Enerjinin var olduğu ve canlıların yaşadığı ortamda zaman daha yavaş akar. Canlı yaşamının olmadığı ve enerjinin az olduğu ortamlarda zaman daha çabuk geçer. Atomun ve molekülün oluşum aşamaları ve evrenin ilk patlamadan son halini alana kadar geçen zaman buna örnek verilebilir. Günümüzde dahi evren hızlı bir çözünme içerisinde. Enerji kaybı ve akışı sürekli olmakta ve tekrarlanmakta. Bu nedenle hastalıklar ve salgınlarda bu yönde eğilim göstermektedir.

Sayın Şükrü Aktaş,

Yorumunuz için çok teşekkür ederim. Şimdilik yalnızca enerji yoğunluğu ile zamanın akışı arasındaki olası ilişki açısından fiziksel olayları anlamaya çalışıyorum. Hayat veya bilinç gibi konular bu ilk yaklaşım için bana oldukça karmaşık görünüyor, ancak daha derin bir düzeyde bu fikirle ilişkili olabileceklerini de göz ardı etmiyorum.

Saygılarımla,

Ricard Desola

Dear Preston Guynn,

Thank you very much for your response and for taking the time to share such an extensive and detailed set of references. I’ve taken an initial look at the articles you linked, and I find them very interesting—both in terms of their conceptual approach and the level of numerical precision you present.

I will need some time to go through them carefully and fully understand the relationships you describe, but I’m particularly interested in how you connect mass, rotation, energy density, and galactic structure. I see many potential parallels with the hypothesis I’m trying to explore.

I hope to be able to comment on your work more thoroughly later on, once I’ve had time to study it in depth. Thank you again for generously sharing your developments.

Best regards,

Ricard Desola

Time flows slower in relativistic environments. There must be matter for gravity to be emitted. Special relativity is also linked to GR when a traveling observer matches recessional velocities with distant objects near the moving particle’s cosmic horizon. My SR presentation explains this quite well. Time dilation happens from moving, SR, and from gravitational fields, GR. Energy increases interaction speed so gravity is emitted more often, but gravity only comes from resolving entangled matter pair spin uncertainty. Energy does not directly cause gravity. Gravity is more intimately linked with spin than it is with kinetic or photonic energy.

The rate of time of an observer is completely determined by two factors: 1) the value of the gravitational potential at the observation site, 2) the scalar product of the rotational velocity of the observer's frame of reference and the velocity of its translational motion. This is the most general answer to the question. In the absence of rotation, the rate of time is completely determined by the value of the gravitational potential. The spatial derivative of the time coordinate of the metric tensor associated with the gravitational potential is the gravitational-inertial force. In empty Schwarzschild space-time, this force, related to the mass of the body, is the acceleration of gravity (Galileo's principle.) The rate of observed time slows down as the body approaches the center of the Earth and stops completely on a surface with a radius of 0.89 cm (the gravitational radius of the Earth).

Dear William Manuel, Thank you very much for your comment and for sharing your articles. I especially appreciate that you took the time to link such detailed work. I will read them with interest, as I find any contribution that seeks to bridge quantum mechanics and general relativity to be particularly valuable. Best regards,

Ricard Desola

Dear Dr. Borissova,

Thank you very much for your response, which I particularly appreciate for its clarity and depth. I fully agree that the flow of time slows down in regions where the gravitational potential is high, as you pointed out. However, my approach seeks a more ontological analysis: which is more fundamental—gravity or energy density?

In my view, energy density appears to be the more elementary factor, because:

• It can be measured locally at any point in the universe, even in vacuum,
• It is modifiable (it can be increased or decreased by adding or removing energy),
• And it forms the basis for the slowing of proper time.

In contrast, gravitational potential cannot exist without energy density, cannot be directly measured in perfectly empty regions, and cannot be manipulated independently. For this reason, I consider gravity—understood as the curvature of space-time or as an effect of time dilation—to be an emergent consequence of energy density, rather than the other way around.

Thank you once again for your contribution.

Best regards,

Ricard Desola

To answer really scientifically the question “Does time flow more slowly in higher energy density environments?, it is evidently necessary before to understand scientifically - what are “time” and “energy” - and what is “environments” also, though.

Since in official/mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, the really [absolutely] fundamental phenomena/notions “Time” and “Energy”– and other ones, first of all “Matter”– “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational - while really they all can be scientifically defined only together,

- and so everything in Matter, i.e. Matter’s spacetime, “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., till now really is/are transcendent/uncertain/irrational as well,

- correspondingly in every case when the mainstream addresses to some really fundamental problem in physics, the result is something transcendent/irrational.

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

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

Compact, but essentially clear and rather in detail introduction in the conception see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception

How the fundamental phenomena/notions above are actualized in concrete informational system Matter - and so near 30 really fundamengtal physival problems are really scientifically solved or well essentially clarified - see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, which is based on the conception, two main papers are https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391209088_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics, [ in the paper secton 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” can be passed since this is more comprehensively given in section 6.“Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” in other paper below] , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics.

Including, relating to the thread question more concretely - the phenomenon “Time” is actualized in concrete Matter’s utmost universal fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where cτ,X,Y,Z, are 4 space dimensions, ct is fundamentally unique time dimension,

- which [time dimension] is “fixed” say, as any space dimension, i.e. there cannot be fundamentally no some “time flow”, as that Newton postulated yet in last 1600s, and what is postulated in recent mainstream physics till now, only with “correction” – the time flow is “dilated” if something moves.

Really there fundamentally cannot be, and so isn’t , any “time dilation” - and “space contraction” that are also illusory postulated in the mainstream because of the transcendence above - including at any energy density in anything.

Really intrinsic processes rates in some concrete material objects indeed slow down if after some impact an object moves, at that indeed its size is contracted along the motion direction; if an object is in some attractive fundamental Nature force field, including Gravity field, the intrinsic processes in the object are slowed down;

- however in all these cases nothing happens with the abnsolute Matter’s spacetime above.

Cheers

[Now this thread is indexed in its “Scientific topics” sections , more see section “PS” in SS post April 30 in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics/329 , page 329]

Dear Mr. Shevchenko,

Thank you very much for your comment and for the articles you kindly shared, which I have read with interest. However, I must respectfully express my disagreement with your position, as I find it internally contradictory.

If we assume that information is the sole fundamental entity, then there would be no basis upon which to verify or contrast that information. In other words, all information would be untestable, and thus there would be no way to distinguish between true and false. The statement "2+2=5" would have the same ontological status as "2+2=4", undermining any criterion for rational or empirical validation. In my view, information only makes sense insofar as it refers to something, that is, as information about something.

That said, I do agree that there must be irreducible or fundamental entities. But I believe that those entities are not information itself, but rather energy and space (or confinement). Their interaction — expressed as energy density — can be measured at any point in the universe. In contrast, concepts like matter, time, or consciousness are, in my view, emergent structures that arise from relations between more basic systems. Time, for instance, requires at least two measurements to be defined; and consciousness, as you yourself note, is an extremely complex system.

Thank you again for your contribution. I look forward to your thoughts.

Kind regards,

Ricard Desola

Dear Mr. Ricard Desola Mediavilla,

- from, say, this

“…In my view, information only makes sense insofar as it refers to something, that is, as information about something.

That said, I do agree that there must be irreducible or fundamental entities. But I believe that those entities are not information itself, but rather energy and space (or confinement)…….”

- it looks as that you didn’t read the linked in the SS post above papers, at least rather short https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception

- where it is rigorously logically proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. The Set exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End;

- while the utmost general scientifically rigorous definition of the so absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

Including, say, absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Time” , “Space“ , “Energy” are the “Logos” elements, but aren’t information - including so some “somethings” in the quote aren’t an “information refers” to which.

That are “Logos” set elements, which [with all other Logos set elements, say, with the element “Logical Rules”, etc.] are absolutely obligatorily actualized in every informational pattern/system, making concrete informational patterns/systems.

Note also that , while other “Logos” elements look as are rather clear – say, “Space” and “Time” really act as universal grammar rules in all languages, the element “Energy” is completely mysterious for humans now, including in the “The Information as Absolute” conception. All what is clear now is that It is necessary – and always acts – at every changing, including creation, of everything because of the “Logos” element “Change” is logically self-inconsistent;

- and that It doesn’t act without other “Logos” elements, so, say, such things as “[only] energy and space entities” cannot exist.

More see the SS post above and linked papers.

Cheers

Dear Mr. Shevchenko, Thank you for your detailed response and for the materials you shared, which I will study with interest. In principle, I disagree with your assumptions, but I sincerely appreciate your contribution. Thank you very much for your time and dedication. Best regards.

Dear Mr. Ricard Desola Mediavilla,

“…Thank you for your detailed response and for the materials you shared, which I will study with interest.….”

- well, and at /[better before] the studying it would be useful for you firstly to think , say, as :

“So what is “Information”? and for/by some not mystic reason/way I use this, and not onlly at communicating with other humans, who, if don’t know/understand the “The Information as Absolute” conception, also use this “information” purely instinctively, having no any understanding what and why they do this , but also I can obtain some information about – so from - say, a stone, a star, etc., which have to me no any relations, including evidently aren’t humans?”

The answer see in what you possibly really is going to study - that happens only since everything is made from only one stuff – “Information”, and it is nothing mystic in that some specific informational system “consciousness” can really obtain information/[“data”, “evidences”, etc.] about other informational systems, including a stone, a star etc.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Information_the_fundamental_building_block_of_universe/2

- is relevant in this case

Cheers

Dear Mr. Shevchenko,

Thank you for your latest comment and for taking the time to explain your point of view. I appreciate your effort to build a broad philosophical framework, but I must say that I have read the article you recommended and still do not share your position.

In my view, your theory presents a fundamental contradiction: if everything that exists is information, then concepts such as energy, space, or time cannot be accepted as non-informational entities that “act” upon that information. If these concepts are necessary to explain change or the dynamics of the universe, then we are dealing with elements that are independent of information, which contradicts the premise that information alone is fundamental.

Moreover, introducing all these elements into a set called “Logos” does not resolve the inconsistency; rather, it shifts the explanation to an even more abstract plane, difficult to justify from a logical or empirical standpoint.

From my perspective, to observe or know any system, one must interact with it. Every observation is therefore an interaction between systems, which appears to us as a property. In this sense, every system can be described as a “package of information” insofar as it leaves observable traces. But that information is not the system itself; it is the manifestation of its interactions. Information does not precede systems—it emerges from them. That is why I believe information cannot be the ultimate foundation of reality.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the opportunity to learn about your proposal, and I value the exchange of ideas as an essential part of scientific and philosophical inquiry.

Kind regards,

Ricard Desola

Dear Ricard Desola Mediavilla

Your question touches on a subtle yet profound conceptual thread: whether energy density might play a more dynamic role in time evolution than currently modeled. I find your framing both physically intuitive and suggestively aligned with several open tensions in theoretical physics.

We typically think of time dilation as arising from gravitational potentials per general relativity or from relative motion per special relativity. But energy density is often sidelined in such discussions—despite its fundamental role in shaping spacetime curvature via the stress-energy tensor. Your suggestion essentially reframes the relationship: if local energy density is high, could this intrinsically “stretch” time’s flow, not merely through curvature but through an emergent property of field dynamics?

Indeed, light’s slowing in dense media, though classically a refractive effect, might be seen in this context as a proxy for how information flow—not just light—is modulated by the medium’s energy content. This resonates with ideas in emergent spacetime, where geometry and time are not primitive, but derivative from more fundamental informational or quantum processes.

Your point about galactic structures enduring longer in high-density regions is reminiscent of gravitational time dilation in the vicinity of massive objects, yet you’re not invoking mass or curvature directly—but rather a kind of field-imposed temporal resistance. That’s a powerful shift in language.

I also appreciate your idea that mass might not just “curve” time but resist temporal flow—echoing inertia from a temporal standpoint. In fact, if time is emergent from entanglement structure (as some tensor-network or holographic models suggest), then denser configurations—more internal information—could lead to slower emergent dynamics.

In short: I believe your question opens a rich space of exploration. It hints at a unification between energy-density-dependent time flow, mass generation, and quantum decoherence—all without requiring new particles or dark sectors, just a deeper reinterpretation of the framework we already use.

I would genuinely be interested in exploring any work you’re developing in this direction.

Respectfully,

Adam Nasser

Dear Adam Nasser,

I sincerely thank you for your generous and thoughtful response. I truly appreciate not only the clarity and depth of your reflections, but also the openness with which you engage emerging ideas.

You are absolutely right in identifying a conceptual shift in my approach to time: I do not treat energy density merely as a cause of spacetime curvature (as in general relativity), but as a structural factor that directly modulates a system’s internal rate of change — what I have called its “proper time flow.”

The intuition behind this is grounded in a systems logic I have been developing, which holds that systems transform at a pace determined by their internal energy density and structural configuration. In denser systems, perturbations propagate more slowly, which manifests as a kind of temporal resistance. This “resistance to change” is what gives rise to properties such as mass, stability, and even certain probabilistic behaviors in quantum systems.

I’ve just published a comprehensive presentation of this theoretical framework, titled “General Systems Logic: A Structural and Relational Framework of Systemic Principles,” which may help clarify the philosophical and structural assumptions underlying my question. It’s a logical reformulation of General Systems Theory, establishing twelve foundational principles for explaining systemic behavior without relying on dualisms or metaphysics of substance.

If you’re interested, here’s the link to the article: 👉 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392284165_GENERAL_SYSTEMS_LOGIC_A_Structural_and_Relational_Framework_of_Systemic_Principles

It would be a true pleasure to hear your thoughts, and I’d be glad to share further reflections on how this model might connect with your remarks on emergent spacetime and entanglement-based frameworks. Your interest and your ideas mean a lot to me.

Warm regards, Ricard

Ricard Desola Mediavilla ; @ Adam Nasser

Let me be direct.

What you’re both describing here, energy density modulating the internal flow of time, resistance to change as a function of systemic structure, wavefront behavior governed by temporal gradients, and decoherence as a geometric phenomenon, these are not new ideas. They are central pillars of the Pure Time Theory (PTT), publicly available and mathematically formalized since months.

Ricard, I know you’ve read the articles. So your phrasing of “proper time flow” depending on internal energy density, and this shift toward “temporal resistance,” mirrors verbatim the logic and formulas behind T_relax and its coupling to density:

T_relax = T_ref * (1 - ρ / ρ_crit)^(-1/β)

Adam, your remarks echo everything from the gradient-driven decoherence law:

γ_t ∝ (∂_x T_relax) * (∂_t T_relax)

to the interpretation of wavefronts as iso-surfaces of a scalar field, not as probabilities, but as topological structures:

Wavefront = { x | T_relax(x) = constant }

Yet I note with surprise that you never mention PTT. Worse, Adam, your name is explicitly cited in our unification paper (PTT_Quantum_Unification_vEN1) as a key contributor via QWD, which PTT structurally integrates. And yet here, you seem to distance yourself from it while absorbing its core logic.

Is this contradiction due to the AI you’re using to write or respond? Because I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe it’s not intentional.

But if you do respond, then do it with your gut, not through a filtered prompt.

This is not about ownership. It’s about intellectual honesty. Ideas that change paradigms deserve to be acknowledged, especially when they've already been formalized and published with clear references, including yours.

The scientific record should reflect truth, not rebranded fragments of it.

Essam Allou

Dear Essam,

What I have presented here is not a scientific hypothesis, but simply a question.

As we already discussed in our private correspondence, what I am developing is a general systems logic, not a physical theory—although this framework can be applied to examples drawn from physics.

I believe this systemic logic can help reinterpret physical phenomena such as mass, gravity, spacetime curvature, or certain quantum behaviors. That is why I have posted some questions on this platform: to compare ideas and gather insights from specialists in those fields.

From the beginning, I expressed to you that I find PTT a brilliant proposal, which shares several points with my own approach, although it also differs in some essential aspects. As we discussed, you regard time as the ultimate foundation of reality, while in my case, that foundation lies in a field of energy and its perturbations—i.e., in oscillations and gradients of energy density.

In my systems logic, every observable phenomenon arises from the interaction between at least two distinct systems, such as energy and confinement (or space), rather than from a single fundamental system like time, as PTT proposes. It’s true that we exchanged ideas about how some of your formulas (T_relax, T_ref) might be interpreted in terms of energy density, but that does not mean my model derives from your theory. I have borrowed nothing from PTT—there are points of convergence and points of divergence, all expressed with complete honesty and transparency.

I have no problem acknowledging the value of your work. Although I disagree with its ontological foundation, I believe PTT contains very thought-provoking and far-reaching ideas. But my approach is different: I am not presenting a physical theory, but a logic that can be applied to all kinds of systems, whether physical or not.

As I did with Adam, I’m sharing here a link to an article (not a question) I recently published, where I explain this general systems logic in more detail. I would be truly interested in hearing your thoughts, and I sincerely believe that some of the principles might even be useful in your own work on PTT:

www.researchgate.net/publication/392284165_GENERAL_SYSTEMS_LOGIC_-_A_Structural_and_Relational_Framework_of_Systemic_Principles

Warm regards, Ricard

Ricard Desola Mediavilla

Thank you for your answer. Since you've now clarified that your framework is not a physical theory but a "general systems logic," I will take your words at face value. However, I must respond clearly and publicly for the sake of intellectual transparency.

What you describe as “temporal resistance,” “proper time flow modulated by internal energy density,” or “wavefronts as system responses to internal gradients”, these are not generic philosophical insights. They are specific formulations, deeply embedded in the logic and mathematics of Pure Time Theory (PTT), which I have published and which you yourself have read.

Just to be clear:

• The modulation of time by energy density is not a vague metaphor in PTT, it is precisely defined via the field equation: T_relax = T_ref · (1 - ρ / ρ_crit)^(-1/β)
• Decoherence is not “illustratively” linked to internal structure, it is formally derived as: γ_t ∝ (∂ₓ T_relax) · (∂ₜ T_relax)
• Wavefronts are not analogies, they are explicitly defined as iso-surfaces of the scalar time field: Wavefront = { x | T_relax(x) = constant }

These are not incidental convergences, they are direct echoes of the PTT framework, which you now reinterpret through a dual-system ontology of energy and confinement.

I’m willing to believe that your borrowing is not intentional. But we must be honest: such reuse without acknowledgement becomes highly problematic when filtered through AI. If you’ve uploaded parts of PTT into the models guiding your work then yes, the AI will synthesize and reuse those concepts, even if you’re not fully aware of their origin.

And that’s precisely the point.

We can and should use AI as partners in exploration. But we must do so consciously. We remain the authors. We remain the ones accountable for the coherence of what we say, and for the sources that inspire it. Otherwise, everything becomes illusion. And worse, as in this case, people begin to promote concepts they do not fully understand.

There’s no shame in convergence. There is only shame in erasing the path that led you there

It’s like your answer here,it can be translated and reformulated by an AI, that’s not a problem. But you must understand and agree with every single word before posting it

Dear Essam Allou,

I would like to respond to your message with clarity and respect. The ideas I have presented are not, by any means, “specific formulations deeply embedded in the logic and mathematics of the Pure Time Theory (PTT),” as you claim. The notion that the universe is an energetic field crossed by perturbations or oscillations has been widely accepted in contemporary physics for decades—albeit through multiple quantum fields, not a single one. Therefore, it is neither an original idea nor exclusive to any particular theory.

What I propose is not a physical theory, but a general systems logic—a formal structure designed to describe universal principles applicable to any type of system: physical, biological, social, or symbolic. Physics is just one of the domains in which this logic can be tested. My approach is structural and relational, not based on an ontology of “pure time,” as your theory is. As you know from our private conversations, I start from the hypothesis that energy must have a substantial status, since it can be measured anywhere and at any moment in the universe—unlike mass, charge, or even time. In fact, time cannot be measured from a single observation: you always need at least two measurements to establish an interval. This suggests that time is an emergent property, while energy density, understood as energy per unit of confinement, is directly observable at every point in the universe.

I acknowledge that we noted some parallels between our approaches, and I don’t doubt that both may share elements with other formulations—as often happens with theories addressing gravity, inertia, or quantum decoherence. But what I propose differs in purpose, method, and foundation. I have not published any mathematical formulation, nor have I put forth a complete framework as a physical theory. Moreover, my post on ResearchGate was an open question, not a doctrinal paper. Therefore, I would sincerely appreciate it if you could specify which part of your theory you believe I have taken or reinterpreted without acknowledgment, because I honestly do not see it.

It’s true that I use an AI assistant for writing, translating, or analyzing content, but every text I publish is thoroughly reviewed by me and expresses exactly what I intend to say. There is no automation or outsourcing of intellectual responsibility.

Lastly, let me clarify that my notion of proper time flow originates from one of the twelve principles of my systems logic, which I call the Principle of Unequal Transformation. This principle states that in any interaction, the systems involved do not necessarily undergo the same number or kind of transformations, which implies a specific resistance to change in each system. When extrapolated to the physical domain, this means that every system has its own internal rhythm of transformation, which manifests as its characteristic time flow.

This principle, along with the others, is clearly laid out in the article I shared with you earlier. If you read it carefully, you will see that my framework stems from different foundations and aims than PTT, even if some points of contact can be found.

Kind regards, Ricard

Ricard Desola Mediavilla

Your answer is well-written almost too well. Its structure, tone, and layered deflections are precisely what one would expect from a highly capable AI assistant attempting to simulate intellectual integrity without ever engaging with the concrete points raised.

I have no issue with the use of AI in scientific writing. I use it myself. But there is a line between assistance and outsourcing thought. The moment an AI writes ideas that you cannot critically dissect line by line, you're no longer proposing your theory, you're simply echoing others without knowing it.

And that’s exactly the problem here.

You repeat PTT’s core logic while claiming independence

You say:

“Every system has its own internal rhythm of transformation, which manifests as its characteristic time flow.”

But this is almost word-for-word what PTT formalizes with: T_relax(x) = T_ref * (1 - ρ/ρ_crit)^(-1/β) Where T_relax is precisely the internal time flow induced by energy density gradients.

You also speak of decoherence being shaped by transformation rates. PTT defines: γ_t ∝ (∂ₓ T_relax)(∂ₜ T_relax) This is not a metaphor. It's a mathematically defined law.

When you say wavefronts are determined by internal energy distributions, you're repeating: Wavefront = { x | T_relax(x) = constant } This is the topological core of the scalar time field formalism.

These are not general inspirations. These are structural correspondences.

You claim you don’t present a physical theory, yet you theorize physical time

You write:

“Time cannot be measured from a single observation… This suggests that time is an emergent property…”

Yet you then assert a systemic structure for proper time flow, derived from your “Principle of Unequal Transformation”, a concept indistinguishable in function from temporal relaxation in PTT. If your framework is not a physical theory, then why are you drawing physical conclusions?

You're not just describing systems, you're redefining how time behaves under physical interaction. That is ontological. That is theoretical. And that is deeply overlapping with what PTT has already published, formalized, and justified.

You absorb derivative concepts through your AI and deny their origin

You admit:

“It’s true that I use an AI assistant for writing, translating, or analyzing content…”

If, as you previously told me, you’ve read PTT and you’ve fed those documents into your assistant and if that assistant has become your co-author in formulation and expression, then you are integrating PTT, even if you don’t consciously realize it.

That’s the danger here.

Ideas, once introduced, propagate. But if you lack the technical means to detect what your assistant is recycling or recombining, then you are repeating concepts you did not originate, while simultaneously disclaiming any connection to their source.

This is not plagiarism in the legal sense. It’s worse: it’s intellectual disincarnation.

This is not about territory, it’s about clarity

You write:

“Therefore, I would sincerely appreciate it if you could specify which part of your theory you believe I have taken…”

I just did. Multiple times. With explicit equations, logical equivalences.

This isn't about authorship. It’s about integrity in the age of AI. You are not required to endorse PTT. But if your assistant writes like it, reasons like it, and mimics its mathematical logic, then you have a responsibility to examine your sources and acknowledge your influences.

You are free to build your logic system. But don’t claim independence while presenting echoes of a theory you once studied, especially when those echoes now appear as original simply because they’ve passed through a semantic blender.

We must master the tools we use, or we become their mouthpieces.

Dear Essam,

Thank you for your response. I see that we continue to disagree—not only in our theories, but also in interpretation and tone.

Let me make this absolutely clear: I have never claimed as my own the ideas you are defending, nor have I based my work on your mathematical formulations. My work is grounded in a general systems logic, built on philosophical principles of interaction, structure, and transformation. It does not seek to replace or reinterpret your Pure Time Theory (PTT), but rather to offer a broader conceptual framework that can be applied—not only to physical systems—but also to fields such as biology, sociology, or even ethics. If you read the article I shared with you, you’ll see it includes a wide variety of examples, not limited to physics.

It’s true that both your theory and mine attempt to describe certain regularities in the relationship between time, structure, and energy. But reaching similar conclusions on some points does not imply derivation. You can find those same regularities in many contemporary physical theories. The idea that time depends on internal properties of systems is not exclusive to PTT; it appears in many formulations in both physics and philosophy. Convergence is not imitation, especially when it stems from entirely different foundations and ontologies.

Regarding the use of artificial intelligence, I’ve always been transparent: I use it as an assistant, not a substitute. All the texts I publish have either been written by me or rigorously reviewed, to ensure that their meaning and intent reflect exactly what I want to express. Suggesting that I’m “unknowingly” repeating others’ ideas is not only inaccurate—it is also dismissive.

You ask: “If your assistant writes like PTT, reasons like PTT, and replicates its mathematical logic, how can you claim independence?” My answer is: Because what I publish reflects what I think, not what my assistant thinks. Neither my assistant nor I have used your equations, your arguments, your framework, or your terminology. And our philosophical assumptions are fundamentally different.

Finally, let me say this: I respect the intellectual ambition of your theory. But I also expect the same respect in return. Accusations like “intellectual disincarnation” or “outsourcing of thought” are not only unfair—they cross a line. I am open to constructive dialogue and, of course, also to disagreement. But not to condescension.

Sincerely, Ricard

Ricard Desola Mediavilla

Your reply confirms what has been clear for some time now: you are not truly engaging with the substance of this conversation,  you are simply layering semantic polish over a growing set of contradictions that you either do not see or choose not to address.

Let’s clarify things once and for all.

1. You contradict yourself on the very nature of your work

In your previous answer, you wrote:

“What I propose is not a physical theory, but a general systems logic...”

Now, in your latest response, you say:

“[My system] offers a broader conceptual framework that can be applied—not only to physical systems—but also to biology, sociology, or even ethics.”

This is not clarification, this is contradiction.

You initially denied building a physical theory, yet now you position your system as a generalized framework for all domains, including physical reality. which makes it, by definition, a universal ontological model. That is exactly what PTT is: a first-principles ontological theory of physical, mental, and spiritual phenomena built from a single scalar field of temporal relaxation.

So, yes, you are attempting to build a theory that overlaps with PTT, but without acknowledging the foundations it already formalized, justified, and published.

2. You claim independence while echoing PTT’s core structure

You insist:

“Neither my assistant nor I have used your equations, your arguments, your framework, or your terminology.”

But this denial is meaningless. What matters is not whether you copied syntax, but whether you replicated structure, and you did.

Let me remind you:

• Your idea of “internal rhythm of transformation” is structurally identical to PTT’s definition of T_relax(x) as a scalar field encoding system-specific temporal flow from energy density.
• Your usage of interaction-based time emergence mirrors PTT’s central claim: time is not pre-given, but emerges from energy-density-dependent dynamics.
• Your reference to “wavefronts” and “energy-defined transformation surfaces” reproduces the topological structure of iso-T_relax hypersurfaces, which in PTT define causality, decoherence, and metric emergence.

You are borrowing structure, logic, and scope, all while claiming you “don’t use my terminology”. That’s not a defense. That’s precisely the problem.

3. Your use of AI has compromised your epistemic clarity

You wrote:

“All the texts I publish have either been written by me or rigorously reviewed...”

But if your AI assistant was trained on documents you uploaded (including PTT), then it already internalized the structure of PTT and you are now republishing these patterns, whether you recognize them or not.

This is not speculation. This is observable. Your arguments mirror the high-level scaffolding of PTT: ontological scalarism, emergent metric, time-as-relational-field, and unified causality across domains.

You’ve become the assistant of your assistant, not its master.

4. You ignore the scope and originality of PTT

You suggest:

“PTT is limited to physics, while my framework extends to biology, sociology, or ethics.”

This is simply false. PTT has explicitly addressed:

• Neuroscience and memory through non-locality of T_relax and Qalb activation
• Cognitive science via scalar modulation of perception and language
• Spirituality and ethics through layered resonance models and Qur’anic cosmology
• Mental health by modeling bipolarity and ADHD as T_relax desynchronization
• Metaphysics with a rigorous axiomatisation of intention, emergence, and scalar causality

These themes have all been explicitly developed in PTT, not hidden, but published, timestamped, and publicly available. Even if you haven’t read all the articles, you've certainly seen the titles of several, and therefore you know full well that PTT’s scope reaches far beyond physics. Yet you allowed your AI assistant, which may not have received those documents, to speak in your name as if that scope did not exist. That’s not a mistake of the assistant,  that’s a failure of supervision.

5. You claim respect while dismissing substance

You write:

“Accusations like ‘intellectual disincarnation’ or ‘outsourcing of thought’ are not only unfair—they cross a line.”

What crosses the line is using AI to synthesize others’ ideas, then denying any trace of influence because the words don’t match. Intellectual integrity doesn’t mean “I didn’t copy-paste”; it means you know where your ideas come from, and you credit them when appropriate.

Ricard, I do not claim ownership over ideas. I claim ownership over coherent structures built from first principles, mathematically formalized, and published in full transparency.

If your assistant helped you arrive at similar structures, fine but own the lineage.

Don’t pretend these are universal truths you just happened to rederive alone while surrounded by AI systems trained on the very work you now distance yourself from.

Hey Ricard, relax, nothing’s going to happen. I’m not “worried” about your clumsy borrowings. Fragments of truth entangled in conceptual confusion never hold. I did read your article, it doesn’t hold up.

But I had to use your case as a testimony for readers. You’re a perfect example, and your replies illustrate it well. Thanks for that. But seriously, change your approach, it’ll serve you better

Last posts that really scientifically clarify the thread question are the SS posts on page 2, May 14 and 16.

Relating to what is written in this thread after [mostly 1 day ago and later]

– the today SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_Universe_Infinite/9, page 9, including the link to recent SS post , page 331, in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics/331 ,

- practically completely is relevant in this case.

Cheers

Dear Allou,

Given that our positions are clearly different—both conceptually and methodologically—and that this exchange has taken on a tone that does not favor constructive dialogue, I prefer to consider this conversation concluded. Anyone interested in our respective ideas can read your work and mine, and draw their own conclusions.

Ricard Desola

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for your comment and for the links you’ve shared. I will read the documents and contributions you mention with interest. I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to follow the thread and contribute your reflections.

Best regards, Ricard

Ricard Desola Mediavilla and @ All Readers

When someone thanks a contributor they haven’t actually engaged with, while simultaneously claiming intellectual control, you can safely conclude they’re no longer writing with their own voice. What you read is no longer a thinker speaking; it’s a polite interface covering the absence of thought.

And to be clear, Ricard: this is not a matter of “different positions.” It’s a matter of demonstrable facts, contradictions in your statements, structural overlaps with a published theory, and the epistemic risks of using an AI without full awareness of what it’s incorporating. Your assistant, through you (not the other way around), is the one attempting diversion. I simply exposed it

Dear Allou,

I have been registered on this platform since March, when I posted my first question on quantum entanglement and Bell’s inequalities. Before joining this platform, I was not familiar with your articles or your Pure Time Theory (PTT). As you can imagine, the article on systems logic that I recently published is the result of many months of reflection and work.

The idea of developing a theory applicable to all systems is neither new nor mine: it belongs to Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as I explain in the prologue to my article. My aim is to reformulate that theory on a more rigorous basis by structuring fundamental principles with greater clarity, as I also explain in the prologue. Of course, I have found inspiration in other works, all of which are properly cited in the bibliography and were personally read by me (not by my virtual assistant). If I had taken any relevant idea from your work, I would have included it as well, as I did with the others.

Although the final writing of the article was completed in recent months, much of it was already outlined before I joined this platform, including the core principles. All of the principles were conceived by me, and although I used AI as a tool for analysis or comparison, the ideas and their basic structure are mine. It is true that I found similarities with other physical theories, including Newton’s laws, and those similarities and correspondences (at least all the ones I have been able to identify) are discussed in the relevant section. The same might occur, in some cases, with your own approach. But that does not imply appropriation, but thematic convergence.

I still don’t understand what specific “appropriations” you believe I have made from your work. You speak of “demonstrable facts,” but you do not present them. What you are expressing is your personal opinion, not evidence. And while I respect your right to express your views, I do not accept being accused of being manipulated by an AI that steals your ideas and embeds them into my texts without my awareness. That accusation is not only unfounded, it is offensive. As I said before, if anyone is interested in this debate, they can read your publications and mine and draw their own conclusions.

Ricard

Ricard Desola Mediavilla

You hadn’t heard of PTT before joining this platform in March 2025. But that does not exonerate you, you downloaded PTT before publishing your article. I have it in my history! You built your article using AI tools without fully grasping the structure of what you were publishing.

I never claimed you “stole” the words of PTT. I claimed that you reproduced its logic, structure, and principles without understanding where they came from, because you relied on an assistant that had been exposed to those ideas, and you did not recognize their origin.

But let’s now set aside the AI. Because the real issue is not your assistant, it’s your lack of mastery over the concepts you’re publishing under your name.

You wrote an article filled with claims that echo the exact core of PTT:

• Your "internal rhythm of transformation" corresponds to the scalar function T_relax(x), which in PTT encodes the local time flow from energy density.
• Your "energy-defined transformation surfaces" mirror the level sets where T_relax(x) = constant, which define causality and wavefront propagation in PTT.
• Your idea that "time emerges from interactions" is the very heart of PTT’s temporal ontology, where time is not pre-existing but arises from energy-density-based interactions.

These are not vague similarities. They are structural correspondences. And you failed to recognize them or worse, you recognized them and chose to ignore their source.

You now say:

“I don’t understand what specific appropriations you believe I have made.”

That’s the problem. You wrote an article whose backbone mirrors PTT, and yet you claim not to see it. That means one of two things:

Both are epistemically disqualifying.

You also wrote:

“These are just your opinions, not demonstrable facts.”

Wrong. These are demonstrable facts.

Your own claims can be mapped one-to-one with formal, timestamped, and public PTT publications:

• Scalar temporal flow from energy density → T_relax(x)
• Iso-temporal surfaces → wavefronts of decoherence and causality
• Emergent metric from scalar field → geometric emergence via gradients of T_relax
• Domain-unifying dynamics across physics, cognition, ethics → the full documented scope of PTT

Your assistant didn’t invent this. And Von Bertalanffy certainly didn’t either.

You borrowed a framework that you didn’t fully understand. And now that you’re being confronted with the origin, you dismiss it as coincidence.

Let me be very clear once again:

I am not afraid of your article. Its inconsistencies, its derivative scaffolding, its conceptual blur, all of this will collapse under its own weight. What interests me is not your theory. It’s your case.

Your case is pedagogically useful: it shows exactly what happens when someone uses powerful tools to assemble ideas they don’t fully comprehend and then refuses to acknowledge the lineage when confronted with it.

So no, Ricard, this is not a personal quarrel. This is a matter of epistemic integrity. And until you show the ability to trace the origin of your ideas, instead of hiding behind claims of “independent inspiration,” you will remain a perfect example of how truth gets fragmented and rebranded not by theft, but by dilution.

Dear Allou,

I have nothing to prove. If you believe I have appropriated any part of your work, it is up to you to provide concrete evidence.

I have responded with patience and respect to all your messages, despite the fact that in them you accuse me of appropriation, insult me, and even claim I am some kind of puppet controlled by an AI.

It seems to me that you take a dogmatic stance, one that neither accepts criticism nor acknowledges any errors. You present your theory as if it were an established and widely accepted model within the scientific community, when it is far from that. In fact, you use phrases like “irrefutable demonstration” in the titles of your articles, which says a lot about the standpoint from which you speak.

I have already pointed out, with arguments, the weaknesses I see in your theory—both conceptually and philosophically—but you dismissed them outright. At this point, getting entangled in a never-ending loop is pointless.

For that reason, I will not reply to any further messages from you as long as they maintain this offensive and self-satisfied tone. And, as I’ve said before, I encourage any interested reader to consult both your publications and mine, and to draw their own conclusions.