In following theory, time is periodic and not linear as in special and general relativity. And the only accurate way of defining the velocity of light is wavelength/period = c. The other definition, distance/linear time is not very accurate.

Periodic relativity: the theory of gravity in flat space time

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341999450_Periodic_relativity_the_theory_of_gravity_in_flat_space_time

https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4539v11

Thanks, Vikram Zaveri. Whatever the form of measuring is, we end up measuring space and time according to measuring scales, one of them being the speed of light as in STR and GTR.

The question I put up has to do with measuring the wavelength (spatial, of course linearly measured) and the period (temporally measured). After doing these linearly (however negligible the extent of lack of linearity is), we tend to conceive them as signifying the starting of some different manner of measurement -- different from linear....

Now, the wavelength to period proportion is surely acceptable. What I question is the universality of this proportion in all parts of the universe and in all existent universes if there are other big bang universes.

The proportion (wavelength / period) that you have mentioned above with respect to the so-called "source-independent" propagations can be taken as testable and measurable in all regions of the universes and in all universes. Of course, it is initially done linearly, however negligible the lack of linearity in the process.

But the said ratio will have to be different at least in various universes and in various phases of our universe, because THE RATIO IS BEING DETERMINED IN EACH OF THEM BY THE VERY MATTER-ENERGY CONTENT AND THE RESULTANT DENSITY BEFORE EACH BANG.

In that case, the highest limit velocity is not universal, but dependent on the universe in which it is being measured by way of the program: wavelength divided by period. I hope my argument is clear enough.

Hence, space-time measurements dependent on limit velocities in STR and GTR in our world must belong to a wide range of velocities. A new set of STR and GTR generalizing on these is thus necessary. I have suggested this possibility in my books of 2014 and 2018.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil I will answer your questions from my own world view. Firstly my view is that there is only one universe. Secondly I do think that the JWST telescope observations are telling us that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

As regards the speed of light: I do think that the speed of light is approximately constant throughout the universe because the tension in the fabric of Spacetime is approximately constant.

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

As regards time: it clearly does exist and fundamentally time arises because the medium of space supports wave propagation and this wave propagation can be used to define the elapse of time. At the fundamental level all matter is comprised of looped waves in Spacetime so any physical clock is affected by the speed of light.

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis, thanks a lot for the opportunity to explain certain things, which scientists need not consider much as important -- not because of any fault of theirs but due to the difficulties involved in being a physicist and a theoretician of physics at the same time.

(1) We both use the term ‘exist’ from two widely different ways. Yours seem to me to be rationally insufficient to make discourse possible. When we say, e.g.: ‘It is temporal’, we do not say that ‘temporal’ is a processually physical and existent thing. This is the sense in which (in my opinion) we say: ‘There exists time’. Similar is the case about space. They are not existent in any out-there existent manner.

Our measurements are all in space and time. Measurement is an epistemic affair about out-there existent physical processes of matter-energy. But they are the necessary epistemic qualities of all thought, imagination, feeling, etc. When seen in this manner, the existence of space and time as is evident in ‘There are space and time’ are qualitatively quantitative.

(2) I know that ‘qualitatively quantitative’ is usually unacceptable for a physicist. But such a physicist would then be conflating ‘quality’ in the epistemic with qualities like red, hot, etc. But the latter may better be called ‘properties’. Let us take this as a convention for us.

(3) Now a warning: Here I am trying to explain what I mean by all these things; and please do not feel that I write epistles too long to read. I have no other way to explain well enough. I shall try to be as succinct as possible. But my primary concern here to be as detailed as possible so as to avoid misunderstanding and accusations of lack of clarity.

Epistemic qualities are conditions for the possibility of conceptualization and thus, in physics and ordinary experience of all kinds, also for measurements of all types. Here, thus, space and time are the most necessary epistemic conditions / qualities for the possibility of all discourse, including scientific, mathematical and, even more inclusively, logical.

Thus, space and time are epistemic qualities that permit quantification by measurements by criterial rods. Hence, they are qualitatively quantitative. If they were physical properties, how would we compare space and time on the same criterion with properties like hotness, redness, malleability, etc?

(4) Now to your statement: “AS REGARDS TIME: IT CLEARLY DOES EXIST AND FUNDAMENTALLY TIME ARISES BECAUSE THE MEDIUM OF SPACE SUPPORTS WAVE PROPAGATION AND THIS WAVE PROPAGATION CAN BE USED TO DEFINE THE ELAPSE OF TIME.” How can an epistemic time arise from the epistemic space because the “medium of space” (What is this epistemic medium?) “supports wave propagation” (How does space support wave propagation, which you yourself would claim as taking place in space?)? In that case, how can wave propagation be used to define the elapse of the epistemic-measuremental condition called time?

In short, what exist as processes are physical existents. We speak epistemically of their measuremental space and time. Space and time are of equal footing. One of them cannot give rise to the other!

LET ME MAKE A QUEER-LOOKING BUT REASONABLE STATEMENT ABOUT EINSTEIN’S USE OF SPACE-TIME CURVATURE: He wanted to use a concept of mathematics and geometry in which space and time are taken as AS-IF existents. This is absolutely acceptable. But, for this reason, space and time cannot exist.

Einstein was taking an instrumentalistic viewpoint about mathematical objects as as-if objects. An instrumentalistic view of existence of space and time does not entitle us to use the notion of existence equivocally of existence out-there and existence in discourse! Physicists and mathematicians do speak in these terms. But that sort of a pragmatism about conceptual set-ups is not a license for us all to accept their language as yielding absolute truths, in our case about the out-there existence of space and time.

(5) Now the question of big bang. It is not a firecracker show – we both agree. Every local universe (part of the one universe) will have some bangs, which need not be like what they imagined as being a primeval fireball of zero space-time measure “creating” everything from nothing! I do not insist that a big bang from a pure singularity should have happened in the various parts of the one finite-content or infinite-content cosmos. (On the contrary, my 2018 book argues for something much different.)

But if there are no explosions in the universe, that is strange. All observational proofs go against it. Every explosion in the cosmos is an explosion – of course, not like in a firecracker show. If supernovae, blackholes (at least at the centres of suitably evolved galaxies), etc. do explode. In that case, there should be even more comprehensive explosions at every, sufficiently large, part of the universe at some time or other.

If so, who stops us from rationally considering the finite-content universe (either a part of the infinite-content universe if infinite content is the case, or the whole finite-content universe if the cosmos is just this much)? The responsibility to prove otherwise (that there are no bangs within the universe and that ever-larger bangs are unimaginable in a finite-content or infinite-content universe) falls on those who think it rational (or scientifically proved) that there was no kind of big bang.

If the JWST satellite has proved that there are no bangs in the universe and that larger bangs are irrational, I would like to get details. (Please don’t take me to be making offensive formulations. This is a friendly way of arguing.) I have been regular in reading new data in the internet on the JWST. Most of the claims on big bangs seem to me to be meant for clearing traditional notions, and not to deny big bangs. After all, how at all would the JWST take a direct or indirect look at the centre of our local universe yet? That is, JWST has not produced any direct or indirect evidence so far of the absolute absence of levels of explosion in the cosmos.

(6) The step is to draw the consequences of the above on your statement: “At the fundamental level all matter is comprised of looped waves in Spacetime so any physical clock is affected by the speed of light.”

Let me make another comment, which would be a sequel to all that we said in the above: Mathematics, physics, cosmology, biology, economics … and all sorts of sciences need the hand of sensible philosophical thinking of the foundations of these sciences in order for them to flourish. True, experimentalists are not bothered about it. That is instrumentalism and pragmatism. But theoreticians (Einstein, Poincaré, Weyl …) have used philosophy to their own and humanity’s own advantage.

Please take my argument in a friendly manner. For us both and for our readers, the growth of Science and Humanity is more important than our own growth.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil That was a very interesting post and I do think that philosophical arguments have an important part to play in understanding physics and cosmology.

There are lots of points in your post and I am not sure if I have fully understood as I have not studied the terminology of philosophy. I view things from the point of view of someone trained in mathematics and physics.

I think it would be best to treat the issues of your post one at a time and reach an understanding on the first point before going on to the second point.

At the heart of the problem seems to be your comment that we are using the term “exists” to have different meanings. So as a physicist I would say that space exists and then provide evidence for that statement.

Can you explain to me the sense in which you think that space does not exist?

You might find it helpful to read the talk given by Albert Einstein in 1920 on the subject of Ether and Relativity:

Preprint Ether and the Theory of Relativity

Richard

The goal of physics is to be able to predict events/observations. The model with time on a par with distance (space) creates many complex problems and needed ad hoc addition all of which obfuscate the goal. For example, the ``arrow--of-time'' concept/assumption should derive from the understanding of time. But instead, past-presnt-future and the reality of time obfuscates the theories. Then he discussions about traveling backward in time begin to occupy energy - such a waste.

The concept of only NOW anded with emergence derives the arrow and simplifies physics and allows a concept of causation which has been lacking in physics fo a century.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364453236_Causality_time_and_force

Dear Richard Lewis, I try here to put in gist the central meaning of existence and also to define universal causality in terms of this definition alone. Thereafter I shall shortly give the meaning of space and time in respect to the physical-ontological meaning of existence.

Let us assume existence out there objectually as the meaning of existence. Whatever exists out there, and not merely inside consciousness-level procedures like knowing, feeling, measuring, theorizing etc., is not an existent but a conceptual construct.

A conceptual construct can be called as existent. These are a special sort of existents insofar as they arise in and are useful for theory and practice.

Existents exist non-vacuously. If non-vacuous, then every existent is in Extension. That is, every existent has parts, however small. If they are existent not in Extension, then they are pure vacua, non-entity....

Photons are not vacuous stuff. As wavicles, they are something, hence have parts too. This is non grata for physicists if they take the mathematical formalism literally for the purpose of ease in discourse. But this is not genuine physics, because in future the clarifications do only get better and not worse.

[[Thus, e.g., Newton's ideas were not clarified enough with respect to their fundamental notions. Einstein and the quantum physicists tried to clarify further (i.e., they asked philosophically foundational questions on many existents), and their new theories were born.

Hilbert, Gödel etc. asked fantastic philosophical questions, but logically in a broader manner, on the foundations of the mathematical objects and principles. And arose the new disciplines of mathematics in a more clarified manner. Frege asked some pragmatic questions on math and logic, and he gave birth to a new discipline of mathematical logic and also to the roots of analytic philosophy.

Whitehead and Russell wanted to axiomatize math and logic, and the Principia arose.]]

If extended, every existent wavicle / particle (and all matter-energy, because matter and energy are inter-convertible) has parts that exert impacts on each other and/or outwards. That is, all existents and their parts are in Change.

EXISTENCE IS CONTINUANCE IN EXTENSION-CHANGE, and this is nothing but what we call EXISTENCE IN CAUSATION. Since all existents must exist non-vacuously, the physical-ontological conditions par excellence of EXISTENCE (TO BE) are Extension-Change. That is, all existents are in causal processuality! This is the physical-ontological meaning of existence. Extension and Change are the only and exhaustive meanings of physical existence.

If so, what shall we call space-time? The measurementally epistemic expression of Extension is space, and the measurementally epistemic expression of Change is time. In short, what curve and warp in theoretical physics and cosmology are not space-time but existent physical processes, but in Extension-Change-wise existence.

Einstein's concept of space-time curvature and the later physicists' reification of space-time are all a mathematical instrumentalism -- silly enough to be called realistic. (I say this with responsibility, and after decades of studies, reflections, and discussions from my silly age of 13.)

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil That is excellent to have good definitions as a starting point. First let me say that many physicists would agree with you that space does not exist.

Let me explain why I think space does exist. I think it does fulfil your conditions for extension and change.

When I think of the properties of space I note the following:

1. Space supports gravitational wave propagation and these gravitational waves have been observed and measured by LIGO. The gravitational waves are a moving propagation of a wave disturbance in the medium of space.

2. The observed gravitational waves are coming from neutron star mergers or black hole mergers and they are correctly predicted by the Einstein equations of General Relativity (GR).

3. GR correctly describes the curvature of Spacetime as being the cause of gravitational forces which arise in the presence of mass.

4. The observation of galaxies shows that space itself is expanding.

So I do think that space meets your criteria for existence.

It is possible that your understanding of the nature of space does not meet the criteria for existence.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis, I feel nice that I am able to converse with a Cambridge-trained physicist. Thanks.

It is a natural human thought-level and feeling-level intuition that propagation is through a medium. Language and its expression of measurements (which are all primarily epistemic in expression but based on experiences of existent processes) have thus two and only two purely epistemic conditions like space and time. Language has not invented them.

Why should gravitational waves be moving propagations merely of wave disturbances and not actual existent waves? Waves and particles can only be mathematical entities, I agree. But the actual wavicles can only be wave-like highly elongated, whirlingly (spirally and by spin) moving particles! The mathematical representations of such events in terms of the purely extensionless waves and particles are an idealization. Every philosopher of mathematics and physics will agree with me on this.

Of course, the mathematical expressions of gravitational propagation requires us to measure all that we deal with. Merely because we express them in measures, we need not reify the general epistemic notions (space and time) of measurement. Thus, the medium of space is a figment of imagination. Nor is time an existent medium of anything.

Space and time are no physical-ontological qualities / categories. We have their genuine physical-ontological categories in Extension and Change. Extension is a primary quality of things. Change is an equally primary quality of things. For this reason they are purely ontological, and not epistemic. Hence, these two are the ontological qualities of all existents.

Hence, it is better to speak of Extension-Change as being more physical than speak of the epistemic conditions as physical...!

That is, to claim: "The observation of galaxies shows that space itself is expanding", is evidently a reification of epistemic conditions. The epistemic procedures involved in mathematical and language-level thought and imagination are not the same as the respective existent physical processes in the brain. Hence, space-time do not meet the criteria of existence at all.

To be epistemologically and mathematical-philosophically very precise, existent physical processes meet the epistemically procedural requirements of thought and imagination (linguistic, mathematical, logical). HENCE, THE EPISTEMIC NOTIONS OF SPACE AND TIME ARE INADEQUATE AND THEREFORE UNSUITABLE FOR BEING REDUCED INTO THE MEDIUM OF PHYSICAL PROCESSES......

Einstein mistakenly called the curvature of physical (including gravitational) processes as space-time curvature because the mathematics uses such an expression. Mathematics is not the ontology of physical existents. Einstein was misguided by the neo-positivists of his time into believing that their mathematical-instrumentalistic philosophies of physics were the final word on things physical. Even the Solvay Conference controversy was very much due to his having been steeped in the works of the-then neo-positivist thinkers.

Please don't think that I am trying merely to confound you in arguments. I am addressing the conceptualization problems in the sciences and one of the implications of pragmatic instrumentalism with regard to mathematics in the sciences. (There are many more other implications -- mind-boggling in fact.)

The same sort of instrumentalism with respect to language as such is present in the more than one-century old linguistic-analytic philosophies of today.

Can you imagine the following? More than 70% of philosophy professors in the best of universities the world over are convinced more of SUCH linguistic-analytic philosophy! Also philosophers of science in most of these universities unwarrantedly espouse linguistic-analytic philosophy merely because the latter are the academic majority today!

A similar state of affairs is when physicists blindly follow the expressions Einstein and his generation of physicists. WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS. Not being willing to employ philosophers of physics, of math, etc. to clarify their notions is no subjugation of these sciences to philosophy. On the contrary! All sciences, including philosophy should not only co-exist but also collaborate.

It is for this reason that I do not belittle even the existentialists of the first half of the 20th century. One upon a time (as a BA student) I have done it, heavily. But today I call that Raphael as immature.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil I agree with you that we should challenge accepted ideas in physics and cosmology. I take the view that General Relativity is completely correct and special relativity is completely wrong.

As regards the other matters that we have discussed I don’t think we will make much progress now but will end up restating our respective positions. We have a different worldview. I understand and accept the validity of your worldview.

Richard

Ok, no problem, Richard. I accept your right to your opinion. Thanks for the wonderful conversation.

Raphael Neelamkavil

even doing misleadings, we still progress@

Mircea Ciobanu, just now you said: "even doing misleadings, we still progress@". I did not understand what you meant in English. If you write it clearly in a few sentences, I would be able to reply.

Raphael Neelamkavil

'ex nihilo nihil fit', n

'nil fit ad nihilum'. these are the principles used by j. von mayer -- se max von laue, 'the history of physics'@

'ex nihilo nihil fit', n

'nil fit ad nihilum'. these are the principles used by j. von mayer -- se max von laue, 'the history of physics'@

raphael dear, just tell me your opinion; if you agree, you may add, we'll submit it at springer&nature; best wishes, mircea

sorry, raphael, i forgot this one

Dear Jack Don McLovin, I would put the same as follows: Measurementally, as our physical preference goes, time may be TAKEN AS continuous or discretely countable. This is an epistemic matter, not a matter of REALITY AS SUCH. Accordingly, if your preference is to measure continuous or countable time infinitely, you need infinite time to prove it.

But none of these mean that time is an existent stuff. It is an epistemic sub-reality that has to do with existent physical processes in their particularity, totality as a finite amount, and infinity as an infinite amount.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil I would not say that "time does not exist". As we notice movement and understand this concept as (Length / Time), time does exist as well as length does exist.

On the other hand time and length are not "material" in a sence of representing matter but representing our process of thinking and reasoning (Measuring). But our thinking arises from us being living beings representing matter. In some sence therefore time and length represents matter and represents therefore real physical existing stuff.

I do agree, that the speed of light may be representing something different than Einstein proposed and is not really a physical constant as i would argue that physical constants does not exist at all.

But in order to do measurements we need to define physical Quantities and Units. If we want to measure length, we can define the diameter of earth as to be one Meter of length and set the diameter of earth for that reason as a physical constant in time, knowing, that it is just constant by definition and we cannot know if it changes.

Dear M U E Pohl, this reply of yours -- from the point of view of a person who admits of the stipulations of physical science as concrete and necessities for science -- is very good.

From the point of view of the philosophy of science (and of mathematics), refinements and refined redefinitions will be required of the manner of expression. But that is not an important point here. Thanks a lot for the reply.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Hi, Allison Figus! Exactly this is why I argue that space and time are not existents but epistemic conditions given in our measurements and in possible measurements in general. But the physical-ontological aspects of space and time are Extension and Change. This is a matter I have explained many times in this platform and in Academia.edu. Therefore I do not explain it here.

Thanks.

Raphael Neelamakvil

Time exists: time is motion. I.e. time is variation of space and variation of variation of space, ergo: 2-dimensional. So spacetime is 5-dimensional.

Dear Paul Pistea, thanks. But the sense of existence of space and time is not the same as of the existence of this book in front of me. Things exists, of course as processes. And there are measuremental notions pertinent to existents. These are, mainly, space and time. As measuremental, quantitative, they are epistemic. That is, as notions they are measuremental realities pertinent to existent processes. Here 'reality' is not existent reality but pertinents to existent reality.

How can existents and their pertinents become existent in the same sense?

Raphael Neelamkavil

A discussion on this theme between me and another person is here: (I removed the name of the one who opined so, and give the answer that I gave.)

4 hrs ago

Light and gravity does not necessarily transmit energy, but perhaps only information. Transverse force in light and force in gravity can be provided by the ether based on information only. Light is a behaviour, and someone must behave. Fatio's model can explain gravity as an ether wind. This model is NOT refuted by NO aberration, since matter absorbs ether particles, and gravity is EMERGING inside matter.

📷Like

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil Ph.D.,Dr.phil., Cosmology + Mathematical Physics; Phil. of Science + Scientific, Analytic, Process, Digital, and Systemic Metaphysics & Epistemology 10 mins ago

Dear ------, thanks. RECENTLY I WROTE A SHORT WORK ON INFORMATION BEING INTERPRETED AS EXISTENT SOMETHING OUT-THERE!! Remember Wiener? Now please read my arguments. If information is carried by something (energy), then information must always be carried by it. And thereafter we cannot simply separate information from what carries it. That is, we cannot then say that information is what is being transmitted by the transverse force in light, gravitation, etc. That is, we cannot call a totality of information as ether. Secondly, light is not merely a behaviour. It is something existent. Call it as particles, waves, or wavicles, it must be something. This is why we are able to admit the inter-convertibility of matter and energy in Relativity and thereafter in all of physics today. Whatever model we take, we cannot separate behaviour from the energy (and matter) that behaves. Hence, we cannot conclude that matter simply absorbs baheviour from somewhere. That is, this bahaviour cannot be called ether! Again, gravity is emerging inside matter. But gravity is not an ether like you equated with information and behaviour!

Raphael Neelamkavil

doamne, cine-l tine?@

Paul Pistea I fully agree. I made a poster to give an explanation of this at a first glance.

Raphael Neelamkavil Yes, from this one point you are right, the causal order (causality principle) does not exist in the physical dimension of time.

Poster 4Dvs5D

Mircea Ciobanu,

Information is being held by energy, in my opinion. But what is being propagated is just the energy. A configured conglomeration of energy could be termed a specific information, but in that configuration. Another configuration is another information. Information does not exist without / separated from the energy.

Hence, a reply to the question; God, who's holding him?, would have to be clear enough.

Thanks, MUE Pohl.

Could we say that motion of things / processes is measured always spatio-temporally, and not merely spatially or temporally? If yes, and if we can keep space and time as abstract terms (not as corresponding to processes as in space-time), space could abstract-measurementally represent Extension, and time could abstract-measurementally represent Change. What do you think?

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Paul Pistea, here are some reflections related to what you wrote a few days ago:

The sense of existence of space and time is not the same as that of the existence of this book in front of me. Things exist -- of course, as processes. And there are measuremental notions pertinent to existents. These are, mainly, space and time.

As measuremental, quantitative, they are epistemic, i.e., based on notions created by consciousness, e.g., the convention of a measuring rod, quantified in terms of quantities, which too are notional. That is, space and time, as notions, are measuremental realities pertinent to existent processes.

Processes are existent, but notions are real, i.e., pertaining to eistents. Here 'reality' does not mean existent reality, but only the reality (existent-related nature) of notions like quantity, which are pertinents to existent reality. How can existents and their pertinents become existent in the same sense?

Pertinents are of two kinds: (1) those taking origin at the consciousness level and being applied to processes, and (2) those purely ontological counterparts of these notions, which, of necessity, must be based on the processes. We have, in type (1), only a slight reflection of the ways in which processes happen. Type (2), therefore, are more real than type (1).

I call type (2) as ontological universals. In that case, type (1) are only connotative universals. They are very vague in their capacity to reflect processes in whatever they are, as such. Under type (2) we have the ontological universals Extension and Change, which, together, are the very exhaustive meaning of To Be, to exist, existence, existing, etc.

I consider them as the first 2 primitive notions that base all sciences, inclusive of mathematics, logic, etc. From them should derive the axioms.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Raphael Neelamkavil "If yes, and if we can keep space and time as abstract terms (not as corresponding to processes as in space-time), space could abstract-measurementally represent Extension, and time could abstract-measurementally represent Change. What do you think?"

I made up my mind over the concept and physics of time in detail for about 15 years previous to now writing some texts and papers about the topic. Anyway i focus on the idea, that measurement is key to objective thing, namely you and me being able to do measurements based on nominal definition (for physical and sensual phenomenon) and then to agree that what we agree on measuring must be the reality we have agreed upon between ourselves.

As far as time and space are concerned, for me these are primarily nominal definitions for physical units and thus "measurement rules" on the basis of which we conduct experiments. Now it has struck me that in the concept of time we locate the principle of causality on the one hand and the concept of relational motion Length / Duration of the observer als well as the observed.

But causality is no physical unit for measuremet, because with measurement we want to find causality.

Therefore, the definition for time we use today is irrational und cannot be used for proper science. With a correction we find that the speed of light in "truth" is the representation of surface of earth in rest relative to vacuum.

Preprint Origin and Nature of Speed of Light shown on one page of paper

Attention: AND, surface of earth is therefore to calculate as center for the universe in terms of being the inertialsystem at rest of the observer (the earth).

More about the nature of time and space i have discussed here:

Article Search for the World Formula/Theory of Everything

some final conclusion is

"If the circle is no longer irrationally conceived as a static geometry and representation of infinity, but as rational concept of "movement", all observations in the universe can then be thought of as relating (observing) one motion to another motion. Thus all physical appearances can be traced back to the mental concept of space and time and all "material" appearances become  constructs of our mind. This creates a completelyand fundamental new rational conception of reality and the universe, that was previously inaccessible to humans. With this complete theory the Universe is a living being itself with a free will, as well as the observer (human) is a living being with free will. "

Thanks, M.U.E. Pohl. But I have some difficulty with your final paragraph above, "the universe being a living being itself with a free will, as well as the observer (human) is a living being with free will."

The questions here are: (1) What is the extent to which we humans have free will? (2) What is the extent to which other living beings might be free? (3) And if the universe is a living being, does it have infinite or finite free will? These are questions that more than 2 millennia of philosophy in the West and in the East have already discussed. Even today the panpsychists do this. But the final question is: (4) If everything is mental, or if everything one day will become mental, how to maintain that the universe, at any given time with respect to any part of the universe, has either both mind and body, or only body, or only mind?

Raphael Neelamkavil

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil "If everything is mental, or if everything one day will become mental, how to maintain that the universe, at any given time with respect to any part of the universe, has either both mind and body, or only body, or only mind?"

The reasoning i a bit different here: As my finding suggest, we can and must describe all our observations based on space and time in units.

e.g. Energy = meter6/second5

Kilogramm = meter4/second3

(in my final theory),

it cannot be argued any more that atoms, Energy, Information or whatever is creating our consiousness, but only our mind (represented by space and time).

Following from this, Descartes cogito ergo sum cannot work, because it makes no sence that our mind creates not only us, but the universe. Therefore, in some sence this proves that "life" arises not from matter, but previous to space and time.

It is not accessible for us.

Dear M.U.E. Pohl, you do not deal with my questions in your reply at all....

Raphael Neelamkavil

duti si ti cauta, riguta@

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil

i answered (4). (1)-(3) are very open.

life = independent from natural laws that humans could look into

free will = independet from natural laws that humans could look into

that does not mean, that there is no "influence" from "something"

the distinction "finite or infinite "life" or "free will"" therefore does not make sense to me.

Dear M.U.E. Pohl,

If life and will are independent from natural laws, we need to have a world in which physical causation exercises no influence on life and will...! This does not seem to be the case, if the inter-subjective conclusions of scientists and philosophers are good enough as indications.

Of course, life and will have some some independence. What exactly is this independence? I would opine that THIS INDEPENDENCE IS NOT FROM UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY, but instead IT IS AN EXTENT OF INDEPENDENCE FROM SOME PHYSICALLY CAUSAL INFLUENCES.

Using this argument, I plan to work out a somewhat rigorous work on RECONCILING UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY (i.e., the state in which every event is causal) AND FREEDOM.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Allison Figus, these claims about 'time' are very good. Can we not extend these to space too? 'Time' need not be unique in this case. And if space and time are such, we need not find a fault with traditional metaphysics alone. All sciences even today indulge in this. This is why some claim that space-time exist, what warps is not matter or energy (e.g., grvitation), but space-time warps, and so on! The fact that mathematics in GTR has space and time measures as ingredients, Einstein insisted that space-time curves. In order to avoid this state of affairs, we need to make space and time purely epistemic about physics and Reality as such, because space and time are measurements, not existents. This requires an overhaul in the manner in which physicists (and all other scientists) use these concepts -- not merely an overhaul of traditional or contemporary metaphysics, in which many do not indulge today.

Raphael Neelamkavil

The concept of the speed of light being a constant is a fundamental principle in physics, and it is based on experimental evidence and theoretical considerations. It is not simply a measuremental concept, but rather a fundamental feature of the nature of light and the structure of space and time. The constancy of the speed of light has been confirmed by numerous experiments, and it is an essential part of various theories such as special relativity and general relativity.

The constancy of the speed of light is based on the idea that the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. This principle is known as the principle of relativity. According to this principle, the laws of physics should be the same for all inertial (non-accelerating) observers. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of this principle, as it follows from the fact that the speed of light is the highest speed at which information can be transmitted.

There is no evidence to suggest that the speed of light is not a constant, and it is not clear how one could even detect a change in the speed of light. While it is possible to consider alternative theories that allow for a variable speed of light, these theories face significant challenges in explaining the experimental evidence and are not well supported by current observations.

In summary, the speed of light is a constant and fundamental feature of the nature of light and the structure of space and time. While it is possible to consider alternative theories that allow for a variable speed of light, these theories face significant challenges in explaining the experimental evidence and are not well supported by current observations.

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:

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:

Read a conversation between Willy Verhiest and me, in:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology/3

Willy Verhiest added a reply

Raphael Neelamkavil,

I don't claim anything but observe.

For an observer on earth with gravity G c is always constant in vacuo but c is infinite at zero G at very long distances from the observer. You can call that the limit of the universe as observable from the earth which is not equal to the total universe. If the earth had double mass with a double G the observable universe would be double.

Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c. For a photon the observer is nearing it at -c so total time is zero = meaningless. It is impossible from the local observation of photons or other EM waves to determine a beginning or an extension or limit of the total universe. Stop searching celestial mirrors. There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth.

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

1 minute ago

Willy Verhiest,

In the observations you have made above, notice how overstretching the relativistic paradigm confounds the observer and theoretician. If the gravity of the earth is G, then c is constant in vacuo. But c increases relativistically to infinity at 0 G at very long distances from the observer. (Or, at the centre of the earth?) Now, you say, if the earth had double the mass, it has 2G. The the observable universe will be at double the distance in almost a spherical manner everywhere.

Should we then say that our observationally relativistic measurements must be the same as what an earth at one spot at the periphery of the universe (not merely of the observable limits of the universe) would notice?

If observationally the reach of observation from an earth of G is a certain A, then should c be zero at the observational limits you spoke of, or at some other? How do you insist that G will be zero there? Observationally from the Relativity standpoint of observation from the earth, or from yet another specific Relativity standpoint of observation?

Will the same c be observable or experienceable for an earth at the peripheries of a finite-content universe? Or, will it be something different? Of course, relativistically it should differ widely for the stipulated earth (observational starting point). But is it merely because I observe / calculate from my earth (of G) some special value for c at that point where the earth at the periphery is situated? Perhaps it will be a certain value close to infinity or really infinity?

But asymptotic approach math does not permit that! No zero or infinity is ever reached!

Hence, the c will be near infinity! Will this be real? Relativistically from our earth, of course real. But real also for an earth there, where the value is supposed to be a certain near-infinie value for our earth?

Now you may again use relativity theory and assert it to be so. Bu the earth at the periphery will not observe it so!

Now you may say that we have a universe with an infinite-periphery (strictly, non-finite or potentially infinite periphery) universe with a finite volume and content! Of course, you can choose such a math, just as Einstein chose the Riemannian geometry for the finite-content universe, without mentioning the possibility of a different Generalized General Theory of Relativity (GGTR) for an infinite-content cosmos!

Now you see how misleading it will be, if you assume for a spot at the periphery of the universe the same relativistic spatial and temporal measurements, the same measuremental differentiation at velocity (also density, mass, etc.) as measured from the earth?

In short, to deal with the whole of the cosmos -- if it is of infinite content -- we need a highly generalized GTR. Now, if you ask me what that GGTR is, I cannot give it to you, because I have not formulated it. (I am sure that you will not ask me to shut up in that case, because we both are finite-brained creatures!)

And if we have only a finite-content universe, the relativistic measuremental variation from one region to the other with respect to our earth should also mislead the earth at the periphery of such a universe. THIS IS THE CASE I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF.

And so on....

In the cases where the values are infinity, zero, etc. that I mentioned above, there may be further confusions. What I mean is: Please accept that there will be confusions in what I mentioned above, in all the specific values that I mentioned above. These are due to human errors. I am happy to accept corrections and suggestions.

Let me make a general suggestion: GTR is to be taken as already very erroneous if we tend to consider other universes as existent and apply the same measuremental criteria from any two universes relatively simultaneously. Of course, the meaning of time will be different for both the universes. Not of time, but of the measurements of time, because the reference frames will differ. Moreover, there is no simultaneity of any absolute kind in the universe between any two different points of spacetime.

Please note also that this statement above already presupposes a standpoint of view or measurement that considers the relativistic measurements from one spot in the universe as non-absolute from another spot.

Now you see how well one can make erroneous statements by assuming universality to Relativity: You said, "Time does not have a meaning for a photon as it travels at c." And you said: "There is only local time and space, only valid in our local point of observation, the earth." Both these are very bad statements in my opinion. Why? Not that time will have no meaning, but specific temporal measurements will differ for a photon if measured from various frameworks. Similarly, not that there are only local time and local space, but there are only local temporal and spatial measurements with respect to respective frameworks. Naturally!

And the final advise is difficult to grasp: "Stop searching (for) celestial mirrors." I did not search for celestial mirrors. I asked whether a celestial body at the periphery of an individual universe will have gravitational effect to all its sides, or only to the sides other than the direction to the outer periphery of that one universe. And I suggested that if that celestial body is not able to exercise gravitation to the outer aspect of the universe, then there must be a mirror or mirrors there to reflect all the gravitation and EM being propagated off. That was not meant to assert that there are mirrors there, you know!

Now, insisting that all that happens everywhere in our local universe or in a neighbouring universe should be according to the measuremental values assigned to space, time, c, G, etc. from the criterial viewpoint of observation from the earth or from the centre of the universe, or any other point.... This is a nonsense in my opinion. This is a very misleading system of physical criteria wrought in by misinterpretations and stretching of the Relativistic viewpoint.

Another observation: Absolutizing the Relativitiy Theory for all observational points of "space" is in my opinion physically fallacious.

A suggestion to ponder: Have you noticed how, in the Lorentz factor in STR, the velocity of an object is compared with the velocity c? This means that we stipulate c to be the criterial velocity in our case, because we observe anything at luminal velocity. But then, if v is increased to approach c, then we get paradoxes in any equation. Does this mean that experimentally fixed velocity of light should be absolute? Or, does it mean that the paradoxes result because we have compared (in the Lorentz factor) v with c? And should we at all pronounce that c is the only criterial velocity in the universe?

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.

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

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).

Challenging the Universality of the Speed of Light as a Constant

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

i believe the concept of physical'reality' must be revisited'completed; if we understand by physical reality only experimental measurements, we risk interminable discussions; yours, mircea

It is for this reason that I did not use 'physical reality' above. 'Reality' may mean physical existents and generalities that pertain to them. Measurements are very much epistemic. Behind them are the generalities / universals that pertain to groups of existent physical processes.

so what are you talking about?

About physically existent reality, the universals that appertain them, and the conglomerations and concatenations of these universals that we create in various ways.

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

I had no idea so I looked it up and quite liked this link:

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/time-a-spacetime-dimension-a-human-construct-or-a-nonexistent-reality-f03b9a635d5b?gi=07f8d299886f#:~:text=Time%20is%20a%20fundamental%20aspect,subjective%20and%20human-made%20illusion.

'Time is a fundamental aspect of our lives and the universe, shaping the way we think and experience the world around us. Many scientists and philosophers argue that time is not a fixed and objective reality, but rather a subjective and human-made illusion. As Albert Einstein once famously said,

“People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Time, in other words, he said, is an illusion.”'

I think that this a mistake in physics, not philosophy. Time is defined to be an illusion by definition in the base SI Units for measurement.

On the other hand Einsteins theories are experimentally confirmed and it must be clear that a definition of time (not based on space) is not "allowed", because there is emperical evidence that this is impossible.

Time: such as defined in the base SI System as unit does not exist.

Time: such as considert to be relative does exist.

from my latest work:

"We find that the foundation of physics, and thus of all contemporary science, is built on aninadmissible illusion that nature is based on a progressive time [0....∞], which in its origin hasno relation or connection with space.By definition of the units, the Big Bang (the concept of "zero") and a black hole (the concept∞) are introduced, although this premise is inadmissible, because no experiment isconceivable that could refute the existence of these concepts.Albert Einstein also showed with his unrefuted theories that space and time are connected,and therefore time without space cannot be defined at all. The most important consequence ofEinstein's discoveries at the present time has simply never been implemented so far: thedefinition of time must be changed with this knowledge.To do this, we detach the connection of the causality principle from time and remove the"arrow of time". Above (123) we see that the definition of base units represents a causalchain: time is the cause of space and space is then the cause of mass (matter). If we separatethe idea of the causal principle (yesterday is the cause of tomorrow) from time and look attime purely from a metrological point of view, then time represents only an angular measure " (2) (PDF) Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity by correction of Einstein’s ill defined speed of light „God doesn't play dice“. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372646699_Unification_of_Electromagnetism_and_Gravity_by_correction_of_Einstein's_ill_defined_speed_of_light_God_doesn't_play_dice [accessed Jul 29 2023].

Mary C R Wilson,

This is very much true. I think the game that many physicists and other scientists, and of course some philosophers, are playing concerning time is with respect to the concept of 'reality'. Some take 'reality' as existent reality, and some do not consider it so. My suggestion to understand the scenario better is the following:

Reality consists of existent reality and realities that pertain to existent realities in their groups. Existent realities are clear enough to understand. Realities pertinent to existent realities are never to be taken as belonging to just one existent reality. They are always those generalities that belong to many existent realities in their respective natural kind. These generalities are what I call ontological universals.

But the most important matter here is this: there are some ontological universals which belong to all existent realities. (1) Thus, every existent is in extension. If not in extension, nothing can exist. That is, vacuous existence is no existence. But to be in Extension means to have parts. This is the first ontologically universal characteristic of all existents. (2) The second is that existents have to act. Some movement will be there in every part of extended existents. In physical existents this movement is finite. By movement, every extended existent causes a finite impact in themselves and in a finite number of others. This characteristic of all existents is termed Change.

But Extension-Change-wise existence is Causation! Hence, every existent must be causal. Moreover, in terms of the concept of Universal Causality, Extension and Change are absolutely and inseparably connected to each other.

NOW WE COME TO THE QUESTION OF TIME: The conventionally scale-based measure of Change is time. With respect to any existent, time is the measure of movement of Change. In some cases this is very fast, where time is considered to be more intense (not that a generally considered time is fast with respect to this Change), and if the Change is little, the time is considered to be less intense (not that a generally considered time is slow).

That is, time as the epistemic measure of Change, does not exist, it is not even an ontological universal. It is an epistemic universal.

Similarly, space is the measure of Extension.

If you like this sort of explanation, kindly let others read this and discuss in their circles.

As for me, this viewpoint is so strong that I am writing books by using just these notions. The time and space of physicists and other scientists must go.

Here I was trying to give my way of explanation. Others will surely have other explanations. Very good, and that is how humanity will grow. Am open to listen.

M.U.E. Pohl, thanks for this response. Very good. Kindly read mine (above), which I wrote before I read your response, because I was busy writing the reply to her.

Raphael Neelamkavil , yea i agree that time, as a measure of change does not exist.

At the same time however we must adress that space as a measure of extension does not exist.

What exist is: space-time ( the relation between space and time) as a measure of change.

I would say: What exists is matter-energy. These, together in existent processes, are characterized by their ontological characteristics, Extension and Change. Space and time (and of course also spacetime) are their epistemic, cognitive reflections! What do you think of this?

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

Dr Raphael Neelamkavil

Thank you so much for your long and in-depth response. I shall now spend a bit of time to fully digest what you wrote. This is not a subject that I know a lot about, but I do find it interesting.

Raphael Neelamkavil The problem with matter-Energy for me is, that those cannot be measured and i think a model of reality must offer the possibility to do measurements.

In contemporary sciene the definitons in metrology are like

Time = 1 (assumed constant Caesium)

Space = Space / Time = 1 (assumed constant speed of light)

Mass = Time / Space2 ( assumed Planck constant)

Energy = proportional to mass

Our current model is based on the premise that time and space exist first and then use these qualities to measure mass and energy. I am of the opinion that these premises are false, since they start with a circular definition (space is defined by itself). But you can't just base a model on the premise of the existence of energy and mass (matter), I'm afraid, because you first need space and time to be able to measure these qualities at all.

I know that "our current model is based on the premise that time and space exist and then use these qualities to measure mass and energy". That is, matter and energy are measurable in terms of mass and energy. That will do.

Now, I say that space and time are not existents. For that matter even measured mass and measured energy are not existents. All these are pertinents of existent matter and energy propagations. These pertinents are pertinent at various levels. This is the realm at which I work, but with the presumption that only that which can exist can exist.

I have nothing against all the units of measurement that you mentioned. They may change after some time. I look for the invariable universals in existents and to create a the physical ontology behind all these things that you mention as the presuppositions of physics.

Raphael Neelamkavil "I look for the invariable universals in existents and to create a the physical ontology behind all these things that you mention as the presuppositions of physics."

That is what i do too. I have as the unchanging basis (measurment) of our perception of space time and matter is:

12 pi (Length/Time)3 = 1 (meter/second)3

you wrote "That is, matter and energy are measurable in terms of mass and energy. That will do."

It is not possible to measure energy or mass in terms of energy. How do you want to do that? Can you give an example?

"Energy = proportional to mass"

but above i wrote that today mass is measured based on the definition of space and time.

There is no possibility to measure mass or energy without using space and time.

E=mc2

c2 = definition of space

I did not say anything against it. I say only that these are not fundamental enough. This is my opinion. Accordingly, I work out something more fundamental.

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

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

@dear all, please don't send me more messages on rg; yours, mircea

I do not send it to you. It is RG that sends.

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

"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

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)

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