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

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

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.

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

Patricio Valdes-Marin: on 2/15/11 at 22:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Eugene, Thanks for your support and kind words. We can agree with...

Alan Lowey: on 2/10/11 at 10:10am UTC, wrote Patricio: I'm glad someone else has started from the outlook of...

Edwin Klingman: on 2/9/11 at 19:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Patricio Valdes-Marin You have written a very nice essay. In fact,...

Patricio Valdes-Marin: on 1/28/11 at 12:52pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract When we speak about structures and forces, we...


Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, As mandatory precondition of my promotion almost half a century..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "Robert, You referred to "Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Superpostions are irrelevant to any description of a thing "as it is"; they..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "What exists unobserved is relevant to QM. Whether it is modeled..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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 that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...

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.

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.

October 16, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Structure and Force by Patricio Valdes-Marin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Patricio Valdes-Marin wrote on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 12:52 GMT
Essay Abstract

When we speak about structures and forces, we discover functions and scales. Things are causally related between them in two ways: among structures within the same scale, and hierarchically when they are referred to a structure belonging to a higher scale that contains them or when structures belonging to a lower scale are referred to them. The complementarity structure-force is underlining that all things are structures, that they contain structures of a lower scales as its substructures or discreet digital units, coming down to the fundamental particles themselves, that they are discreet digital units of structures of a higher scale, and that they generate forces. What makes it universal is that the complementary force comes from the four fundamental forces known which act in the subatomic fundamental structure. The complementarity is valid from the microscopic world of the subatomic fundamental particles up to the macroscopic world that is identified with the universe itself.

Author Bio

As an independent philosopher, I have expressed my thought in a ten book collection titled “The Universe, Its Things, and the Human Being.” (See This work is an original outlook that covers topics ranging from cosmology to philosophy of nature, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophical psychology, theology, political philosophy and economics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 19:55 GMT
Dear Patricio Valdes-Marin

You have written a very nice essay. In fact, your biggest mistake was to leave your name off of the paper. I had to go back to fqxi to find your name!

Most of your statements I believe to be true, and I think that you have partitioned reality in a very useful way.

You reasonably consider 'corpuscles' as 'mass points' (without internal structure) and therefore require two or more corpuscles to generate a structure. I believe that the fundamental particles have toroidal structure, and this would imply that even one particle generates structure. I have a strong preference for starting the universe with 'one' thing, not 'two' things, if at all possible.

Also you state that 'all of the forces in the universe come from fundamental particles." I believe that the primordial field of gravity initially acted only upon itself before condensing into the fundamental particles, neutrino, electron, and quarks. You seem to agree somewhat in your statement that the big bang began with 'energy' before condensing into particles.

These are small points, and generally support your arguments.

I find your partitioning very effective in terms of hierarchical scales of complexity, of cause and effect, and of indeterminism at any scale resolved by statistical determinism at a higher scale, among other things.

The concepts of force and structure make necessary the recognition of complexity, and you rightly develop the obvious conclusion that man is the most complex structure in the universe. Galaxies pale in comparison to a man. This focus on complexity exhibits the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of those who agree with Stephen Hawking that "The human race is just chemical scum on a moderate sized planet."

One wonders how 'big numbers' of corpuscles came in some people's minds to outweigh structural complexity.

So congratulations on a well thought out, well written analysis of a 'scale-independent' approach to the universe.

Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Patricio Valdes-Marin replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Eugene,

Thanks for your support and kind words.

We can agree with Aristotle when he affirmed that our knowledge comes from experience. In our age we should add that knowledge grows and becomes truer through the scientific method. But experimentation and observation of the causal relationship, which explains ‘how’ things are, are not enough to understand ‘what’ things are, in spite of the use of math and its inherent logic. The ultimate understanding of concepts such as matter, energy, time, space, and so forth, resists the efforts of the scientific method. To be true our conceptual world must start from our experience of the real world plus the scientific method, but we must also rely on our own intellectual effort of abstraction of the phenomena to produce universal ontological relations, and not just inductive conclusions. The answer to the dilemma “is nature digital or analog” is rather a philosophical question pertaining to the ‘what of things’, where a multiplicity of ontological relations must be critically, logically and clearly related and understood, without prejudge and authoritative knowledge.

Good luck and thanks again.

Best wishes,


Bookmark and Share

Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 10:10 GMT
Patricio: I'm glad someone else has started from the outlook of understanding structure and force. It's often overlooked, yet structure is what defines something from nothing imo. Your philosphical approach is most appreciated.

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.