catch up one day when I stop working for a living, the children grow up, etc

I see the smallest as the quantum of action, but fear Russells paradox and related demons when we try to talk about the largest. As of about twenty years the layered transfinite network approach has seemed quite good to me.

All the best,

Jeffrey ---

report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

I am not quite sure whether we are really on similar tracks. My essay, esspecially the Principle of Radical Non-Duality, is only showing the FRAME of a modern metaphysics, but it does not show the corresponding PICTURE, that is, a specific metaphysical spacetime. And just this picture makes the important difference - at least from a purely physical point of view. Alhtough this picture is of lorentzinvariant character the way how lorentz-invariance is encoded into it differs essentially from special relativity. As far as I can see there are even measurable differences between the relativistic view of the universe and this metaphysical picture of space and time.

I have added a paper which gives you an impression of this metaphysical picture. If you look at it you will understand that it can be doubted whether we are really moving along similar tracks.

Kind regards


attachments: 2_Do_Space_and_Time_have_an_Archetypal_Design_Hansen_2007.pdf

Jeffrey Nicholls wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 06:10 GMT
Dear Helmut,

I have read the referenced paper and take your pojnt. I think I was moved by your reference to metaphysics. I think that I see metaphysics (in a nutshell), as the boundary by causal connections imposed by the mathematical theory of communication, or more generally, as the theory of computation. Rather like the tourist who asked the mythical Irishman for directions to a certain destination and was told 'you can't get to there from here, you'll have to start somewhere else.'

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 05:21 GMT
Dear Jeffrey,

...not all roads lead to Rome.

Kind regards


Irvon E. Clear wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 13:55 GMT
Helmut, I have read your statement and we are close to being in agreement but there is one evolved difference...I have mistakenly assumed that God is a perfect being.

God is not a perfect being. God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omipresent being...all transcendent attributes of being but not also descriptions of perfection.

Perfection is not a state of individual or unique existence. Perfection describes a balanced condition between at least two objects, forces or relationships. The condition is a result of the existence of more than object plus a force or an object plus an object...any combination that results in two or more creates a possible condition of perfection. If the condition of two or more does not also contain the ability to sense the presence of otherness and to respond with a change in self presence then there is a physical condition that can be described as perfection if the components of otherness maintain their uniqueness within all possible configurations of the originally observed condition.

If the two or more does contain the ability to sense the presence of otherness and the ability to respond with a change in self presence then there is a decisional (freewill) condition that can be described as perfection if the decision and change is made in order to maintain the originally observed condition within all possible sensed configurations of the originally observed condition. In this case there is also the continuing possibility of choosing not to maintain the originally observed condition. So perfection can be the continuing result of a physical condition or a decisional (freewill) condition.

The Creator in my position is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and capable of changing...also, the Creator of perfection.



report post as inappropriate

Author Helmut Hansen wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 06:07 GMT
Dear Irvon,

I do not believe that we are really close of being in agreement. There is one tremendous difference: you are thinking of GOD as a Being. I do not believe in that. After dealing intensively with divine properties like INVISIBILITY I discovered that all these properties can be derived from specific physical conditions. In the case of invisibility I could relate this attribute to a specific set of non-dual conditions, what I am calling the Principle of Radical Non-Duality. This relationship convinced me that there is no space for a supreme Being to act freely. In brief, invisibility is not the result of a divine act as you may think but the unavoidable result of a specific structure of our universe. The One is an impersonal sphere, which penetrates the universe in all directions, but it has no power to act as it pleases.

That's at least my conviction. I am considering my work as the continuation of the process of enlightenment which started in the 18th century, but let the One or God as you like unenlightened.

Kind regards


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.