The verifiability of the values or extents of existence or non-existence of values of matter-energy in the cosmos is in a way fully verifiable because all of it is physical. But in another way, some extents of it are non-verifiable in the sense that we are not able to reach them all.

But should this be a reason for not accepting a physical ontology of cosmology? In any case, all that we speak of in physics are not directly accessible, at least experimentally. But we accept it as an empirical science.

That is, whether absolutely empirical or absolutely theoretical in ideality, any science is both theoretical and empirical. The difference between physics and physical ontology of cosmology is that the latter is less empirical than the former.

I would add FAPP Reason is the set of all non-perverse logics. Time gets wasted on silly artificial systems of little use or covering arcane corner cases that almost never matter.

Your introductory words strike me as something only to be taken up by Philosophers, which is fine if that is your goal, but then that is a second project. Perhaps such belongs in the detailed supporting argumentation.

"But should this be a reason for not accepting a physical ontology of cosmology?" No, it can always be done "permanently provisionally." We know our present physics is strictly speaking wrong, yet we use it every day. Same thing technically with math foundations. Scientists and engineers are famous for using wrong math that works almost every time, after all.

The empirical (Galileo-Bacon) is used to reveal quantities by an independent method from theorizing (Aristotle etc) to reap the confidence provided by that concordance. Perhaps your musings touch on that.

These were my introductory words: "The verifiability of the values or extents of existence or non-existence of values of matter-energy in the cosmos is in a way fully verifiable because all of it is physical. But in another way, some extents of it are non-verifiable in the sense that we are not able to reach them all."

I beileve this is necessary not merely for philosophy but also for determining the value of the empirical method in an amplified setting. That, I think, is acceptable and pardonable also from the part of the sciences.

The insufficiency of any math or science or philosophy is in itself due to our limit situation. Hence, they need not be explicitly wrong or false theories. There can of course be wrong theories in these, which we try to avoid in practice. Insufficient math and science may be used provisionally.

Hence, the point is that the borderline between the purely empirical and purely theoretical methods is blurred. This makes considerations of the extents of existence or non-existence of values of matter-energy in the cosmos useful for a widely based physical ontology of the cosmos. This is m contention.

If, on the large-scale evolution of the universe (and, if other universes exist, in the co-evolution of the universes), GRAVITATION IS MORE CONTRIBUTIVE, the history of the universe must be written in terms of gravitation.

There are very few who say that gravitation is a repulsive force. I believe it is an attractive force. If this is true, then GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE FORMATION OF UNIVERSES (and naturally of galaxies, their clusters, etc.) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT LARGE-SCALE PROCESS IN THE COSMOS.

In terms of this process, what shall be the history of the cosmos?

IS IT POSSIBLE HEREWITH TO CREATE ALSO A PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY OF THE COSMIC EVOLUTION (HISTORY) OF COALESCENCE FORMATION IN THE COSMOS?

HERE I WOULD DEAL WITH A QUESTION MANY DO NOT ASK:

If the universe is of infinite content, naturally it will contain an infinite number of finite-content universes. What would then be the scenario concerning the origin and evolution of the universe?

Now, let our readers not start ranting that I am cooking up some possibilities and dodging real questions in quantum cosmology like “vacuum energy creating an infinite number of universes from nowhere”, “vacuum energy being of 0 value and then adding up to an infinite number of universes”, “Everitt’s quantum universes”, etc. I would be happy if you have suggestions in this regard, as to how to really connect an infinite number of existent universes with all these vacuum energy universes and quantum universes.

If the universe is of infinite content with an infinite number of finite-content universes, we need to accept that there will be the inevitable gravitational coalescence formation tendency between these universes, between their groups, etc. Such formations need only a finite amount of time, however long, with respect to the local common time as seen from within each specific conglomeration. We cannot escape the possibility of the measuremental aspect of the changes that take place in these conglomerations, whichever level be considered at a given relative time.

Would there be an infinite number of universes in any one of these conglomerations? Naturally, no. But can we limit their finitude of content to any one amount that we determine? We can limit it as a specific amount of content – but only and merely with respect to any specific framework of time with respect to any one set of universes, universe of universes, etc.

I would be happy to get your feedback on this possibility. And then I have some seemingly insoluble cosmological scenario to suggest as a consequence of this. Before this, I want to know whether anyone of you would suggest an alternative to the gravitational coalescence formation tendency that I spoke of.

The constancy of the speed of light, or for that matter the attainment of a maximum possible velocity (a criterial velocity) must be the case only if we have a finite-content universe.

But it need not be taken as constant throughout the cosmos especially in the case where an infinite number of finite-content universes exist within the cosmos.

I claim the latter to be true because each such universe will have a different amount of matter-energy content, and hence a different total density, pressure, etc. These must be the causes of existence of a maximum velocity in each specific universe.

Now, EVEN IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT HIGHEST POSSIBLE VELOCITIES IN THE VARIOUS (INFINITE NUMBER OF) UNIVERSES IN THE COSMOS, WE HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS TO CONCLUDE THAT EACH GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE OF UNIVERSES, UNIVERSE OF UNIVERSES, etc. WILL HAVE A HIGHEST POSSIBLE ENERGY PROPAGATION VELOCITY TOO.

But this velocity will never be infinite in any one member universe. This suffices, again, to ask: WHAT WILL BE THE GENERAL SCENARIO IN THE COSMOS IF THERE IS THE GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE FORMATION TENDENCY THROUGHOUT THE INFINITE (this was the presupposition -- the other case is dealt with above, in another intervention) COSMOS.

The localization of anything -- including the minds / persons that cognize -- has so far been done in terms of the epistemic / cognitive / mental categories of space and time, and then space and time have been attributed as such to existent processes as if they were existent in space and time.

The question of localizability in the sciences is coupled with the measuremental aspects of cognized location. Hence, space and time continue to be physical-ontological categories. But the paradox of attributing epistemic categories to existent things / processes continues to baffle all.

Hence, we need primarily the physical-ontological Categories: Extension and Change, and secondarily also the epistemic categories parallel to them, i.e., space and time.

Existence in Extension (having parts) and Change (causing impacts) is itself causality, because only extended things and their parts can impact any other.

Now, if a portion of Causality is understandable as the very freedom that some beings exercise, then freedom is the ever growing distance from certain naural influences due to the intensification of certain types of activities in the subject. That is, this too is causation, but in a slightly different sense, and free actions are fully causal actions -- with the only difference that the causation in such cases of certain actions are induced more from within the subject's actions than from outside.

If such is freedom, then freedom is fully causal. This fact might cause the oft-hoped-for integration of the various sciences together into parts of one and the same scientific (and philosophical) enterprise.

It is here that the possibility of epistemic possibilization of physical ontology appears necessary.

If you find time, take a look at the interesting discussion here:

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

MATHEMATICS AND CAUSALITY:

A SYSTEMIC RECONCILIATION

Raphael Neelamkavil

I believe it is common knowledge that mathematics and its applications cannot prove causality directly. What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of causality with mathematics and its applications? The main but general explanation could be that mathematical explanations are not directly about the world but are applicable to the world to a great extent. Hence, it can only show the ways of movement of the processes and not demonstrate whether the ways are by causation.

But can logic show the necessity of all existents being causal? We have already discussed how, ontologically, the very concept of To Be implies Extension-Change and thus also Universal Causality. We shall encounter the logical aspect of the question later.

I suggest that the crux of the problem here is the dichotomy between mathematical continuity and mathematical discreteness on the one hand and the incompatibility of applying any of them directly on the data collected / collectible / interpretable from some layers of the phenomena which are from some layers of nature or of the reality in question. Not recognizing this is an epistemological foolishness.

I point at the avoidance of the problem, by the centuries of epistemological foolishness, by reason of the forgetfulness of the ontological and epistemological relevance of expressions like ‘from some layers of phenomena from some layers of the reality’. This is the point at which it is time to recognize the gross violence against reason behind phrases and statements involving ‘data from observation’, ‘data from phenomena’, ‘data from nature / reality’ etc., without epistemological and ontological astuteness.

The whole of what we used to call space is not filled with matter-energy. Hence, if causal continuity between partially discrete “processual” objects is the case, then the data collected / collectible cannot be the very processual objects and hence cannot provide all knowledge about the processual objects. But mathematics and all other research methodologies are based on human experience and thought based on experience.

Hence, it is important to define the limits of applicability of mathematics to the physics of data (under the species of various layers of their origin). This is the only way to approximate beyond the data and the methodologically derived conclusions beyond the data.

The same may be said also about logic and language. Logic is the broader rational picture of mathematics. Language is the symbolic manner of application of both logic and its quantitatively qualitative version, namely, mathematics, with respect to specific fields of inquiry. Here I do not explicitly discuss ordinary conversation, literature, etc.

We may do well to instantiate logic as the formulated picture of reason. But human reason is limited to the procedures of reasoning by brains. What exactly is the reason that existent physical processes constantly undergo? How to get at conclusions based on this reason and thus transcend at least to some extent the limitations set by data and methods?

If we may call the universal reason of Reality-in-total by a name, it is nothing but Universal Causality. It is possible to demonstrate that Universal Causality is a trans-physical, trans-scientific Law of Existence. This argument needs clarity. How to demonstrate this as the case?

A caveat is in place here about the complexity one may experience in the formulation: When I write anything here, you have the right to ask me constantly for further justifications. And if I have the right to anticipate some such questions, I will naturally attempt to be as detailed and as systemic as possible in my formulation. Each sentence is merely a part of the formulation. After reading each sentence you may pose me questions, which certainly cannot all be answered well within the sentences or after the sentences in question.

Hence, I tend to be as systemic as possible in each of the following sentences. Please do not find the arguments being too complex. We do not purposely make anything complex. Our (and your) characterizations of meanings in mathematics, physics, philosophy, and logic can be complex and prohibitive for some. But would we all accuse these disciplines or the readers if the readers find them all complex and difficult? I do not create such a state of affairs in these few sentences, but there are complexities here too. Hence, I express my helplessness in case any one of you finds these statements complex.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our merely epistemic sort of idealizations (in ideal cases, based mostly on the brain-interpreted data from some layers of phenomena, which are from some layers of the reality under observation). The processes outside are vaguely presented primarily by the processes themselves, but highly indirectly, in a natural manner. This is represented by the epistemic activity of the brain in a natural manner, and then idealized via concepts expressed in words, connectives, and sentences (not merely linguistic but also mathematical, computerized, etc.) by the symbolizing human tendency to capture the whole of the object by use of a part of the human body-mind. The symbolizing activity is based on data, but the data are not all we have.

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature as a natural conclusion by application of mathematics to nature is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences insofar as they use mathematical idealizations (another version of linguistic symbolization and idealization) to represent existent objects and processes and extrapolate further beyond them. Logic and its direct quantitatively qualitative expression as found in mathematics are, of course, powerful tools.

But, as being part of the denotative function of symbolic language, they are tendentially idealizational. By use of the same symbolizing tendency, it is perhaps possible to a certain extent to de-idealize the side-effects of the same symbols in the language, logic, and mathematics being used in order to symbolically idealize representations.

Merely mathematically following physical nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a debilitating procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities), if this procedure is not de-idealized effectively. If this is possible at least to a small and humble extent, why not do it? Our language, logic, and mathematics too do their functions well although they too are equally unable to capture the whole of reality in whatever it is, wholly or in in parts, far beyond the data and their interpretations! Why not de-idealize the side-effects of mathematics too?

This theoretical attitude of partially de-idealizing the effects of human symbolizing activity by use of the same symbolic activity accepts the existence of processual entities as whatever they are. This is what I call ontological commitment – of course, different from and more generalized than those of Quine and others. Perhaps such a generalization can give a slightly better concept of reality than is possible by the normally non-self-aware symbolic activity in language, logic, and mathematics.

This theoretical attitude facilitates and accepts in a highly generalized manner the following three points:

(1) Mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of logical, mathematical, physical, biological, social, and linguistic theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because (a) the necessity of mathematical approval of any sort of causality in the sciences and by means of its systemic physical ontology falls short miserably in actuality, and (b) logical continuity of any kind does not automatically make linguistic or mathematical symbolized representation activity adequate enough to represent the processual nature of entities as derivate from data.

(2) The concept of absolute discreteness in nature, which, as of today, is ultimately of the quantum-mechanical type based on Planck’s constant, continues to be a mathematical and physical misfit in the physical cosmos and its parts (may not of course be so in non-quantifiable “possible worlds” due to their absolute causal disconnection) and is a mere common-sense mathematical compartmentalization: (a) because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and (b) because the epistemology of unit-based thinking (not, of course, based on quantum physics) is implied by the almost unconscious tendency of symbolic activity of body-minds.

(3) The only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of existence in an extended (having parts) and changing (extended entities and their parts impacting a finite number of others in a finite amount) manner. Any existence in Extension-Change-wise manner is nothing but causal activity. Thus, insofar as everything is existent, every existent is causal. There is no time (i.e., no minute measuremental iota of Change) wherein such causal manner of existing ceases in any existent. This is causal continuity between partially discrete processual objects. This is non-mathematizable.

The attitude of treating everything as causal may also be characterized by the self-aware symbolic activity by symbolic activity itself, in which certain instances of causation are avoided or increased or avoided, all incrementally, not absolutely. This, at the most, is what may be called freedom. It is fully causal – causal not in a specific set of manners, but causal in some other specific set of manners.

Physics and cosmology even today tend to make the cosmos either (1) mathematically presupposedly continuous, or (2) discrete with defectively ideal mathematical status for causal continuity and with perfectly geometrical ideal status for specific beings, or (3) statistically indeterministic, thus compelled to consider everything as partially causal, or even non-causal in the interpretation of statistics’ orientation to epistemically logical decisions and determinations based on data. If not, can anyone suggest proofs for an alleged existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today?

The statistician does not even realize (1) that Universal Causality is already granted by the very existence of anything, and (2) that what they call non-causality is merely a specific process’ not being the cause, or not having been discovered as the cause, of a specific set of selected data or processes. Such non-causality is not with respect to all existents.

A topology and mereologically clean physical ontology of causal continuity between partially discrete processual objects, fully free of absolutely continuity-oriented or discreteness-oriented category theory, geometry, functional analysis, set theory, and logic, are yet to be born. Hence, the fundamentality of Universal Causality in its deep roots in the very concept of the To Be (namely, in the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change) of all physically and non-vacuously existent processes, is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

With respect to what we have been discussing, linguistic philosophyand even its more recent causalist child, namely, dispositionalist causal ontology have even today the following characteristics:

(1) They attribute an overly discrete nature to “entities” without ever attempting to touch the deeply Platonic (better, geometrically atomistic) shades of common-sense Aristotelianism, Thomism, Newtonianism, Modernism, Quantum Physics, etc., and without reconciling the diametrically opposite geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous.

(2) They are logically comatose about the impossibility of the exactly referential definitional approach to the processual demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects, namely, being irreducibly in finite Extension and Change and thus in Universal Causality.

(3) Hence, they are unable to get at the causally continuous (neither mathematically continuous nor geometrically discontinuous) nature of the physical-ontologically “partially discrete” processual objects in the physical world.

Phenomenology has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and due to its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to an extent to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in physically existent, processually discrete, objects in nature.

Hermeneutics has just followed the human-scientific interpretative aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it as a method. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the said fete.

Postmodern philosophies qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of the human project of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought. The linguistic-analytic philosophy in later Wittgenstein too was no exception to this nature of postmodern philosophies – a matter that many Wittgenstein followers do not notice. Take a look at the first few pages of his Philosophical Investigations, and the matter will be more than clear.

The philosophies of the sciences seem today to follow the beaten paths of extreme pragmatism in linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a foundational concept of causally concrete and processual physical existence.

Hence, it is useful for the growth of science, philosophy, and humanities alike to research into the causal continuity between partially discrete “processual” objects.

I believe it is common knowledge that mathematics and its applications cannot prove causality directly. What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of physical causality with mathematics and its applications in the sciences and in philosophy? The main but general explanation could be that mathematical explanations are not directly about the world but are applicable to the world to a great extent. Hence, mathematical explanations can at the most only show the ways of movement of the processes and not demonstrate whether the ways of the cosmos are by causation.

No science and philosophy can start without admitting that the cosmos exists. If it exists, it is not nothing, not vacuum. Non-vacuous existence means that the existents are non-vacuously extended. This means they have parts. Every part has parts too, ad libitum, because each part is extended. None of the parts is an infinitesimal. They can be near-infinitesimal. This character of existents is Extension, a Category directly implied by To Be.

Similarly, any extended being’s parts are active, moving. This implies that every part has impact on some others, not on infinite others. This character of existents is Change. No other implication of To Be is so primary as these. Hence, they are exhaustive.

Existence in Extension-Change is what we call Causality. If anything is existent, it is causal – hence Universal Causality is the trans-science physical-ontological Law of all existents. By the very concept of finite Extension-Change-wise existence it becomes clear that no finite space-time is absolutely dense with existents. Hence, existents cannot be mathematically continuous. Since there is change and transfer of impact, no existent can be absolutely discrete in its parts or in connection with others.

Can logic show the necessity of all existents being causal? We have already discussed how, ontologically, the very concept of To Be implies Extension-Change and thus also Universal Causality.

What about the ability or not of logic to conclude to Universal Causality? In my argument above and elsewhere showing Extension-Change as the very exhaustive meaning of To Be, I have used mostly only the first principles of ordinary logic, namely, Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and then argued that Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but Universal Causality if everything existing is non-vacuous in existence. For example, does everything exist or not? If yes, let us call it non-vacuous existence. Hence, Extension as the first major implication of To Be. Non-vacuous means extended, because if not extended the existent is vacuous. If extended, everything has parts.

A point of addition now has been Change. It is, so to say, from experience. Thereafter I move to the meaning of Change basically as motion or impact. Naturally, everything in Extension must effect impacts. Everything has further parts. Hence, by implication from Change, everything causes changes by impacts. Thus, we conclude that Extension-Change-wise existence is Universal Causality. It is thus natural to claim that this is a pre-scientific Law of Existence.

In such foundational questions like To Be and its implications we need to use the first principles of logic, because these are the foundational notions of all science and no other derivative logical procedure comes in as handy. In short, logic with its fundamental principles can help derive Universal Causality. Thus, Causality is more primary to experience than the primitive notions of mathematics.

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

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

All impact transfers within and between entities are extended-changing. Impact transfer is nothing but the activity called Causation. Existents are in extended-changing causal process. The relation of one impact transfer process towards the constitution of another is Causality. Hence, everything is in causal process. If anything non-causal exists, it must lose contact with causal processes and cannot be connected with anything else so to result from causal processes or non-causal processes.

That is, Causality is a derivative Category pertaining to all existents. It is derived from putting together Extension and Change. Causality (the relation) and causation (the action / activity) are act-based. In general, without direct reference to the causal aspect, and with direct reference to the entity-aspect, one can say denotatively: everything is an extended-changing process. (“Everything is in process” means adjectivally: “Everything is processual”) In fact, Causation and Processuality are interchangeable; the manner of definition alone differs. But a unit process is a set of cause and effect.

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

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

Existents have some Activity and Stability. This is a fully physical fact. These two categories may be shown to be subservient to Extension-Change. Pure vacuum (non-existence) is absence of Activity and Stability. Thus, entities, irreducibly, are active-stable processes in Extension-Change. Physical entities / processes possess finite Activity and Stability. Activity and Stability together belong to Extension; and Activity and Stability together belong to Change too. That is, Stability is not merely about space; and Activity is not merely about time. But the tradition still seems to hold so. We consider Activity and Stability as sub-categories, because they are based on Extension-Change, which together add up to Universal Causality; and each unit of cause and effect is a process.

These are not Categories that belong to merely imaginary counterfactual situations. The Categories of Extension-Change and their sub-formulations are all about existents. There can be counterfactuals that signify cases that appertain existent processes. But separating these cases from useless logical talk is near to impossible in linguistic-analytically tending logic, philosophy, and philosophy of science.

Today physics and the various sciences do something like this in that they indulge in particularistically defined terms and procedures, blindly thinking that these can directly represent the physical processes under inquiry. Concerning mathematical applications too this is the majority attitude among scientists. Hence, without a very general physical ontology of Categories that are applicable to all existent processes, all sciences are in gross handicap.

The best examples are mathematical continuity and discreteness being attributed to physical processes, which are continuous and discrete only in their Causality. This is nothing but Extension-Change-wise discrete causal continuity. At any time causality is present in anything, hence there is causal continuity. But this is different from mathematical continuity and discreteness.

I HAVE REVISED THE BASIC TEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION SESSION:

Experimentally, observationally, and observational-theoretically, some of the generalizations of any physical ontology of cosmology may, strictly speaking, be non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.

But the empirical method of the sciences is continuous with the theoretical. Both, together, form part of "reason". Note also this: Reason is not equivalent to logic. There are many sorts of logic. Reason is the general set, and the various logics are sub-sets or members.

From this viewpoint, would you admit that there seems to be the possibility of obtaining SOME REASON from the suggestion that a PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY OF THE REASON WITHIN THE COSMOS be constructed? I CALL THIS REASON UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY.

I have developed an MMM (maximal-medial-minimal) method, where the approachable values are zero, finite, and infinite -- all others being strictly of the realm of the positive sciences. Zero, finitude, and infinity may be available in the positive sciences. But in the case of zero and infinity, the attitude is that of limiting values.

Finitude is a general term. In the positive sciences there must be specific values, not generally finite values!

Of course, we do not know of infinite values in the strictest sense of the term. But on the same count we do not also know zero value except as the absence of WHAT WE CONSIDER at a given instance.

I feel that a sort of "axiomatization" is perhaps possible -- at least as a physical ontology of the cosmos, PROVIDED UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY IS DERIVABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE CONCEPT OF EXISTENCE (TO BE).

SEE:

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

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

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?

If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.

Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.

Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.

Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?

Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.

In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.

Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.

That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.

This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.

What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.

That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.

Richard Lewis added a reply

6 hours ago

Raphael Neelamkavil This is a very good point about the variable energy of the electron. All electrons will have energy given by E=hf where f is the frequency of the looped wave.

Where it is a free electron the energy is continuously variable. Where it is an electron bound to an atom the energy is restricted to specific energy levels. This is the cause of the quantisation of light.

The energy of the photon is h(f2-f1) when the electron moves from energy level 2 to 1.

Also for all matter particles the energy and frequency increase by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) when moving with velocity v relative to the space rest frame.

This paper about the hydrogen bond includes a description of the electron as a looped wave in the medium of space.

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

Richard

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

5 hours ago

Richard Lewis, thanks. I will read the article given.

Practically nobody noticed this discussion of mine. So I put it in some other discussions too. But none read it or none responded. They all know much better.

… Read more

Share

• 1 Recommendation

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

7 minutes ago

If the case of measurements of values regarding an electron is such, what about the very Planck constant? Is it not a proportionality? If the masses, energies, etc. of each electron should be different from those of all others, will the constant proportionality be constant or relatively constant?

Clearly, the range of values of the proportionality will differ from universe to universe, because of the varying densities of each universe. And we sit here thinking that these are all physical laws applicable to all universes!

I believe that most physical laws are relative to the specific universe or groups of universes. But there must be pre-physical laws. WHICH ARE THEY? ANYONE HAS GUESSES?

WHAT ARE VIRTUALS IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES?

CRITERIA TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations.

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

Discussion in ResearchGate:

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

Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics?

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

A conversation between Paul Healey and me in Academia.edu (today):

paul healey6 hrs ago

Raphael and or Peter, do either of you think a causal explanation of gravity, not for Newtonian mass is possible? Recently I have read some criticisms of Newton’s general inverse square law for it, so wondering if any other explanations have been proposed. Here’s a link that looks relevant: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03441.pdf

Thanks for any feedback in advance.

📷Like

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil Ph.D.,Dr.phil., Cosmology + Math'l Physics; Phil. of Science + Scientific, Analytic, Process, Digital, ... Systemic Metaphysics & Epistemology< 1 min ago

I have not worked on it directly in the form of a theory. But I would suggest that anything must be causal and hence also gravitons. I said 'gravitons', not merely gravitation as a mathematically treated gross phenomenon! Why should everything be causal? I shall try to explain, very simply.

As you know, any mathematical proof for causation is not a proof at all, since math cannot touch it. Math can only see or show some of the ways in which causation works.

Let me first explain causality in a new manner; and then return to gravitation.

You do believe that whatever exists, exists. Now apply the law of contradiction. Whatever does not exist, does not. Let us name the latter as pure vacuum, non-entity, etc. If anything is not vacuous, it should have some extension, i.e., should have parts.

This is, therefore, a self-evident implication of the notion of To Be. I call it the metaphysical / physical-ontological Category of Extension, because it is one of the basic natures of all existents. Now, anything in Extension is not infinitely intense, i.e., there are not all the same extended stuff.

The additional information needed here is empirical: that there are movements in such extended stuff. If so, then it means that everything extended has some movement, which automatically should affect something else -- but not affect all else. This is impact generation. I call it the metaphysical / physical-ontological Category of Change.

If something in Extension has Change, such an existence is "already impact generation (Change) by parts (Extension)". This is what we used to call Causality. That is, the very two implications of To Be, when taken together, is nothing but THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF CAUSALITY. Everything existent must be causal.

Now, back to gravitons. If they are just a non-existent but mathematical construct, we do not have to bother about them. But if they are existent (which is the only other possibility), then they too must be causal.....!

I have revised the lead text (see directly under the title of the discussion: Mathematics and Causality: A Systemic Reconciliation). Now it has become 8 pages in A-4. See the link below.

I believe your questions may be answered here in my humble manner. Further questions and suggestions are most welcome. Thanks.

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

How to philosophize? How to philosophize in the sciences?

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

Scientific Metaphysical Categories beyond Heidegger

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

Minimal Metaphysical Physicalism (MMP), Panpsychisms, and Monisms

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

What about this conversation?

Wolfgang Konle added a reply

22 minutes ago

Raphael Neelamkavil "Gravitational waves are..."

Gravitational waves are oscillations of a cosmic medium of gravitational nature. This medium overcompensates the negative energy density E of gravitiational fields. (E= -g²/(8πG)). It is omnipresent with a pressure, which equals E and a mass density which equals E/c². According to wave theory this medium supports compressional waves with a propagation velocity c.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

4 minutes ago

The negative energy you speak of in theory is not an energy that has a negative effect on matter-energy. It is negative due to the math involved. The notion of omnipresence should now be clarified and the reason for gravitation being an omnipresent God should be given. If not so omnipresent, but here less and there more, then the reason should not be just a theoretical need, but instead, a real existence of gravitation (as gravitons) here less and there more!

I feel that you are trying to cover up the non-commitment to gravitation's extra-theoretical and existence. Covering it up perhaps in the theoretical necessities in the form of a negative substitute for some missing form of energy?

Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?

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

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.

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

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

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

How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?

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

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

If anyone wants to read about a fantastic concept of the existence of consciousness and non-existence of the cosmos, see the comments till today here, by L Kurt Engelhart.......!!! Here you can learn the meaning of solipsism.... similar to mathematical platonism creating ideas / notions into objects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

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

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

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

Henry Margenau in his article “Einstein’s Conception of Reality” in Paul Schilpp’s collection Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1970) suggests the relationship between physicists and philosophers: “Every discoverer of a new physical principle makes an important contribution to philosophy, even though he may not discuss it in philosophical terms.” (Margenau 1970: 246)

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/LINGUISTIC_HERESY_BEHIND_SELF-ORGANIZATION_SELF-REFERENCE_INTENTIONALITY_PHYSICAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_SELF-INTERACTION_etc

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preprint FROM PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY TO LINGUISTICS AND INFORMATION

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

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

Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME

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

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

Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY

Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...

Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY

Preprint Chapter 6. COSMOGENESIS IN QUANTUM COSMOLOGY

Preprint Chapter 9. GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY Part I

Preprint GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (22 pp.) Part II