It's not only cosmology in question. You can list all fundamental physics.

There's no understanding of fields in general (EM, gravitational). Or take particle physics none of the subatomic particles (quark, gluon,...) have been detected. Atomic physics is blocked by the QM, which is just a superficial theory based on the associated wave of the electron.

A simple demonstration of these facts; ask any scientist why this or that "natural constant" has its specific value?

JES

Stellan Gustafsson, THANKS. The manner in which quick-fix solutions are being brought in by physicists is terrific. Who will suggest a direct mathematical re-generalization of theoretical physics in cosmology?

If you watch Alan Guth discussing his new science of inflationary cosmology, you will know how over-dependent he is on the mathematics he uses to divert the attention of all ....

Raphael Neelamkavil

Begin with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FXs4yRbZuw

Then you see that you can forget potential energy, because in fact the energy resides in the gravitational field.

Wolfgang Konle, exactly this is what I have argued about cosmic vacuum energy. I believe even dark energy is nothing but another, most general, form of mathematical requirement of potential energy. But potential energy is just a mathematical construct of position or state, without a real internal processual constitution....

Thanks.

From a scale-invariant form of Newtonian gravity and special relativity, the acceleration of the Universe could be about 10^-14 m/s^2. So something must be in the vacuum to cause this. Here is the rationale: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-value-acceleration-universe-warren-frisina/

Thanks, Warren Frisina.

Raphael Neelamkavil "I believe even dark energy is nothing but another, most general, form of mathematical requirement of potential energy."

If the negative energy density of gravitational fields is overcompensated by a cosmic field with a positive energy density, then dark energy can be explained.

It then simply is a stream of excitations of the cosmic field, streaming out of stars. Stars contain lots of fast particles, which gravitationally excite the cosmic field. The stream of excitations enhances the cosmic field and has the opposite impact of gravitational fields which weaken the cosmic field.

But there is a difference, if the level of excitations has faded away with the distance to the background level, the gravitational impact ends. But the normal gravitational impact never ends.

This leads to a sudden appearance of the impact of a part of star mass, the dark matter, which has been shielded by the excitations of the cosmic field.

An intelligent combination of hypothetical cosmological constants and cosmological constants known today is required to calculate everything in the universe from its ultimate small to its ultimate large.

Very good, Jamil Kooli. Thanks.

Raphael Neelamkavil Cosmological constants relate everything in physics but people have not discovers them all yet. Few only are kown today.

When I ask whether any particle at zero rest mass has been detected experimentally, the answer is No, and they give theoretical / mathematical reasons for the EXISTENCE OF REST MASS. Let this be so.

But most physicists start being on the side of directly experimental results when one speaks of supposing the various cases of content of the cosmos: (1) finite and (2) infinite!

And using merely mathematical applications a physicist and cosmologist can create many virtual worlds. But should they all exist?

The recent (1) “observation” by LIGO of neutron star merger and (2) what is considered as different from it, namely, the arrival of the visible light from the merger at our location, used to be perceived to be is an indication that gravitational waves may have the same velocity as electromagnetic waves.

But it need not exactly be so, because even in this case we speak of our observation of the neutron star merger using the luminal velocity and then make independent conclusions on gravitational waves. This is not grantable. In fact, the gravitational waves are themselves not being observed here directly in terms of gravitational waves or anything known previously to be of that kind in velocity. Instead, we are using the light and other electromagnetic radiation from those astronomical objects and saying that they present us the real information about the gravitational waves.

That is, even today, experimentally we are not sure of the velocity of gravitational propagation. We assume it to be c because of our observation of electromagnetic propagations that carry us news of gravitational propagation from the said objects. Hence, it need not show their velocity to be equal.

Here arises the question: At the level of the large-scale processes of the cosmos, is gravitation or electromagnetism (or any other non-gravitational or contrary-to-gravitation propagation) more influential in determining the general evolution of the structure of the cosmos?

I hold it has to be gravitation that has the final say. My arguments are indirect. I shall put them forth in the course of development of arguments in the discussion.

What I want to accentuate is this: If there are other (may be infinite number of) worlds of different content, density, etc., the velocity of what may be termed gravitation proper in each of them might also be different.

This may be the case also for non-gravitational propagations in each such worlds.

Well, The gravitation is the dominant force within the Universe, together with the force of expansion (dark energy). Electromagnetism don't influence the evolution of cosmos.

The propagation of EM-waves and G-waves have the same speed, within any local reference frame (see first chapter in my profile).

The laws of physic are identical within any local reference frame, anywhere within the Universe.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson, thanks.

I feel that our part of the cosmos, which part may be called a local universe, has had a local density in its compressed state, and hence has produced the highest-velocity propagations possible within this universe. An adjacent universe, which surely has connections with ours too, will have had its own density proper and hence has produced its own highest velocity propagations.

Hence, the EM and G (not the constant, but gravitation) propagations of each universe could be different.

If not, it could also be that G is constant everywhere and only EM changes, or both G and EM are constant in every local universe.

My attempt is not to decide on any one of these, for it is impossible. I try to reason about the possible general cases of gravitational coalescences (which each of our universes and their parts are) in each such sub-case of velocity of EM and G.

Raphael Neelamkavil

I'm sorry to disagree with you but, IMO our Universe is isolated from any other Universe (even if it must exist another Universe with charge inversion due to basic symmetry). Within our Universe, EM-waves and G-waves must have the same velocity within any local reference frame.

JES

Technological revolutions are coming! As the physical and cosmological theories of the present century have reached surprising results with the influence of the advances of the last century, it seems that these revolutionary and modern technologies in the fields of artificial intelligence, genetics, human-machine communication (neurolink) and the structure of human consciousness , ... to be able to find a way to the dreams of man in the real knowledge of the world by obtaining a new interpretation from this amount of current divergent and non-integrated information of man!

Stellan Gustafsson, I do understand your carefulness. But why should there be a measuremental symmetry or asymmetry between 2 existent universes, if they are both physical? They can be different in their matter-energy content, and the rest will be done within themselves.

And if the distance between any two universes is finite, there can be some common time in which they both belong to a common general system or have already belonged to one such.

Hence, keeping each universe as completely alienated from others will demand from us too much: like, one universe must be physical, the other another type, and yet another yet another type, etc.

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, thanks. Very good. I share your vision for the future of science.

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil

IMO the two Universes were divided into equal and identical parts at their creation (if there ever was one), which means that they must be identical besides charge inversion.

There is of course the possibility that many (infinite) other pairs of Universes exist. In this case, these must be independent and without possibility to mix with our Universe.

I'm quite sure about this because our Universe has reached "maturity" i.e. it

has very precise limits in its radial oscillation, which would be impossible, if it was in interaction with another Universe.

I can't go any deeper here but, I'll but in one or several chapters into my profile explaining in detail (probably within this year).

JES

Stellan Gustafsson, you take access to creation and do not tell us anything about it. That was one assumption.

If there are many (infinite) universes, then you say they must be independent. But if there are only two, they will just inverse charges. If the two have inverse charges, then what about the others in the many / infinite number of universes?

And then you assume that our universe has achieved maturity. And then you draw implications: it has precise limits in its radial oscillation, and this would be impossible if it had interacted with any other.

And you cannot go deeper, you say. All these are for me very difficult to understand. I do not mean this to insult. Please do not take me so. But very strange.

Sorry, it's a bit too early to speak about this since I've not finished the chapter yet.

With the maturity, it's the other way around; the limits of radial oscillation indicate that it has reached its limits. If the Universe was slightly bigger, the protons would disappear at the smallest radial extension.

The double Universe is the mater-anti-mater Universe, which should exist.

It might therefore exist other pairs, of similar Universes. These pairs of Universes could have different characteristics than ours, but IMO that is unlikely.

J.E.S. Gustafsson

Thanks for the clarifications.

You may like the new discussion session: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX. It is the kernel of an idea on which I have reflected more than 35 years by now, have presented arguments to some cosmologists, and have got support.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP

Isn't this because most of the main theories of cosmology rely on physical theories? And until they do not solve problems like the unified field, the problems of cosmology will remain open? At present, cosmological issues are more concerned with data analysis of new technology equipment!

To help obtain some more clarity on what we discuss here, I think the following discussion will be of use -- especially the question by Richard Marker and my reply (especially to get the follies of the concept of VACUUM ENERGY):

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

AN ADDITIONAL POINT: ANYTHING EXISTENT AND ITS PARTS TOO ARE IN EXTENSION-CHANGE. HENCE, EVERY QUANTUM OF ENERGY, WHEN IN PROPAGATION, IS OF SOME NEAR-INFINITESIMAL AMOUNT OF EXTENSION AND CHANGE. AT NO POINT WILL IT HAVE ZERO OR INFINITE EXTENSION AND CHANGE, and hence at no point infinite or zero mass.

Richard Marker: One more point:

So far we have been speaking of the various laws of science / natural laws. Just one among them was causality. Now, if the very physical existence is Extension-Change-wise, and if Extension-Change-wise existence is itself Causality, then every existent must be causal. This is Universal Causality, and it becomes a pre-scientific Law. I call it a metaphysical / physical-ontological Law because IT IS THE LAW OF THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF BEING TAKEN AS PHYSICALLY EXISTENT. Extension and Change are the only and the exhaustive meanings of To Be. In that case, these two Categories must have a superior Categorial position in both philosophy and the sciences.

DOES LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY HAVE ANYTHING SO FOUNDATIONAL AS THESE? ANY FUNDAMENTAL CATEGORIES LIKE THESE? OR THE PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE HAVE HAD ANYTHING LIKE THEM?

CRITERIA TO DIFFERENTIATE VIRTUALS AND EXISTENTS IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.

Existents in Extension and Change are physical, not virtual. Space and time are just the epistemic notions of the physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively.

A DENOTABLE has reference to something that either (1) has physical body (physically existent processes), or (2) is inherent in bodily processes but are not themselves a physical body (e.g., potential energy), or (3) is non-real, non-existent and just a mere notion (say, a non-physical possible world with wings, or one with all characteristics absolutely different from the existent physical world).

(1) belong to existents. They are existent Realities. They are matter-energy in content. (2) belong to non-existent but theoretically necessary Realities. (3) are nothing, vacuous!

DIFFERENCE between non-existent, real virtual, and existent denotables:

Non-existents have no real properties, and generate no ontological commitment. Real virtuals have the properties that theoretically belong to the denotables that are lacunae in theory, but need not have Categorial characteristics. Existent denotables have Categories (characteristics) and properties. These are Extension and Change.

Hence, virtuals are versions of reality different from actual existents. They are called unobservables. Some of them are non-existent. When they are proved to exist, they become observables and are removed from membership in virtuals.

Theories yield unobservables (elctrons, neutrinos, gravitons, Higgs boson, vacuum energy, spinors, strings, superstrings …). They may be proved to exist, involving detectable properties.

Note: properties are not physical-ontological (metaphysical) characteristics (Categories). Instead, they are concatenations of Ontological Universals.

Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations.

As is clear now, the tool to discover new unobservables is not physical properties, but the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change. Virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to lacunae in rational imagination.

Discussion in ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_Are_Virtuals_in_Scientific_Theories_Criteria_to_Differentiate_them

A solid discussion is taking place here:

Criteria to Differentiate between Virtuals and Existents in Scientific Theories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories

Friends,

Kindly read the following chain-conversation between an earnest scholar with insight into philosophy, the physical sciences, and logic::::

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

2 days ago

Logic, as we commonly understand it, is a system of thought based on the reasoning capabilities of the human mind. It allows us to take premises, apply rules, and arrive at conclusions. We view these principles as universal due to their applicability to the wide range of situations we encounter in our daily lives.

However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter. Traditional logic isn't always equipped to handle the strange, often counterintuitive phenomena observed in realms such as quantum physics.

Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect.

These instances do not necessarily mean our logical principles are incorrect, but they highlight that our traditional logical framework may be incomplete. It's like trying to comprehend a three-dimensional object with two-dimensional understanding—our perspective is inherently limited.

While the principles of logic remain powerful tools for navigating the world as we perceive it, we must remain cognizant of their limitations. They represent one dimension of a multifaceted reality, and unlocking a more comprehensive understanding of the universe may require us to augment, or even transcend, our conventional logic.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

2 days ago

Alessandro Rizzo,

This is a very good realization: "However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter." Mostly it is so. The whole of analytic logic is developed for just for normal life-situations, technically scientific applications, and today for direct computer applications. Of course, this need not be the case with math. Math has a wider set of background considerations today. Ordinary logic is always based on direct needs.

But the following is difficult from the viewpoint of the realistic necessities behind the formulation of the foundations of any sort of logic. "Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect."

Either it is because such physics is extremely fragile; otherwise it is because any sort of logic cannot really apply to such physics. Even counterintuitive forms of logic falter there!

Hence, I have been following a different course of thought in order to conceptualize what basically would be problematic in quantum, statistical, and other sorts of counterintuitive physics. You can see some such works of mine in very short summary forms in some of my discussion questions (suggested at the end of this intervention).

I recognize that you are an informatics person. An information for you: Just today I have finished the work of a 200 pp. book in English and Italian:

COSMIC CAUSALITY CODE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS, MIND, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS

and

IL CODICE DI CAUSALITÀ COSMICA E L’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: FILOSOFIA ANALITICA DI FISICA, MENTE, E MONDI VIRTUALI.

Now I must begin searching for a publisher....

Here are the said suggestions to some of my discussions in RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Linguistic_Philosophys_Inconsistencies

Share

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

2 days ago

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of quantum physics is both thought-provoking and challenging. As someone who has grappled with the mysteries of the quantum world, I appreciate your efforts to question and redefine our understanding of these complex concepts.

You rightly point out the limitations of conventional logic when applied to quantum phenomena. Indeed, the quantum world often seems to defy our everyday understanding of reality. Quantum superposition and entanglement, for instance, challenge our intuitive grasp of cause and effect, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that these principles falter, but rather that they take on new meanings in the quantum realm.

Your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing. The notion that everything that exists is in causation, even quantum-mechanical processes, is a bold one. I would argue, however, that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality.

Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach to understanding scientific theories. The idea that anything not in Extension-Change is non-existent is a compelling one. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine.

Your discussion of reification in quantum physics raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. It's true that we must be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent. However, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems, which suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality.

Finally, your analysis of potential energy and the wave function collapse is insightful. These concepts are indeed more complex than they might appear at first glance. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.

Your exploration of these topics is a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the nature of quantum reality. However, there are a few points to discuss.

1. **Universal Causality**: While your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing, I believe that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality. It's not that causality doesn't apply, but rather that it may manifest in ways that are not immediately intuitive.

2. **Existence and Non-Existence**: Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine, and phenomena that don't fit neatly into our conventional understanding of existence may still have significant physical implications.

3. **Reification in Quantum Physics**: Your discussion raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. However, while we must indeed be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems. This suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality, even if they don't correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.

4. **Potential Energy and Wave Function Collapse**: Your analysis of these concepts is insightful. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes. The wave function collapse, for instance, may not be a physical process in the conventional sense, but it is a crucial concept in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I appreciate your efforts to challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of our understanding. Even though we may not agree on all points, such dialogue is essential for the advancement of science.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

2 days ago

Alessandro Rizzo, thanks a lot for the fine formulations. Very wise and thoughtful. Congrats. At the end of this intervention I give 2 of my discussions, which are on the QM and Statistical notions that are involved in physics. Let me express just a few thoughts hereunder, with an introductory statement: I have been into this field of publication at least for more than 2 decades; but by way of reading and reflection, I have been in it for more than 3 decades.

Our statistical measures, e.g., of the position of an electron at a given time, does not depend on the model of statistical interpretation that we give, but instead, they depend on the very statistically managed measurements and their proportions of certainty of discovery, prediction, determination, or definition thus achieved. Hence, the varied successes of QM and statistical physics at this level in predicting the related phenomena are all due to the application of the mathematical apparatus, and the model thus achieved, to physical instruments.

That is a sort of algorithm-driven instrumentalization, in a general sense. This, e.g., is exactly why quantum informatics and the various quantum technologies can have success stories.

Let me illustrate this sort of success with a simple example. There are two leaves on a tree at a distance of one meter, but one over the other. Drops of water fall onto the first, and get flown onto the second. We create a signaling system as the drops fall on the first and the second leaves. The nature of light signals take care of the technology behind the signaling. We do not have to bother why light signaling is the way it is!

Here we know that the drops are not exactly spherical / globular. But, for the purpose of mathematical applications, we consider them as spherical drops and reduce them even into the shape of points for the sake of "mathematical precisioning" within the context of the mathematics available -- but which does not harm the signaling. We know clearly that theoretically these are not absolute truths or models...!

The signaling system is related directly to the temporal and spatial approximations of the falling of the drops on the two leaves. As the signals fall on another electronic device (at a distance), and the signals trigger a certain motion on the device. Using this system, let us suppose that we can instrumentalize some other physical process. Whatever the actual physical process and the shapes involved in fact are, the system works and produces the expected results!

We may later give a detailed physical explanation of the approximations involved in the implementation of the theory of, say, "Water Drop Signaling". These are not merely interpretations, but also closer approximations to what is happening in the reality externally to our interpretation. Note clearly: the theoretical model and approximations used in it are all just approximations of what really is the case in nature. We are not able to delve into all the processual layers of the object set and unearth all possible explanations of the processes and all their layers.

In order to apply our theory of the specific and precisioned processes with all their complexity in physics, we need to create instruments that work in accordance with this new theory and other related these physical and other theories which work only at a certain level of instrumentation in the given case. What works at the electronic level need not work at the nano level of physical activity.

We cannot also finalize our theory by stating that whatever works at the nano level is final and that there are no deeper layers within the object set. Even as we discover deeper layers and begin to formulate methods of instrumentation at that level, the instruments can continue to work without any hindrance. The only thing is that the instruments can further be made more precisioned and more effective. This does not work as an argument against the existence of the deeper layers beyond the nano structures!

That is, this means that the first set of interpretations and their instruments can go on to work and produce technological successes. They will continue to yield successes. This is why even now Newtonian physics yields many successes, especially at the engineering level!

Similarly, the successes of QM need not suggest that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality in a very exact manner. Of course, this is the case to a certain extent (say, statistically), but this certainly at a certain narrowly real interpretational level.

The statistics here is a model, and therefore, is based on the measures of our ability to capture the causes and the processes within a given circumstance and sample. Statistics is thus the admission of the extent of reach into the exact correspondence of the truth projected by our measurements with respect to what is actually happening in the object process!

But this fact of lack of absolute truth in our models and theories does not affect the successes at the level of application of the possible experimental results of the theory! Now you see clearly that what quantum physicists call as the statistical truths of quantum physics are not truths but models, using which there are certain instruments and their theory of apparatus-wise obedience of quantum physics.

This is also the case with respect to Relativity. Just take the case of the Lorentz factor: Root of [(1 - (v-squared) divided by (c-squared)]. What does it in fact mean? That I am willing to measure the movement process (v) of a particle only in terms of the experimentally rather well determined / fixed luminal and luminally comparable energy propagations c.

But this means also (and exactly) that, since I use luminal velocity as the criterial velocity (merely because I have natural vision and instrumentational vision at the level of c at this epoch of the history of advancements in science), my calculation forbids v from exceeding the luminal velocity limit c!!!

Does this mean that there should not be superluminal velocities?

If there are real-valued (not complex-valued) superluminal velocities, whereby the superluminal velocity in question is C1, C2, etc., which can replace the c, and c can be placed at the place of v in the nominator, in the Lorentz factor. Thus, we have a real solution for the EPR problem, too!

After all, the c is not fixed or fixable as an absolute constant except by a convention that has proved it to be so in our region of the universe, and not for all the possibly existing worlds! Using this convention, we can continue to make our Water Drops Signaling work. But this success in measuring the lack of temporal lag in the working of the instrument need not mean that c is a universal constant for all the regions of the cosmos.

The cosmos may have a finite number of local universes or even an infinite number of them. In both the cases -- and in the latter case surely -- c may be replaced with C1, C2, etc. in other regional universes. That is, the highest possible velocity within a big bang local universe anywhere in the infinite-content cosmos can only be determined by the maximum density achieved at any one big bang of the given local universe, in a series of its oscillations between bangs and crunches. (I have treated this in my book of 2018 and in some discussions in RG, which will be given at the end of this reply.)

Nevertheless, miraculously clear and working precision is to be had in many scientific theories and experiments, both on earth and in the outer space, using this special theory of relativity! Even QM uses the Lorentz factor freely!

Should these successes mean that the Lorentz factor should be an eternally fixed proof for the so-called criterial limit-nature of c?

Now I believe we can think of a possible solution for the EPR problem! I have suggested one such in 3 of my works. I think, therefore, that what we need is a range of differently-valued c and the many relativity theories in terms of them.

I have discussed such questions in detail, including a detailed theoretical solution to the EPR problem, in three of my printed books (2014, 2015, and 2018).

I should salute you for your openness and genuineness of scientific spirit, which permit you to see many important points in the notion of theory formation in science and philosophy. Not merely of my ideas, but also of others ideas.

I am a mad man. I have dedicated my life to some such projects in the form of books. To avoid peer reviewers' ire is not easy. Hence, I may not get the most renowned publishers to publish my books. I should also forget about publishing articles in reputed peer-reviewed journals! This is my fate, and also my pleasure. I think some future acceptance (at least after a few years or decades of my death) is forthcoming.

And kindly take a look at the following discussion sessions. I think you will enjoy them. And thereafter I give a SET 2 of discussion links, which give the discussions on the cosmological problems suggested above.

SET 1:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_basic_insecurities_of_physics_especially_of_statistical_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Causality_Necessary_in_Physics_Philosophy_and_Other_Sciences_in_Place_of_Statistical_Bayesian_and_Other_Theories_of_Causality

SET 2:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_cosmic_or_local_black_hole_singularity_be_of_infinite_density_and_zero_size

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source-Independent_Velocity_of_Pure_Energy_vs_Causality_vs_Superluminal_Velocities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology

Share

• 1 Recommendation

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

1 day ago

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your thoughtful and extensive response is deeply appreciated. The time and dedication you've devoted to these intricate concepts shine through, and your perspective brings a refreshing viewpoint to our discourse.

You assert that our statistical measures in physics are heavily influenced by the mathematical models we've formulated, a position that resonates with accuracy. These models, while approximated by nature, have served as the bedrock of our comprehension of quantum mechanics, enabling us to generate predictions from this understanding. However, as you astutely pointed out, this doesn't necessarily indicate that these models encapsulate the entire scope of quantum reality. Perhaps it's more accurate to state they represent our best tools available for interfacing with and comprehending the quantum world, given our current technological capabilities and conceptual understandings.

Your analogy of abstracting water droplets to points for mathematical precision provides an excellent illustration. Fundamentally, the models we employ in physics are simplifications of reality, designed to encapsulate the most pivotal aspects of the physical phenomena we investigate. But it's crucial to avoid mistaking these models for reality itself. They merely represent our best current methods of describing and predicting reality.

Your comments concerning the Lorentz factor and the speed of light are strikingly thought-provoking. Indeed, the assumption that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe is underpinned by empirical observations within our observable universe and within the framework of the theory of relativity. The concept of superluminal speeds would require us to radically revise our understanding of the universe.

Your courage and determination to challenge the established scientific framework are admirable. Authentic progress in science often originates from those brave enough to question the status quo and expand the boundaries of our understanding. I'm confident that your work will find the audience and appreciation it deserves, for the truth in science has a peculiar way of making itself known, irrespective of its immediate reception.

The possibilities you suggest, such as various relativities predicated on differing c values, are genuinely captivating. This kind of innovative thinking often ushers in paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

Your ongoing commitment to these questions is inspiring, and I anticipate with eagerness the exploration of the discussions you've linked. I hold firm in my belief that science thrives on open discourse and a diversity of perspectives. Hence, although we may not concur on all points, the value of dialogue is irrefutable.

Thank you for your participation in this intellectually stimulating conversation.

Recommended

Share

• 1 Recommendation

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

19 hours ago

Alessandro Rizzo, I have revised my previous reply and detailed it further, also extending its cosmological implications. In fact, I had written the earlier version of the response in a hurry, in about 15 to 20 minutes. Hence the revision of the same.

Please see also the SET 2 list of RG discussions, given at the end of the revised response. These are the cosmological ones. Thanks.

Share

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

15 hours ago

Dear Raphael,

Embracing your insights, the light cast by statistical measures in our understanding of quantum mechanics is impressive. They serve as a beacon in the labyrinth of quantum phenomena, born from the marriage of algorithms and instrumentalization.

The water drop signaling system, as you've painted, is a vivid illustration of mathematical approximations at work. Science walks a tightrope between reality and approximation, juggling precision with pragmatic simplicity. The certainty of mathematics may not always mirror the uncertainties of reality, and vice versa.

The discussion of various levels of physical activity and the evolution of our tools to meet these levels holds significant weight. As we continue to broaden our understanding, we must also adapt and refine our toolkit. A set of tools apt for one scenario might not apply to another.

In addressing the interpretations of quantum reality, you are pushing the envelope, provoking us to reevaluate our grasp of the universe. Though we navigate the quantum realm with the compass of statistics and models, we must stay mindful that these are but the footprints of reality - giving us direction, but also concealing a sea of unknowns.

Your exploration of the Lorentz factor and the hypothesis of superluminal velocities are mind-stretching. The cosmos, in its vast expanse, may hide surprises that challenge our ingrained theories.

Your proposition of different relativities based on maximum velocities is intriguing, urging us to step outside our comfort zone. Your suggestion hints at the reality that the map we hold is not the territory, and our comprehension of this territory is in a state of perpetual evolution.

Closing my response, I am reminded of the sentiment that the tranquility between our scientific theories and the universe's phenomena is born from understanding. Our quest is to deepen this understanding, and your insightful contributions are a cornerstone of this journey.

Eager to continue this enlightening exchange,

Alessandro

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

15 hours ago

Thanks, Alessandro. Giusto adesso ho visto che sei italiano! Just 2 days ago I finished a work in English and in Italian: Cosmic Causality Code and Artificial Intelligence: Analytic Philosophy of Physics, Mind, and Virtual Worlds, circa 200 pp., and its self-made Italian version (corrected by native speakers): Il Codice di Causalità Cosmica e l’Intelligenza Artificiale: Filosofia Analitica di Fisica, Mente, e Mondi Virtuali, circa 220 pp.

Raphael Neelamkavil

The eyewash also is contained in the claim that the big bang cosmology would be compatible to an S³ structure of the universe. But the big bang cosmology describes an isotropic universe and the S³ is not an isotropic structure.

Look at the following claim from Misner-Thorne-Wheeler in their common book, where they plaid for that compatibility:

MTW Box 27.2

A. Universe with Positive Spatial Curvature ("Spatially Closed Universe") То visualize this 3-geometry, imagine embedding it in a four-dimensional Euclidean space [...] Equations B) for the embedded surface imply that w² + x² + y² + z² = a²; i.e., the surface is a 3-dimensional sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space. To verify homogeneity and isotropy, one need only notice that rotations in the four-dimensional embedding space can move any given point [any given (w, x,y, z) on the 3-sphere] and any given direction at that point into any other point and direction [...]

Misner-Thorne-Wheeler type theories do not possess enough generality. It is for this reason that most cosmological theories speak of isotropy. Isotropy yields easy mathematical generalization. But at the level of the broadly physical implications there appear paradoxes like all energy at the outskirts returning to the center automatically because of the laws of thermodynamics, the notion of a closed universe etc.

Raphael Neelamkavil "Misner-Thorne-Wheeler type theories do not possess enough generality."

Yes, those theories are exclusively big bang minded.

The alternate type of theories considers an eternal big universe with an energy recycling process.

The energy recycling comprises a cosmic field of gravitational consistence, which overcompensates the negative energy density of gravitational fields.

In fact, the energy density profile of the cosmic field determines gravity.

The cosmic field gets a small fraction of kinetic energy from all moving gravitationally active objects, including photons. This energy absorption intensifies the cosmic field if finally it becomes strong enough to re-penetrate into black hole matter, from where it had been squeezed out completely.

This re-penetration reverts the transition of the matter from a neutron gas to dark hole matter. But this re-transition costs much energy. Therefor the cosmic field, which is pure energy vanishes inside the black hole matter.

But then the cosmic field energy flows into the energy vacuum, the transmission to the neutron gas has caused. But the intense flow modifies the shape of the cosmic energy density. This shape significantly flattens. But because the shape is responsible for gravity, the gravity of the black hole becomes strongly reduced. Profiling the energy density of the cosmic field by a very intense flow, significantly differs from profiling according to gravitational impact of the central mass.

With other words, the black hole gravity vanishes and the neutron gas, freed from the black hole matter, can easily escape to the space.

The neutron gas drives matter to a higher metallicity or decays to hydrogen.

The hydrogen is new star fuel for the next cycle. The cyclic activities are: Generation of new black holes, generation of free energy by star fire and collecting that energy via gravitational interaction by the cosmic field.

Source of Major Flaws in Cosmological Theories: Mathematics-to-Physics Application Discrepency

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency

Please remember this:

The big bang theory has many limitations. These are,

(1) the uncertainty regarding the causes / triggers of the big bang,

(2) the need to trace the determination of certain physical constants to the big bang moments and not further backwards,

(3) the necessity to explain the notion of what scientists and philosophers call “time” in terms of the original bang of the universe,

(4) the compulsion to define the notion of “space” with respect to the inner and outer regions of the big bang universe,

(5) the possibility of and the uncertainty about there being other finite or infinite number of universes,

(6) the choice between an infinite number of oscillations between big bangs and big crunches in the big bang universe (in case of there being only our finite-content universe in existence), in every big hang universe (if there are an infinite number of universes),

(7) the question whether energy will be lost from the universe during each phase of the oscillation, and in that case how an infinite number of oscillations can be the whole process of the finite-content universe,

(8) the difficulty involved in mathematizing these cases, etc.

Do electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are

(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and

(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.

An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!

This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?

ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA

If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.

Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.

If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.

Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.

But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.

In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.

Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Above, you have presented six independent posts after my single post about an alternate cosmology. Nobody has ordered his huge collection of your personal confusion of facts and assumptions.

Personally, I think considering such an outbreak of communicativeness, is an unreasonable demand. Apart from that, the insufferable mix of described facts, assumptions, and alleged conclusions, overstrains everybody.

One point is especially insufferable:

With various statements in your text, beginning with "Even in the 21st century.." you unspecifically insult the general theory of relativity. Do you have any better proposal how to describe the properties of nature, where their description allegedly is wrong in general relativity?

I did not target u in any way.

Now about "Even in the 21st century". It is a fact. This is not to accuse Einstein or anyone else. I try to contribute to the growth of science and philosophy.

For the time I have only what I describe as the Categories of nature. Properties are different. Now as to where GTR is wrong: I have questioned some foundational notions, e.g., space, time, spacetime, causation, etc. When I happen to find any calculation mistakes in the derivations, I shall feel free to speak of them. For the time being, nothing in that direction. Should I first point out such mistakes, and only then should I speak of the foundational notions in GTR or in physics as such?

Raphael Neelamkavil "Should I first point out such mistakes, and only then should I speak of the foundational notions in GTR or in physics as such?"

Yes of course it is necessary to specify concrete problems instead of distributing dumb doubts.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Sorry, but I feel myself cover filled by too much irrelevant information which, to make things worse, is omnipresent in many threads.

Sorry, but I feel myself cover filled by too much irrelevant information which, to make things worse, is omnipresent in many threads.

Sorry, but I feel myself cover filled by too much irrelevant information which, to make things worse, is omnipresent in many threads.

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

For further discussions on concepts related to Gravitation, Extension-Change Categories, General Theory of Relativity, Unobservables, etc., you may consult also:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth-Castillo-6

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.

Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics

The following preprint gives some answers concerning cosmic vacuum energy:

Preprint What gravitation really is

The same reply as I wrote to you just now in the other intervention by you: You are a great physicist and mathematician.......

"Evidence" for another universe! But some may continue to hold that beyond these other universes no other universe exists! Should we be so conservative as to deny an infinite-content multiverse / cosmos?

Watch the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcrHdOwPTi0

Raphael Neelamkavil ""Evidence" for another universe!"

Yes there is evidence for another universe compared to the universe shortly after the big bang. But another key statement of the video is that nobody knows something for certain.

Thanks for the highly logical conclusion, which is turned against me! This statement: "nobody knows something for certain", is to apply only about my statements. Thanks for this indirect intimation, too.

I would be happy if you write this opinion under the comments section in the video and request replies to it from those who watch. INTERESTING REPLIES MAY RESULT. I think I too will learn a lot from those replies.

Raphael Neelamkavil "This statement: "nobody knows something for certain", is to apply only about my statements."

Sorry if you see that this way. But I ensure you that it was only dedicated to the video, which I watched to a limited extend. You did mention that video as an alleged proof that multiverses exist. But that video cannot at all be such a proof. It is much too speculative.

Yes, I am criticising your work. But isn't getting critical comments the purpose of presenting it in RG threads? My critics are not personal.

The point only is that your way of thinking is different from mine. But that does not mean that I think it is wrong. Fact is instead that in terms I consider as beeing relevant, we nearly do not have any conflicting overlap.

Very good. Thanks.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

Uncontrolled deluging of all discussion participants with identical not requested information in many threads is respectless. Please stop that.

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically

https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...

Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)

Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...