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

NARENDRA NATH: on 11/4/09 at 17:24pm UTC, wrote A nice change to see yor essay challenging the early universe not to be a...

Anton W. M. Biermans: on 9/15/09 at 3:04am UTC, wrote Hi Malcolm, Though I can agree that the laws of physics are the product of...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/12/09 at 18:19pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr Macleod , Nice to meet you . I see the Universe like a...

J.C.N. Smith: on 9/12/09 at 12:36pm UTC, wrote Mr. Macleod, Lee Smolin's book 'The Life of the Cosmos' advances and...

Malcolm Macleod: on 9/11/09 at 12:21pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract This essay challenges the notion that the universe...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Coins always have two sides. Always. The fact that some observer has..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, Re.measurement being considered the cause of subsequent effect; I..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
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.

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.


FQXi FORUM
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Could we physically replicate our universe? by Malcolm Macleod [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Malcolm Macleod wrote on Sep. 11, 2009 @ 12:21 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay challenges the notion that the universe developed according to the laws of physics. Instead, it is argued that in the beginning there were no laws of physics, rather the universe evolved from an initial condition into the present state via a process of (a geometrical) natural selection. The present laws of physics, the fundamental forces, constants and particles are those which ‘survived’ this process. Examples are given for the elementary charge, Planck mass and the electron mass. The Rydberg constant, accurate to 13 digits, is used to confirm the veracity of the results. It is this initial condition, and not the laws of physics, which constitutes the TOE. Furthermore, it may be possible to replicate (and not merely duplicate) our universe within a computer simulation if we are cognizant of this initial condition.

Author Bio

Presently working as a chemical engineer. The above is an extension of a work to codify mathematical laws to describe (the philosophy of) destiny.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 12:36 GMT
Mr. Macleod,

Lee Smolin's book 'The Life of the Cosmos' advances and explores the notion that a process of cosmic "natural selection" might explain how the universe arrived at its current state. A good and thought-provoking read having at least some tangential link with your ideas. Highly recommended.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 12, 2009 @ 18:19 GMT
Hello Mr Macleod ,

Nice to meet you .

I see the Universe like a complexification by very weak polarisations .

If these polarisations are linked with the frequences of rotating quantum spheres and their informations ,thus the harmony of evolution is an evidence .

The rule and the evolution process always ,all has a rule of complemenatrity .It's evident and is linked by a code of building ,where the polarizations are specifics .The natural selection is different than a complemenatrity ,there the very weak interactions on the line time increase the complexification and diverity .If we take a step of this evolution ,the intelligence imlpies the complementarity and not the natural selection where the hand thus is harmonious and the technology too correlated with our evolutive step .

What I find interesting is the capacity ,this potential of the intelligence like a catalyzer of polarisations ,interactions where many things are possible in the complementarities implying exponentials ,harmonious exponentials.

What I think importaznt is the code inside the main central sphere and the code of building or becoming .

In this logic the biology is fascinating because it's the most complex polarisations where spheres are polarised and in specific frequences of polarity thus to continue to polarise and evolve .

I liked your essay and this universal link ,I think what the computing and the universal dynamic are evidently differents ,we can extrapolate but we rest in our limits .We can simulate to understand our biology ,chemistry ....but like all we have our relativistic limits .

Congratulations

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton W. M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 15, 2009 @ 03:04 GMT
Hi Malcolm,

Though I can agree that the laws of physics are the product of the evolution of the universe, if to an atheist the universe must have created itself out of nothing, then the grand total of all its creations, including spacetime itself, somehow still must be zero –which in fact is a general conservation law. The laws of nature, then, are the accounting rules according to which this sum remains nil, the creation of the universe like a zero splitting itself into a multitude of positive and negative numbers the sum of which always stays zero, things creating each other and only existing to each other inside their universe.

The universe then isn’t evolved “from an initial condition” as there are no conditions before, but creates itself out of nothing: an “initial condition” implies the existence of something preceding the universe, and in fact betrays your belief that it was created as the result of some outside intervention, a religious belief you share with physicists who believe in the Big Bang fairy tale which indeed presuppose the existence of unspecified “initial conditions”, a tale which doesn’t even offer the beginning of an answer as to its mechanics, to the origin of all energy which supposedly was created at once, to its how or why.

To summarize these conditions under the pompuous sounding term ‘singularity’ is nothing but admitting that we really don’t understand anything at all: that we don’t even want to understand it as this would interfere with our beliefs, preferring our own ideas about what’s logical above what nature’s logic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


NARENDRA NATH wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 17:24 GMT
A nice change to see yor essay challenging the early universe not to be a part of the latter day Physics. Yes, Physics has been evolved over the past few hundred years but has since been considered as consisting of laws that help us decribe physicsl processes taking place , perhaps eversince came into being.

i do not know if you had the time to look at my essay on this forum. There i present a picture that points out that the early universe closer to the birth, say first billion years was a lot lot different from the universe much later.Physics of today is unlikely to explain the features of that early universe satisfactorily. That is why we have so many mysteries remaining unsolved in cosmology like dark matter/energy, black holes that have hardly shown a good degree of understanding.There is a singularity of birth through Big Bang that is not understood. Singularities of lower nature emerge if one studies the evolution process and think of alternatives to such an evolution process. Both symmetries as welll as deviations from symmetry appear in nature. There is both some steadinessa as well as change in nature as a rule. Ther is logic as well as randomenss a part of the nature. Also, we do not expect Nature to be too complex, as it appears to us. Is not our minds controlling us in seeing complexities when the truth is more closer to simplicity. What to believe and what not to believe continues to overshadow us in our persuit of higher level of knowledge?

i wonder your essay has a good rating inspite of few postings. It goes to show that you have commended good respect through your silence as well as that of other participants. Total silence is golden and it contains the entire knowledge gets reflected through your essay!

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.