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 blogger 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

ari saaput: on 7/17/18 at 12:23pm UTC, wrote keladi-tikus keladi Tikus Rodent tuber adalah istilah ilmiah bagi keladi...

Anonymous: on 6/26/18 at 13:56pm UTC, wrote Georgina, the only VISIBLE physical entity that has ever eternally existed...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/25/18 at 23:49pm UTC, wrote Joe, I was thinking about a mole and whether you consider it non existent...

Joe Fisher: on 6/23/18 at 12:22pm UTC, wrote Georgina, as there am only one single VISIBLE infinite surface eternally...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/23/18 at 0:50am UTC, wrote Joe, the appearance depends upon the sensory system of the observer...

Joe Fisher: on 6/22/18 at 15:02pm UTC, wrote One real visible Universe must only have one real visible appearance....

Pop News: on 6/22/18 at 12:05pm UTC, wrote These questions are amazing loving them... International Yoga Day 2018

Alice Den: on 6/21/18 at 20:06pm UTC, wrote Dial:1-844-797-8692 for all query and issues related to brother printer...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "Hi Georgina, Steve, What is reality? The humorous answer, almost at the..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe, What you are saying sounds like mathematics. But mathematics doesn't..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Jason, You can only unnaturally make an infinite number of finite written..." in First Things First: The...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...

Jason Wolfe: "The best we can do with the environment is to plant more trees and..." in More on agency from the...

gmail login: "Thanks a lot for the post. It has helped me get some nice ideas. I hope I..." in Bonus Koan: A Lake of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, I don't think the quantum representation of the hydrogen atom is an..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

SAJ Real Estate: "Nice one. Real Estate Sales St Kitts" in A Close Encounter


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 BLOGS
November 17, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Why This Universe? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger William Orem wrote on Jun. 28, 2007 @ 19:52 GMT
There's an excellent -- really -- article available for free download from Skeptic.com called "Why This Universe?" by Robert Kuhn. The title, disarmingly broad as it is (one thinks of "Love and Death," Woody Allen's send-up of overly grandiose Russian novels) is nevertheless too narrow. The article is a synopsis, with a good amount of detail, of each of the major cosmological and philosophical issues surrounding the existence, and perceived characteristics, of the universe.

image: alon


Included in this multiverse of issues are "Meaningless Question‚" (nature and its parameters are a "brute fact," as philosopher Robert Nozick called it); "Necessary/Only Way‚" (the universe is the way it is as the result of "deep essence" of physical law); "Almost Necessary"; "Temporal Selection"; "Self-Explaining" ("the universe is self-created and self-explaining"); "Multiverse by Disconnected Regions"; "Multiverse by Cycles"; "Multiverse by Sequential Selection‚" "Multiverse by Quantum Branching," and so on, and on.

It's really a nicely comprehensive primer on the mind-bending fecundity of mind-bending possibilities, and excellent summer reading for folks interested in Foundational issues.

It's also good news this week -- or bad, if you were hoping for Relativity to take it on the chin -- for the question of whether fundamental constants have changed across time. The ratio of electron-to-proton masses has been carefully tested by an Australian lab comparing light from a quasar to the same type of light produced in a lab, in the thought that, one of these signals being a few billion years old, fluctuations across cosmic timescales would be observed. Physicsweb has the article, wryly titled "Fundamental constant is pretty much constant." The short version: plus ca change . . .

image: orangeacid


Question: Einstein was smart enough to realize that if the clock is slowing down by the same amount as the yardstick is shrinking, the inertial observer won't be able to tell that anything has changed. Is it possible that the fundamental constants could be fluctuating in sync with the parameters required for measuring them, so that they always appear to be inviolate?

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jun. 29, 2007 @ 04:22 GMT
Before I read the article link, I ask of the "way it is", ..why is it that some people ask certain questions, and other people ask other questions?

Why does the Universe display its reasons in such a varied way, why not create all questions and questioners as a default function, ie..say all questions by all persons exactly alike?

The next question of course is:In other many Universe's, what type of questions are asked, of other "possible" Universe's?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jul. 1, 2007 @ 20:26 GMT
This is an interesting article :Why not Nothing?

The article author gives a vast and varied collection of quotes from all disciplines. But I have to admit I have a problem with the definition of "Nothing", so as the author and a number of scientists interviewed. So as an example I will quote form the article:

1 “Wouldn’t it have been easier

if there were not even one thing, in the

sense that there is no causal activity,

whereas things require causes to bring

them into existence? Wouldn’t it have

been simpler in the sense that there are

zero things if there are no things, and

that as a number zero is simpler than

one, two, three or any other number?

Wouldn’t it have been more logical in the

sense that the laws of logic do not imply

there are things and if there are things,

that fact is inexplicable in terms of the

laws of logic?” (For euphony, as well as

simplicity, I will continue to use

“Nothing”—Quentin, my apologies.)"

The problem here is "nothing" in the context of, order/simplicity is actually completely the opposite of what it represents, I have had this arguement some years ago so before I continue let me quote from the article again:

While recognizingthat the empty world is vastly, even

infinitely, easer to describe, van Inwagenreasons that this should not increase itsrelative probability unless “one is covertlythinking that there is something that is outside the ‘Reality’, and “the simplicity of the empty world provides us with no reason to regard it as more probable than any other possibleworld.” .

To create complete order, such as reducing any system to a uniformed unity, is actually the most complexed process one can imagine. The definition of "simple-order" would mean a process of complete and absolute control, control over every particle, halting all trajectories to ensure that no further collisions occur. Reducing a system to absolute order is far more complex than allowing a system to have a finite gentle movement!

In the article there is a quote by omongst others Roger Penrose:Penrose’s analysis of the “extraordinary ‘specialness’ of the Big Bang” is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the

“absurdly low entropy” [i.e., highly organized]

state of the very early universe.

My argument is that the "absurdly low entropy" here, is actually the most comlex function to ever have occured!..in mathematical terms, the nothing is represented by the zero, who can deny this number as being the most complex number in existence, far more complex than infinite?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


bob wrote on Jul. 16, 2007 @ 11:50 GMT
Isn't "zero" in that sense different from Nothingness at least because it contains within it the potentiality of Somethingness? Doesn't the existence of the universe demonstrate that there is no such thing as Nothingness except in the weak sense of a nothingness that contains the potential for existence?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gevin Giorbran wrote on Jul. 20, 2007 @ 06:18 GMT
Hey Paul and Bob,

It is possible to fully understand zero in terms of complexity and potential, but you have to let go of your assumptions that zero exists in the past. Zero exists in the future of an expanding universe, not the past. Physicists have projected zero into the past in order to theorize that the universe naturally arose out of nothing rather than a God. In reacting to the bias...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blogger William Orem wrote on Jul. 22, 2007 @ 15:39 GMT


I love these questions-- or, rather, this question, which surely is the most Foundational of all. It may also be the most important philosophical question: Why is there something? The best modern treatment of the question, already noted, is Robert Nozick's essay "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" from the book *Philosophical Explanations*. Nozick, who died much too young,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Gevin Giorbran wrote on Jul. 28, 2007 @ 12:19 GMT
Imagine standing at the very precipice of the birth of the multiverse. Imagine a cliff and out beyond the edge of the cliff there is nothing at all. So you put your hand out to the surface and touch the originating moment. Now push through it. Reach beyond. What is it like? Any words come to mind? Is it frightening, or menacing? Is it vibrant with all the potential of being? Is it thick or dark,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


vince wrote on Nov. 19, 2007 @ 16:40 GMT
why should we wonder about the exitence of the universe while in the meanwhile we destroy it as much as we can ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 31, 2009 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear William Orem,

I will repeat here the answer to your question of why is there something rather than nothing. Originally I touched on this issue in your Out of Plato’s Cave blog.

The answer, is because it can be. Here is how.

Mathematics is infinite and by Gödel there is no possible axiomatization of math. Reality contains mathematicians who discover all this...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jun. 22, 2018 @ 15:02 GMT
One real visible Universe must only have one real visible appearance. Instead of questioning where the universe might have came from, and furnishing preposterous speculation about its supposed finite creation, theoretical physicists might simply accept the indisputable fact that any real eye can only ever see surface. It logically follows that only one visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light is real.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 23, 2018 @ 00:50 GMT
Joe, the appearance depends upon the sensory system of the observer and may also depend on the parameters of an intermediate device used for observation, such as the magnification of a microscope. Different organisms have different visual abilities. Compare for example the eye sight of a hawk and the eye sight of a mole.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Jun. 23, 2018 @ 12:22 GMT
Georgina, as there am only one single VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light, there am only one VISIBLE appearance. Abstract finite descriptions of imaginary INVISIBLE sensory systems have nothing to do with reality. Supposedly, humans have "superior" sensory systems than bullfrogs ought have, yet no matter in which direction the bullfrog looks, the bullfrog will only ever see surface: And no matter in which direction any human looks, that human will only ever see surface, even if he, or she am looking through a telescope, a microscope, a periscope or using radar or sonar.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 25, 2018 @ 23:49 GMT
Joe, I was thinking about a mole and whether you consider it non existent when it is below the surface of the ground, unseen. Also consider its earthworm food below the surface. An experiment could be conducted whereby the mole has a device attached to it that measures vital signs such as heart beat, respiration and temperature. Data from the device could be collected above ground from the device's transmitter-showing the mole is alive and well out of sight.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 26, 2018 @ 13:56 GMT
Georgina, the only VISIBLE physical entity that has ever eternally existed am one single infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. A real mole has a real VISIBLE surface whether it am above ground or below it. The real ground that the real mole might be above or beneath has a real VISIBLE surface. Only VISIBLE infinite surface could possibly exist.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ari putri saaput wrote on Jul. 17, 2018 @ 12:23 GMT
keladi-tikus

keladi Tikus

Rodent tuber adalah istilah ilmiah bagi keladi tikus yang berkhasiat menghentikan dan mengobati kanker secara keseluruhan.

Cara membuat ramuannya : Obat Kencing Nanah

Cara menggunakan tanaman herbal kanker ini cukup mudah. Rendam tanaman selama 30 menit 3 batang keladi tikus dan daunnya, kurang lebih sekitar 50 gram. Tumbuk hingga halus lalu peras batang keladi tikus tersebut. Lakukan penyaringan dan konsumsi secara rutin setiap hari.

Tanaman satu ini telah dikenal Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik sebagai anti kanker sejak lama jauh sebelum pengobatan modern berkembang. Ramuan anti kanker yang berasal dari daun dewa, bisa di racik sendiri di dapur kesayangan.

daun-dewa

Daun Dewa

Cara membuat ramuannya :

– Pertama-tama, sediakan 30 gram daun dewa segar, 20 gram temulawak putih, 30 gram jombang. Rebus semua bahan tersebut bersama 600 cc air, tunggu hingga air tersisa setengahnya. Kemudian saring air rebusan untuk dikonsumsi sari patinya setiap hari.

– Ada cara lain, sediakan 30 gram daun dewa segar,

Cara Mengobati Kencing Nanah Pada Pria 30 gram daun tapak dara segar, 30 gram rumput mutiara, 30 gram rumput lidah ular. Masukkan semua bahan bersama 1000 cc air, lalu rebus hingga airnya tersisa setengah. Saring semua bahan dan tambahkan madu untuk menetralisir rasa pahit, secukupnya saja. Aduk ramuan tersebut dan konsumsi selagi masih hangat.

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.