The brain is too small for some people to see God behind the chaos. The chaos theory claims that within the seemingly randomness of chaotic complex systems, "there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization. The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions"

The universe is so diverse that a theory of everything is impossible. People's desire to know everything in a simple and perceptible way, to synthesize everything in a book, like a super-pill, is old. I don't think we can speak of a limitation of man in this sense, but rather of the impossibility of integrating such different phenomena in a single theory.

I took my study at the university of Eindhoven in the sixties of the last century and finished with a specialization in theoretical physics. In current terms, I am a master of science. Currently, the physical part of the TUE focuses on applied physics. During my studies, I already suspected that theoretical physics is not well-founded and needs repair. That is why I started the Hilbert Book Model project after my retirement. I started it when I was 70 years old. During my career, I worked in the High-tech industry and helped as an optical expert in the development of night vision devices and X-ray image intensifiers. Together with others, I wrote several standards for STANAG, ISO, IEC, and DIN about the Optical transfer function (OTF) and the detective quantum efficiency (DQE). At low dose rates, the image intensifier devices show you the behavior of individual photons or individual elementary particles.

That is why I wrote Preprint The setbacks of theoretical physics

S. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist

I have learned to be suspicious about religions and about my own intuition.

In my view, God is an invention of humans that wanted an explanation of what they observed. Otherwise not so many gods would exist. Believing is everybody's private right but you better be cautious about what you believe.

Several historic philosophers learned us how to reason in a logical way.

Still, I believe that Christ and Mohamed are historic persons. Christ was Armenian.

Investigate what happened at the first council of Nicea. There, emperor Constantine established a new bible. When he afterward returned home he killed his wife and her lover.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad

We are capable of this. To succeed we must include consciousness.

I think the parameters to be assumed in a unified theory OF THE MANY THEORIES OF THE UNIVERSE will in any case be different from those of ordinary physics. Such a unification might need slightly different starting points or assumptions. I have the following suggestion. Not elaborate enough to meet all possible questions on this, but a suggestion.

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". Please 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 cosmology be constructed?

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 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.

FROM WITHIN SUCH A THEORY, PERHAPS A UNIFICATION IS THINKABLE.

Although a foolproof ToE is surely unreachable, why not have some general notions of physical existents that might make us capable of producing a general physical theory of the cosmos with a sufficiently good mathematical representation of physical processes? A topology and mereology of this level are yet to be born, perhaps. But I do hope that such a generalization is viable, although not exactly fitting up with all details of the empirical data already available.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Cosmology is as much out of reach of experimental astronomers as quantum physics is out of reach of experimental particle physicists.

Humans live in a prison that is defined by their lifetime and the speed of light. On the other hand, humans are fooled by the stochastic processes that rule the behavior of the quanta. We might generate a theory about what currently happens on Earth. Applied physics is flourishing and is quite correct. Theoretical physics contains flaws, is incomplete, and lacks a proper foundation.

Friend, how fantastic arguments and conclusions! "Applied physics is flourishing and is quite correct. Theoretical physics contains flaws, is incomplete, and lacks a proper foundation."

Let me argue back in the same coin: Theoretical physics is flourishing and is quite correct. Applied physics contains flaws, is incomplete, and lacks a proper foundation." Why not? You seem to be bifurcating theoretical physics and applied physics!

Yet another claim of yours. "Cosmology is as much out of reach of experimental astronomers as quantum physics is out of reach of experimental particle physicists." Here I am not in any one of these parties. I do not also claim that you put me in any one of these. But the claim that both cosmology and quantum physics are out of reach of observational and experimental astronomers is not any solution to the irreducible connection between all these sciences!

During my career, I was an optical expert in the high-tech industry. I helped design and improve image intensifier devices. Part of my activity was to help establish the worldwide standards for the measurement and specification of the Optical Transfer Function (OTF), its modulus the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), and the Detective Quantum Efficiency(DQE). STANAG, ISO, IEC, and DIN accepted these standards. The low radiation dose conditions in which image intensifier devices work are close to the conditions that determine the behavior of quantum particles. In this way, I had a unique view of quantum physics. I designed and built much of my measuring equipment. All these experiences gave me a broad impression of theoretical as well as experimental physics. I have put this view in the Hilbert Book Model. I consider it a well-founded model. If you disagree, you are morally obliged to state a better alternative. See: Preprint The setbacks of theoretical physics

I did not claim that I read all your works. I did not question your experience. But the question here is not about rightness and falsehood. I asked some general questions of concern. If you are not ready to answer those general questions, you may also be "morally obliged" (as you told me) to produce a theory that answers these general concerns.

The Hilbert Book Model (HBM) bases on the existence of the special set. It is special because it features phases and phase transitions. The phase transitions cannot occur in a step-by-step fashion. This was already partly discovered by the group around David Hilbert that investigated set theory in the first decades of the twentieth century. Hilbert retired and other members of the group were threatened by the Nazis. They flew outside their reach in Switzerland and the USA. That stopped their investigation into set theory. The HBM picks this investigation up and establishes a scheme from which a theory of almost everything can be derived. Stochastic processes prevent the derivation of a complete theory of everything. Physical reality appears to apply stochastic processes. The elementary fermions in the Standard Model of the experimental particle physicists prove this with the huge luminosity of their measuring machines. The SM is spoiled with theories that do not belong there. These are QFT, QED, and QCD. Also, the Higgs has no proper experimental foundation. The SM does not classify photons properly. Shock fronts that superimpose in huge quantities such that they become observable should also belong in the SM but are falsely categorized as dark objects.

The signal is that if unbounded stochastic processes occur, certainties become unprovable.