Yes, confer profile:

There has emerged, in the current epoch, a difficulty in separating out the observer from the observed. This is most widely known in Quantum Mechanics. What is less well known, or less discussed, is that the same difficulty also arises in Special Relativity. For example the constancy of the speed of light in vacuo is, in reality, a consequence of the interaction between the observers (cf. note "The Reason for the Constancy of the Speed of Light..").

See also:

Preprint The Reason for the Constancy of the Speed of Light in the Sp...

and

Preprint Some thoughts on the Edge of the Universe, and Mankind

and also the note by Costa de Beauregard :

Preprint QUANTUM MECHANICS. ------A response to the argument directed...

The forms of chord languages are: chords (quantum spectrum*), chord space (open, closed, membrane strings), chord mathematical models (temperament, harmony), commonly used for chord expression such as time (music), space (painting), life (meridians, chakras) and so on; Chord semantics come from the chord spectrum and are manifestations of the spiritual and physical laws of nature.

Preprint Chord Language

The universe is deterministic without including consciousness, which stands beyond physicality. Deterministic in the sense that it is based on a very specific blueprint, just like a plant or a human being are based on their seed/programming which is in the seed/sperm, and so forth.

The "seed" of the universe is one mathematical structure, one mathematical archetype. In fact, the same archetype predicts the atomic structure (also predicting three subquarks for each quark) and the electromagnetic force, which explains the robustness of the system(s). The same mathematical archetype produces bidirectional pathways and toroidal/dual-toroidal dynamics also provides a commonsensical answer to gravity (Bernoulli principle as basis), to the speed of stars away from the galactic center (not needing Dark matter), and more.

The same mathematical structure produces a 64-matrix which corresponds to the 64-matrix of the genetic code, and showing that only a maximum of amino acids are possible in its structure. It predicts the double helix basis for living systems (bidirectional pathways) and the two base pair system as well and much more.

Moreover, the Menorah Matrix is also the basis for the Earth/Moon’s blueprint, both numerically and geometrically, and even providing the tropical (365.242) and sidereal (365.256) cycles to the third decimal digit and the precise axis tilt of the Earth (23.4 degrees) and much more.

Presentation Menorah Matrix - The Archetype of the Structures and Phenome...

Dear Amareswara Prasad Chunduru ,

The universe, just like the universe of your mind... There is such a difference between the universe and the universe of your mind: the universe of your mind is subjective, A mirror image of the universe which is objective, in it the appearance of reality like thoughs in your mind... Regards,

unfortunately I have a book in connection to your question, in Hungarian did have its digital form:

https://www.antikvarium.hu/konyv/horvath-laszlo-attila-az-eszme-dedikalt-peldany-974404-0

There is only one essay on RG:

Chapter Mi elsődleges-1995

What is primary, being or consciousness?

Regards,

Laszlo

Phenomenologically speaking , Universe is NOT deterministic . Epi-phenomenologically speaking , the World is deterministic . . .. . . .

The lead question here is: "Are there any other theories similar to Participatory Universe or SuperDeterministic Universe?"

In answer to this, but not to compete with anyone, I report what I have done in this field. I have created a GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY, which is absolutely causal. But if determinism includes epistemic determinism, what I have done is not deterministic.

You may find details in my book: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX AND COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY IN QUANTUM ASTROPHYSICAL COSMOLOGY, 2018, Berlin (647 pages). It is a thick book because I explain here both the cosmological and philosophy-of-science aspects of the notions in the system.

You might also be interested in the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, proposed by Ruth Kastner, a Professor at the University of Maryland. Her RTI interpretation is built on work done by John Wheeler, Richard Feynman, Paul Davies, and other famous physicists.

Thanks for the suggestion on Ruth Kastner. I will find out.

Our universe is the living world, that has special space to make anything in it follow its journey.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Yes, there are several other theories and interpretations of the universe that attempt to provide alternative explanations or perspectives on the nature of reality. Some of these theories include:

These theories and interpretations offer alternative ways of understanding the nature of the universe and its underlying structure. While some of these ideas have gained more traction and support than others, they all contribute to the ongoing exploration of the fundamental nature of reality.

The thread question “Are there any other theories similar to Participatory Universe or SuperDeterministic Universe?” looks as rather vague one, since in the thread introduction it isn’t explain – what are “Participatory” and “SuperDeterministic” Universe?.

At that, besides, really the question relates first of all to the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Universe”, which is fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics – as all other really fundamental phenomena/notions in mainstream philosophy and sciences, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information” are,

- and so the question is additionally vague – more correct scientifically in this case would be using of more rational term “Matter”, while “Universe” should be a system “Matter+ Consciousness”, as that really is in posts in the thread, which relate mostly to Matter.

Since that Matter [and not only – see above] is fundamentally transcendent, etc., in the mainstream, so in the mainstream there exist rather numerous “theories of Universe”, which are completely logically inevitably nothing else than some transcendent mental constructions.

Utmost scientifically rational one is the standard cosmological model, which has rather substantive experimental base, and seems rather adequately describes Matter’s evolution after Beginning; however when it addresses to Beginning the model is only a set of transcendent, and mostly really non-scientific, assumptions.

Besides the standard model there exist a number of “models” that address to the more fundamental [below standard “quark-gluon plasma”] than that is in standard model problems, the main ones are listed in the post above and look as be worthwhile commented; though really all these models are scientifically too questionable to be commented in detail, so quite briefly to;

“…Yes, there are several other theories and interpretations of the universe that attempt to provide alternative explanations or perspectives on the nature of reality. Some of these theories include:

1. Holographic Principle: This theory suggests that …. three-dimensional universe could be a holographic projection of a two-dimensional reality…”, etc.

- that is tooo strange theory, since in “Holography”, which really works till now only in the EM interactions case, just the two-dimensional holographic pattern contains some information about “three-dimensional” objects, but really only about two-dimensional surface of the object, and by no means contains information about what is inside the surface. While Matter is observed evidently having inside three-dimensional structure.

“…Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI): The MWI is an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics ….”, etc.,

- that is again tooo strange “interpretation of quantum mechanics”; for, say, evident “energetic” reason – even to create this unique Matter it was necessary to spend unbelievably huge energy portion, to create infinite “multiverse of parallel realities” it would be necessary to spend infinitely unbelievable energy portion.

The post is rather long already, so note only again that these strange transcendent constructions are possible, and are completely legitimate in mainstream physics, inevitably because of the transcendence in the mainstream above, and now

Cheers

I read ( and listened to ) several dozen hours of Prominent American Scientist by the name of Thomas W. Campbell

Physicist

Very much worthy to spend time on his relatively disciplined methodology of Universe theorization . . . . .. .

BTW : He is easily accessible on anywhere in internet . . . . you may just decide to type in his first and last names.........

I am NO participatory to his organization and do not benefit from his scientific agenda at all ;;;

So let’s continue [see the SS post above 2 days ago now] to comment really substantiated listing of “theories and interpretations of the universe that attempt to provide alternative explanations or perspectives on the nature of reality” in Kian Lajevardi post page 1, 6 days old now:

“…3. Digital Physics: This approach considers the possibility that the universe is essentially a computational structure, similar to a cellular automaton or a computer simulation. According to this perspective, the fundamental building blocks of reality are information-based, and the laws of physics emerge from the processing and manipulation of this information…”

- this approach is some version of the “Universe as computer” approach, and both have the same as all other “explanations or perspectives on the nature of reality” in the listing, [what are the explanations #1 and #2 see the SS post above]: the approach is based on the primary assumptions in the quote above, while, because of the authors have only fundamentally transcendent imaginations about the funamenatl phenomena/notions [in this case “the universe”, “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, all they fundamentally can be rigorously scientifically defined only together],

- these assumptions fundamentally haven’t any rational base, besides that really all what is observed in Matter is extremely effectively described and analyzed by using mathematics. However in this case evident fundamental problem exists – why mathematics is so effective physical tool?, which remains be fundamentally transcendnet in the mainstream.

Really any every system of any system’s elements exists and evolves like a computer – it consists of “hardware”, i.e. of the elements, and “soft” – of the concrete system’s sets of laws/links/constants that control/govern the system’s existence and evolution as a “computer simulation”. The specificity of “Digital Physics” is in that in this case it is assumed/postulated that the basic Matter’s hardware is some elementary “computational structures, similar to a cellular automaton”, what looks as rational, however, again, the authors of the theories have no any understanding about for what reason and by what way these “cellular automata” that are the fundamental building blocks of reality, which are so information-based, exist and run in Matter?

- and, of course, for/by what reasons and ways “the laws of physics emerge from the processing and manipulation of this information”?

Correspondingly quite inevitably logically the “Digital Physics” approaches really resulted till now in no any really new scientific explanations of what exists and happens in Matter, besides rather numerous really useless publications.

“….4.Causal Set Theory: This is an approach to quantum gravity that proposes spacetime is fundamentally discrete and can be described by a set of causally related events. Causal set theory offers a potential framework for reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity by providing a discrete structure to spacetime that might help resolve the issues that arise when combining the two theories.…..”

- this theory, since the authors again have completely transcendent imagination about what the fundamental phenomena/notions above are, simply is based on fundamentally transcendent proposition that “spacetime is fundamentally discrete”. What is really fundamentally wrong, as that rigorously is proven in the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

, where the fundamental phenomena/notions above are rigorously scientifically defined.

More concretely in application to Matter [see the informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics], “space” and “time” are fundamentally nothing else than fundamentally continuous Matter’s spacetime dimensions; and, at that, the spacetime is nothing else than some “empty container”, where Matter exists and evolves, the emptiness fundamentally hasn’t any structure, including being “discrete”.

Besides, anything in Matter fundamentally cannot affect both - space and time; and both, space and time fundamentally cannot affect on anything in Matter. Correspondingly the GR postulate that gravitational interactions are interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass” are fundamentally non-adequate to the reality,

- and just so the GR and more adequate to the reality QM are fundamentally incompatible, and any attempt to reconcile GR and QM scientifically is impossible. Including even the Causal Set Theory would be based on really adequate to the reality postulates, fundamentally no reconciling of QM and GR would be possible; though if a theory is based on some transcendent postulates, it can reconcile anything.

Cheers

So let’s continue [see the SS posts above 3 and 1 days ago now] to comment really substantiated listing of “theories and interpretations of the universe that attempt to provide alternative explanations or perspectives on the nature of reality” in Kian Lajevardi post page 1, April 10:

“…..5. Anthropic Principle: This principle considers the connection between the observed properties of the universe and the conditions necessary for the existence of intelligent observers. The anthropic principle … suggest that the observed values of physical constants and cosmological parameters are the result of a selection effect or fine-tuning to allow for the existence of life….”

- that is evidently transcendent principle, which correspondingly has no any rational assumptions – for what reason some, in this case evidently intelligent, Entity,

- who created a practically infinite system of cosmological objects “Matter”, where till now all what is known is that on some ordinary planet and in some quite ordinary star planet system some “intelligent observers” appeared in soon 14 billions of years after creation;

- while at that this Entity evidently is unbelievably more intelligent than the “observers” on Earth; and 99.99999….% of material objects and structures have to these “observers” evidently completely no relation,

- really made that only having the goal to provide the conditions necessary for the existence of intelligent observers on Earth; and possibly on practically negligible % of Earth-like other planets in Space.

That is another thing, that really – see the first dozen of pages, including section “What is Life” in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, where more 30 fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified, including the problem “What is Life”, which exists in mainstream physics when fundamentally has no any relation to physics, in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics ,

- the fundamentally non-material informational systems “Consciousnesses” with a well non-zero probability can exist in rather diverse versions, including the version “consciousness on Earth” and the version of this consciousness on Earth “homo-two sapiens consciousness”,

- and we cannot exclude that in the tribal Universe some other consciousnesses exist as well, which use some material objects/structures – as that the consciousness on Earth, including “intelligent observers” version, does, as some stable residences in the “Information” Set, and, first of all, as energy sources for existence, operating, and self-development; basing at that including on non-protein material matrixes.

Etc., though yeah, basic laws and constants in Matter look as are “tuned” for existence of living beings material protein matrixes/biostructures, and now we cannot exclude that that has some rational sense. But, again, consciousnesses are fundamentally non-material informational systems, which, though evidently affect material structures, say, when human’s consciousness govern practically material human’s body,

- but they use at that completely unknown and fundamentally non-existent in Matter energies; while physics studies Matter and so these points are principally beyond physics, including “Anthropic Principle” by no means is some theory of the Matter.

Cheers

So let’s continue [see the SS posts above 4, 2 and 1 days ago now] to comment really substantiated listing of “theories and interpretations of the universe that attempt to provide alternative explanations or perspectives on the nature of reality” in Kian Lajevardi post page 1, April 10:

“….. 6. It from Bit: This idea, proposed by physicist John Archibald Wheeler, posits that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are binary yes/no information units called "bits." According to this perspective, the physical properties of the universe emerge from the processing of these bits, suggesting a deep connection between information and the fabric of reality….”

- that is again evidently transcendent principle, which correspondingly has no any rational grounds – for what if not mystic, reason, and by what, if not mystic, way, “fundamental building blocks of the universe are binary yes/no information units called "bits."”,

- for what if not mystic, reason, and by what, if not mystic, way physical “properties of the universe emerge from the processing of these bits”,

- and for what if not mystic, reason, and by what, if not mystic, way there exist “deep connection between information and the fabric of reality”?

To that above one can add, that since in the mainstream, including for the author of this theory, the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” was/is really completely transcendent, in this theory it is claimed that the theory is based on the [Shannon] “theory of information”, which really isn’t a theory of information, that is an approach of optimization of communication channels at exchange by information about events in some systems, if the probabilities of events are known, and Shannon quite frankly titled his corresponding paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”.

Though yeah, that relates to the phenomenon “Information”, and so, say, it is true that, say, British encyclopedia can be presented by, say, a sequence of bits in a string, say, let 500, of “0” and “1” digits 1,00,10,1…1, however nobody from this binary number by no means could be read any article of the encyclopedia.

The phenomenon “Information” means, first of all semantic, and from the “theoretic-informational” approach really no any physics follow, etc.

However the absolutely nothing else than some informational – as that is rigorously proven in the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception – system Matter really practically for sure is based on binary logics, and that von Weizsäcker had shown yet in first 1950s in his really outstanding “Ur hypothesis”, where he had shown that spinors presentation of vectors in 3D space are equivalent to the standard 3D vectors presentation.

That solved so the really one of utmost fundamental physical problems “Why Matter’s space is 3D space?”, and reversibly – the fact that Matter’s space is 3D is mighty evidence that the Ur-hypothesis, where “Urs” are binary alternatives, is true.

In those times the word “bit” wasn’t too popular, and, besides, to underline the fundamentality of the alternatives he called them “Urs”, which are fundamental alternatives that are base of World in German mythology. Though shortly the hypothesis can be as “Es von Ur” – or “It from Ur”.

Von Weizsäcker thought that so “binary items” fermions are the fundamental base of Matter, however that isn’t so; and, besides, really there exist once more fundamental point that was discovered in the also really outstanding Fredkin-Toffoly finding – that reversible interactions between in elements of independent systems aren’t accompanied by dissipation of energy from the systems – and just so in Matter the energy conservation law acts,

- so really Matter is based on a binary eversible logics.

These outstanding findings really were again transcendent, and by no means answered to the question – from what and how Matter is based on evidently “non-material” human’s invention “Logics” – which is really one of fundamental properties – “Logos” element - of “Information”, and, moreover, in the mainstream physics unification of the finding really didn’t happen.

The unification was made in the SS&VT informational physical model [links see SS posts above], where, including, it is postulated that the ultimate base of Matter are not fermions, but the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- while everything in Matter is/are some specific disturbances in the lattice, including particles are some clos-loop algorithms that run basing on the FLE-“hardware”, whereas the FLEs in turn are fundamentally nothing else than some informational structures also.

Etc., more see the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts.

Cheers

If and when people realize that Machist "relativity" is differing from Einsteinian "relativity'" , then {{ and only then }} Over-deterministic unitary preservation of momentum would be deemed geometrically “segmentary” itself per gravitation-on-scale-field presentation . This , in turn ,spells that any interplay of gravitational vector-onto-vector directionality needs must remain on the participatory Universe/Cosmos if the additivity of velocity under such gravity is to remain on the same plane. As for 2D/3D commensurability, there also are multifractally-enhanced force induction, all depending on the non-broken cycles of “form=space” combination whereby miniscule vectorial fragments do the same job as entire pseudo-Riemannian push.

I ask attention to part 8 of the PowerPoint presentation on the Hilbert Book Model. This part is very provoking for governments, leaders of governments, scientists, humans, religions, and human communities. It describes the role of physical reality and the fate of living species on Earth.

This part8 is contained in the playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRn2RuujW3IJsZPxh7iNvlajFWY12G2Af

Listening to the complete playlist takes you five hours.

I am working on a handbook that reflects the content of the HBM presentation.

Have fun!

Superdeterministic on the top of supersymmetric model possibly working in Universe make the very BEING of Universe actually impossible !!