Physics - Science topic

can someone guide me to the equation of SINGLE ATOM of any element? which equation that defines it's birth?

Thanks

1)No one can predict the future completely accurately.

2)So, all beings probably have a unique enough form.

3)Plus, the most fundamental essence of reality is unknown.

4)Thus, upon death, each being probably doesn't return.

5) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation

“According to general theory of relativity, gravitation is not a force but a property of spacetime geometry. A test particle and light move in response to the geometry of the spacetime.”[1] Einstein's interpretation of gravity is purely geometrical, where even a free point particle without any properties and any interactions, moves in a curved spacetime along geodesics, but which are generated by the energy tensor T_µν [2]. Why isn't gravity generated directly by T_µν, but must take a circuitous route and be generated by the geometry of spacetime G_µν^‡?

G_µν=G*T_µν

This is Einstein's field equation, and the Einstein tensor G_µν describes the Space-Time Curvature. We know that in classical mechanics and quantum field theory, it is the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian quantities that determine motion. Motion is essentially generated by energy-momentum interactions. Why is it irrelevant to energy-momentum in GR? Einstein had always expected the unification of electromagnetic and gravitational forces to be geometrically realized [3]^*. Is such an expectation an exclusion of energy-momentum interactions in motion? Can the ultimate unification of forces be independent of energy-momentum and manifest itself only in motion in pure spacetime? If not, one of these must be wrong.

-----------------------------

^* "After his tremendous success in finding an explanation of gravitation in the geometry of space and time, it was natural that he should try to bring other forces along with gravitation into a “unified field theory” based on geometrical principles."

^‡ If one thinks that it holds only at Tµν = 0, see the next question NO.37: Is there a contradiction in the Schwarzschild spacetime metric solution?

-----------------------------

[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8

[2] Earman, J., & Glymour, C. (1978). Einstein and Hilbert: Two months in the history of general relativity. Archive for history of exact sciences, 291-308.

[3] Weinberg, S. (2005). Einstein’s Mistakes. Physics Today, 58(11).

According to one popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, if you are experiencing a challenging life, there exists a universe where you are thriving. Meanwhile, in another universe, you might be a mighty king or queen who is unmatched in power and fame. This idea, known as the "Many-Worlds Interpretation," suggests that every decision and action lead to the creation of a new universe.

For example, when you come to a junction and decide to turn left, an entirely new universe is created where you turned right. In this view, billions of new universes are created in the blink of an eye, constantly branching out from every possible event or choice.

This raises an interesting question: When was our universe created? Was it 40 years ago when a young bachelor proposed to his girlfriend, and she rejected him, causing the creation of our universe where she joyfully accepted the ring, leading to their happy life together? Or was it just three years ago when a toddler fell ill and died in his mother's arms, causing the creation of our universe where he survived?

Given this perspective, can we really determine the age of our universe? Traditional physics suggests that our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang, but quantum mechanics introduces the possibility of infinitely branching timelines. While we may be able to measure the age of our observable universe, the idea of multiple universes complicates the notion of a singular timeline or fixed creation point. Thus, determining the age of our universe in this context may ultimately be impossible.

Please comment.

To date the presence of Dark Energy, the energy which constitutes the very fabric of space time, has remained a mystery. However new research points to a definitive answer to the presence of space time and the value of Hubble's constant. Here we invite open access research and discussion to probe the mysteries and very nature of Dark Energy.

In his article "More is different", Anderson said that new laws of physics "emerge" at each physical level and new properties appear [1]; Wheeler, when claiming that "law without law" and "order comes out of disorder", argued that chaotic phenomena " generate" different laws of physics [2][3]. What they mean is that the laws, parameters, and constants of the upper level of physics appear to be independent of the laws of physics of the lower level. Is this really the case? Are we ignoring the conditions that form the physical hierarchy, thus leading to this illusion?

Let's suppose a model. The conditions for the formation of new levels are at least two: i. Existence of low-level things A,B ...... , the existence of interaction modes a, b,...... ; two, the existence of a sufficient number of low-level things, NxA, MxB....... Then when they are brought together, there are many possible combinations, e.g., (AA), (AAA), (AAA)', ...... , (AB), (BA), (AAB)', (BAB), ........ Then it escalates to [(AA)(AA)], [(AB)(ABA)], ....... What this actually leads to is a change in the structure of things and a corresponding change in the way they interact. The result of the "change" is the appearance of new physical phenomena, new forces, and so on.

Physics is an exact match for math, so let's use math as an example of this phenomenon. Suppose we have a number of strings (threads) that can be regarded as underlying things, then, when a string is curled into a circle, L=2πR, the law of the relationship between the length of the string and its radius, and the irrational constant π appear; when two strings are in cascade, L=l₁+l₂, the law that the total length of the string is equal to the sum of the individual string lengths (Principle of superposition) appears; and, when three strings form a right triangle, the law of Pythagoras, c²=a²+b², the law of sums of interior angles of triangles ∠A + ∠B + ∠C = 180° , and the irrational constant √2 appear ...... ; and the transcendental number e appears when the string length L grows in a fixed proportion (continuous compound interest)[4]^‡ ...... ; when the string vibrates, sine waves (sinωt) appear; when two strings are orthogonal, i appears ...... ; and when more kinds of vibrating strings are superimposed under specific conditions, more phenomena appear ^*.......

All these "qualitative changes" do not seem to be caused by "quantitative changes", but more by the need to change the structure. As mathematical theorems emerge, so must the laws of physics, and it is impossible for physics to transcend mathematics. Therefore, as long as there is a change of structure in physics, i.e. the possibility of symmetry breaking [5]^**, new "symmetries", new "laws", new "forces", new "constants", new "parameters" are almost inevitable.

Can we try to attribute all physical phenomena to emergence under hierarchical structural conditions? For example, the fine structure constant^‡‡and the Pauli exclusion principle emerge because of the formation of atomic structure; the "nuclear force" emerges because of the combination of protons and neutrons; The "strong interaction force" and "weak interaction force" appeared because of the structure of protons and neutrons. We should pay attention to the causal relationship here. Without structure, there would be no new phenomena; it is the more fundamental interactions that form structure, not these new "phenomena".

-----------------------------

* e.g. Blackbody radiation law, Bose statistics, Fermi statistics, etc.

** Should there be "spontaneous symmetry breaking"? Any change in symmetry should have a cause and a condition.

‡ What does it mean in physics if e will appear everywhere and the individual mathematical constants appear so simply? They must likewise appear at the most fundamental level of physics.

‡‡ https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO33_What_Does_the_Dimensionless_Nature_of_the_Fine-Structure_Constant_Mean

-----------------------------

[1] Anderson, P. W. (1972). More Is Different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science.

. Science, 177(4047), 393-396. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.177.4047.393

[2] Wheeler, J. A. (1983). ‘‘On recognizing ‘law without law,’’’Oersted Medal Response at the joint APS–AAPT Meeting, New York, 25 January 1983. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 398-404.

[3] Wheeler, J. A. (2018). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. Feynman and computation, 309-336.

[4] Reichert, S. (2019). e is everywhere. Nature Physics, 15(9), 982-982. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0655-9;

[5] Nambu, Y. (2009). Nobel Lecture: Spontaneous symmetry breaking in particle physics: A case of cross fertilization. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(3), 1015.

Longwinded Speculation 1:

Long winded Speculation 2:

TRYING to BEGIN a concise chart:

My latest work:

Imagine an enormous cylinder in a flat landscape. You are standing along the inner edge. How big would the cylinder need to be for you to not see the curvature? I.e., Instead think you are standing along a completely flat wall. Consider an average person with average eyesight. Would happily accept both the motivation, answer and calculation.

Bonus question: If you had any particular practical tools to your disposal to improve your estimate of the curvature in this scenario, what would they be and how would they help?

White denial of systemic racism will cause civilization to collapse:

1)

2)

3)

For those who are interested in Upcoming Events "CONFERENCES and WEBINARS" in 19-20 March 2025.

International Conference on Optics, Lasers and Photonics:

International Conference on Physics and Quantum Physics:

We are trying to sputter a metallic target. We can clearly see the plasma however after depositing for more than 30 minutes there is no deposition on the substrate. What can be the reason for this? need expert advice.

Thanks!

Maybe we should identify what is the most parsimonious afterlife. Expanding the law of identity, maybe physics can determine the exact afterlife all have coming.

My previous attempts:

Guessing what the afterlife broadly is:

1)

Guessing what the afterlife is NOT.

2)

3)

4)

Of course I sometimes doubt the afterlife is eternal salvation for all, so, I live and deduce what it might be...

1)

2)

1)Maybe I'm slightly less intuitive. I

consider myself kind of a skeptical empiricist/critical rationalist.

2)I don't believe concepts are eternal because they need to be adjusted to avoid contradictions.

3)Without some transcendence beyond materialism, we would NOT be able to reason.

4)Maybe reason is the ONLY absolute CONCEPT. And reason derives from God.

5)Concepts also aid execution thus, maybe I'm a more skeptical Aristotelian.

Sources:

1)

2)

I have defined matter and energy as follows (elsewhere), but is it possible to define them independent of each other?

Meanings of ‘Matter’ and ‘Energy’ Contrasted: By ‘matter’ I mean whatever exists as the venue of finite activities of existents and itself finitely active in all parts. Matter is whatever is interconvertible with existent energy.

Existent ‘energy’ is conceived as those propagative wavicles which, in a given world of existents, function as the fastest existent media of communication of someeffects between any two or more chunks of matter or of energy (i.e., of motions / changes).

Existent matter and existent energy are inter-convertible, and hence both should finally be amenable to a common definition: whatever exists with, in all parts, finite activity and stability.

By reason of the application of the Lorentz Factor [(1 - (v squared / c squared)) raised to the power of 1/2] in the denominator of equations, luminal and other comparable energy propagations take on one and the same velocity. This is the relativity-effect (better, comparative effect) between v of objects, compared to c of the speed of light. That is, it is presupposed here that c is the object of comparison for determining the speed effect of velocity difference across a duration.

It is against the criterion-velocity itself c that c becomes unsurpassable! Hence, I am of the opinion that the supposed source-independence is nothing but an effect of OUR APPARATUS-WISE OBSERVATION LIMIT AND OUR FIXING OF THE CRITERION OF OBSERVATION AS THE OBSERVED VELOCITY OF LIGHT.

In this circumstance, it is useless to claim that (1) luminal and some other energy propagations with velocity c are source-independent, and (2) these wavicles have zero rest mass, since the supposed source-independence have not been proved theoretically or experimentally without using c cas the criterion velocity. The supposed source-independence is merely an effect of c-based comparison.

Against this background, it is possible to be assured that photons and other similar c-wavicles are extended particles -- varying their size throughout the course of motion in the spiral manner. Hence the acceptability of the term 'wavicle'. Moreover, each mathematical point of the spiral motion is to be conceived not as two-, but as three-dimensional, and any point of motion added to it justifies its fourth dimension. Let us call motion as change.

These four dimensions are measuremental, hence the terms 'space' (three-dimensional) and 'time' (one-dimensional). This is also an argument countering the opinion that in physics and cosmology (and other sciences) time is not attested!

The measurements of the 3-space and measurements of the 1-time are not in the wavicles and in the things being measured. The measurements are the cognitive characteristics of the measurements.

IN FACT, THE EXTENSION OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'SPACE', AND THE CHANGE OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'TIME'. Hence, the physically out-there-to-find characteristics of the wavicles and objects are EXTENSION AND CHANGE.

Extension is the quality of all existing objects by which they have parts. This is not space. Change is the quality by which they have motion, i.e., impact generation on other similar wavicles and/or objects. This is not time. Nothing has space and time; nothing is in space and time. Everything is in Extension-Change.

Any wavicle or other object existing in Extension-Change is nothing but impact generation by physically existent parts. This is what we term CAUSATION. CAUSALITY is the relation of parts of physical existents by which some are termed cause/s and the others are termed effect/s. IN FACT, THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE PARTS, WHICH BEGINS THE IMPACT, IS THE CAUSE; AND THE SECOND ASPECT IS THE CAUSE. Cause and effect are, together, one unit of continuous process.

Since energy wavicles are extended, they have parts. Hence, there can be other, more minute, parts of physical objects, which can define superluminal velocities. Here, the criterion of measurement of velocity cannot be c. That is all...! Hence, superluminal velocities are a must by reason of the very meaning of physical existence.

THE NOTION OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ('TO BE') IS COMPLELTEY EXHAUSTED BY THE NOTIONS OF EXTENSION AND CHANGE. Hence, I call Extension and Change as the highest physical-ontological Categories. A metaphysics (physical ontology) of the cosmos is thus feasible. I have been constructing one such. My book-length publications have been efforts in this direction.

I invite your contributions by way of critiques and comments -- not ferocious, but friendly, because I do not claim that I am the last word in any science, including philosophy of physics.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

In relativity (GTR, STR) we hear of masslessness. What is the meaning of it with respect to really (not merely measurementally) existent particles / waves?

I am of the opinion that, while propagating, naturally, wavicles have mass, and there is no situation where they are absolutely at rest or at rest mass. But we know that there are zero rest masses in physics. These are in my opinion masses obtained when the moving wavicle is relatively at rest. Thus, the energy here is supposed to be at a relative zero.

But such a relative rest is obtainable only with respect to a few movements (under consideration at a given relativistic situation); and always there will be some other physical processes around and within, with respect to which the zero rest mass wavicle already contextually taken as in zero rest mass is not at zero rest mass and zero energy.

If the relatively achieved zero rest mass and/or non-zero mass may always be conceived as the real mass, then nothing has a constant and permanent "own mass". In that case, any specific contextual mass must be fixed for contexts only, and the only thing that may be spoken of its mass is "finite", "non-zero and non-infinite".

This is a thing I have been thinking of giving as a realistic example for a method that I had developed in my 2018 book, in order to characterize the various, most general, accessible values attributable to processes. This is what I have called the maximal-medial-minimal (MMM) method of determining cosmological, physical, and other forms of access values of existent processes.

But I forgot to write down the said example. Recently I wrote it down as an example for discussing it in another book. But I realize that I can write a detailed section of a chapter about it.

The MMM method is based on determining the space, time, matter-energy content, etc. of anything, including the whole cosmos, as being of infinite or finite or zero value of any quantity. I have shown in the said book that this can be developed not only into a method in the philosophy of physics but also in the most general foundational notions and principles of all sciences.

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

With an introductory apology for repeating a few definitions in various arguments here below and justifying the same as necessary for clarity, I begin to differentiate between the foundations of the concept of complexity in the physical sciences and in philosophy. I reach the conclusion as to what in the concept of complexity is problematic, because the complexity in physical and biological processes may not be differentiable in terms of complexity alone.

Thereafter I build a concept much different from complexity for application in the development of brains, minds, consciousness etc. I find it a fine way of saving causation, freedom, the development of the mental, and perhaps even the essential aspects of the human and religious dimension in minds.

Concepts of complexity considered in the sciences are usually taken in general as a matter of our inability to achieve measuremental differentiation between certain layers of measurementally integrated events within a process or set of processes and the same sort of measurementally integrated activities within another process or set of processes.

But here there is an epistemological defect: We do not get every physical event and every aspect of one physical event to measure. We have just a layer of the object’s total events for us to attempt to measure. This is almost always forgotten by any scientist doing complexity science. One tends to generalize the results for the case of the whole object! Complexity in the sciences is not at all a concept exactly of measurement of complexity in one whole physically existent process within itself or a set of processes within themselves.

First, what is termed as complexity in an entity is only the measure of our inability to achieve measurements of that part of a layer of process which has been measured or attempted to be measured. Secondly, always there is a measuremental comparison in the sciences in order to fix the measure of complexity in the aspects that are measured or attempted to measure. This is evidently a wrong sort of concept.

The essential difference here must be sharpened further. As a result of what is said above, the following seems more appropriate. Instead of being a measure of the complexities of one or a set of processes, complexity in science is a concept of the difference between (1) our achieved abilities and inabilities to achieve the measurement of actual complexity of certain levels of one physical process or a set of processes and (2) other types of levels of the extent of our ability and inability to measurement within another process or set of processes. This is strange with respect to the claims being made of complexity of whichever physical process a science considers to measure the complexity.

If a scientist had a genuine measurement of complexity, one would not have called it complexity. We have no knowledge of a higher or highest complexity to compare a less intense complexity with. In all cases of complexity science, what we have are just comparisons with either more or less intense complexities. This makes the concept of complexity very complex to deal with.

On a neutral note, each existent physical process should possess great complexity. How much? We do not know exactly; but we know exactly that it is neither infinite nor zero. This truth is the Wisdom of complexity. Let us call it complexity philosophy. This philosophical concept of complexity within the thing itself (CI) is different from the methodologically measurement-based concept of complexity (CM) in the sciences. In CM, only the measured and measurable parts of complexity are taken into consideration and the rest of the aspects and parts of the existent physical process under consideration are forgotten.

If this were not true, the one who proposes this is bound to prove that all the aspects and parts of the physical process or at least of the little layer of it under measurement are already under any one or more or all measurementally empirical procedures with respect to or in terms of that layer of the process.

To explain the same differently, the grade of complexity in the sciences is the name of the difference (i.e., in terms of ‘more’ or ‘less’) between the grades of difficulty and ease of measuring a specific layer of causal activity within one process and a comparable or non-comparable layer of causal activity in another.

Both must be measured in terms of the phenomena received from them and the data created of them. Naturally, these have been found to be too complex to measure well enough, because we do not directly measure, but instead measure in terms of scales based on other more basic scales, phenomena, and data. But the measure-elements titled infinite-finite-zero are slightly more liberated of the directly empirically bound notions. I anticipate some arguing that even these are empirically bound. I am fully agreed. The standpoint from which I called the former as formed out of directly empirically bound notions is different, that is all.

Both the above (the grades of difficulty and ease of measuring a specific layer of causal activity within one process and a comparable or non-comparable layer of causal activity in another) must be measured in terms of certain modes of physical phenomena and certain scales set for these purposes. But this is not the case about the scale of infinity-finitude-zero, out of which we can eternally choose finitude for the measure of ease and difficulty of measuring a specific layer of causal activity without reference to any other.

The measure-difference between the causal activities is not the complexity, nor is it available to be termed so. Instead, complexity is the difference between (1) the ease and difficulty of measuring the one from within the phenomena issuing from certain layers of the physical process and the data created by us out of the phenomena, and (2) the ease and difficulties of measuring the same in the other.

In any case, this measure-difference of ease and difficulty with respect to the respective layers of the processes can naturally be only of certain layers of activity within the processes, and not of all the layers and kinds of activity in them both. Evidently, in the absence of scale-based comparison, their complexity cannot be termed a high or a low complexity considered within itself. Each such must be compared with at least another such measurementally determined layer/s of process in another system.

The question arises now as to whether any process under complexity inquiry has other layers of activity arising from within themselves and from within the layers themselves from which directly the phenomena have issued and have generated the data within the bodily, conscious, and cognitive system of the subjects and their instruments.

Here the only possible answer is that there is an infinite number of such layers in any finite-content physical processual entity, and within any layer of a process we can find infinite other sub-layers, and between the layers and sub-layers there are finite causal connections, because every existent has parts that are in Extension and Change.

The infinite number of such complexity layers are each arrangeable in a scale of decremental content-strength in such a way that no finite-content process computes up to infinite content-strength. This does not mean that there are no actual differences between any two processes in the complexity of their layers of activity, or in the total activity in each of them.

Again, what I attempt to suggest here is that the measured complexity of anything or of any layer of anything is just a scale-based comparison of the extent of our capacity to discover all the complexity within one process or layer of process, as compared to the same in another process or layer of process.

Any generalization of processes in themselves concerning their complexity proper (i.e., the extent of our capacity to discover all the complexity within one process or one layer of activities of a process) must now be concluded to be in possession of only the quantitative qualities that never consist of a specific or fixed scale-based number, because the comparison is on a range-scale of ‘more than’ and ‘less than’.

This generalization is what we may at the most be able to identify regarding the complexity within any specific process without any measuremental comparison with another or many others. Non-measuremental comparison is therefore easier and truer in the general sense; and measuremental comparison is more applicable in cases of technical and technological achievements.

The latter need not be truer than the former, if we accept that what is truer must be more general than specific. Even what is said merely of one processual object must somehow be applicable to anything that is of the same nature as the specific processual object. Otherwise, it cannot be a generalizable truth. For this reason, the former seems to be truer than the latter.

Now there are only three possibilities for the said sort of more general truth on comparative complexity: accepting the infinite-finite-zero values as the only well-decidable values. I have called them the Maximal-Medial-Minimal (MMM) values in my work of 2018, namely, Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology.

Seen from this viewpoint, everything physically existent has great processual-structural complexity, and this is neither infinite nor zero, but merely finite – and impossible to calculate exactly or even at any satisfactory exactitude within a pre-set scale, because (1) the layers of a process that we attempt to compute is but a mere portion of the process as such, (2) each part of each layer has an infinite number of near-infinitesimal parts, and (3) we are not in a position to get at much depths and breadths into all of these at any time.

Hence, the two rationally insufficient conclusions are:

(1) The narrowly empirical-phenomenologically measuremental, thus empirically partially objective, and simultaneously empirically sufficiently subjective amount of complexity (i.e., the extent of our capacity and incapacity to discover all the complexity) in any process by use of a scale-level comparison of two or more processes.

(2) The complexity of entities without having to speak about their existence in every part in Extension-Change and the consequently evident Universal Causality.

These are the empirically highly insulated, physical-ontologically insufficiently realistic sort of concept of complexity that the sciences entertain and can entertain. Note that this does not contradict or decry technological successes by use of scientific truths. But claiming them to be higher truths on complexity than philosophical truths is unjustifiable.

Now the following question is clearly answerable. What is meant by the amount of complexity that any existent physical process can have in itself? The only possible answer would be that of MMM, i.e., that the complexity within any specific thing is not a comparative affair within the world, but only determinable by comparing the complexity in physical processes with that in the infinitely active and infinitely stable Entity (if it exists) and the lack of complexity in the zero-activity and zero-stability sort of pure vacuum. It can also be made based on a pre-set or conventionalized arithmetic scale, but such cannot give the highest possible truth probability, even if it is called “scientific”.

MMM is the most realistic generalization beyond the various limit possibilities of scale-controlled quantities of our incapacity to determine the amount of complexity in any layer of processes, and without incurring exact numbers, qualifications, etc. The moment a clear measuremental comparison and pinning up the quantity is settled for, it becomes a mere scientific statement without the generality that the MMM realism offers.

Nonetheless, measuremental studies have their relevance in respect of their effects in specific technological and technical circumstances. But it must be remembered that the application of such notions is not directly onto the whole reality of the object set/s or to Reality-in-total, but instead, only to certain layers of the object set/s. Truths at that level do not have long life, as is clear from the history of the sciences and the philosophies that have constantly attempted to limit philosophy with the methods of the sciences.

Consider any existent process in the cosmos. It is in a state of finite activity. Every part of a finite-content process has activity in every one of its near-infinitesimal parts. This state of having activity within is complexity. In general, this is the concept of complexity. It is not merely the extent of our inability to measure the complexity in anything in an empirical manner.

Every process taken in itself has a finite number of smaller, finite, parts. The parts spoken of here are completely processual. Nothing remains in existence if a part of it is without Extension or without Change. An existent part with finite Extension and Change together is a unit process when the cause part and the effect part are considered as the aspects or parts of the part in question.

Every part of a part has parts making every part capable of being a unit process and in possession of inner movements of extended parts, all of which are in process. This is what I term complexity. Everything in the cosmos is complex. We cannot determine the level of complexity beyond the generalized claim that complexity is normally limited within infinite or finite or zero, and that physical and biological processes in the cosmos come within the finitude-limit.

Hereby is suggested also the necessity of combining the philosophical truth about complexity and the scientific concept of the same for augmentation of theoretical and empirical-scientific achievements in the future. While determining scientifically the various natures and qualities of complexity, chaos, threshold states, etc. in a manner not connected to the philosophical concept of it based on the MMM method of commitment access to values of content and their major pertinents, then, scientific research will remain at an elementary level – although the present theoretical, experimental, and technological successes may have been unimaginably grand. Empirical advancement must be based on the theoretical.

Constant effort to differentiate anything from anything else strongly, by making differentiations between two or more processes and the procedures around them, is very much part of scientific research. In the procedural thrust and stress related to these, the science of complexity (and all other sciences, sub-sciences, etc.) suffer from the lack of ontological commitment to the existence of the processes in Extension-Change and Universal Causality.

The merely scientific attitude is due to a stark deficit of the most general and deepest possible Categories that can pertain to them, especially to Extension-Change and Universal Causality. Without these, the scientist will tend to work with isolated and specifically determined causal processes and identify the rest as non-causal, statistically causal, or a-causal!

The above discussion shows that the common concept of complexity is not the foundation on which biological evolution, growth of consciousness, etc. can directly be based. I have plans to suggest a new concept.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. They call themselves or attempt to be as quantitative as possible. But are adequate comparisons between mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, human sciences, and philosophy, and adequate adaptation of the axiomatic method possible by creating a system of all exact, physical, and human sciences that depend only on the quantitively qualitative proportionalities and call them invariables?

They cannot do well enough to explain Reality-in-total, because Reality-in-total primarily involves all sorts of ontological universals that are purely qualitative, and some of them are the most fundamental, proportionality-type, quantitative invariables of all physical existents in their specificity and totality in their natural kinds. But as the inquiry comes to Reality-in-total, ontological qualitative universals must come into the picture. Hence, merely quantitative (mathematical) explanations do not exhaust the explanation of Reality-in-total.

Existence as individuals and existence in groups are not differentiable and systematizable in terms of quantitatively qualitative universals alone. Both qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals are necessary for this. Both together are general qualities pertaining to existents in their processual aspect, not merely in their separation from each other. Therefore, the primitive notions (called traditionally as Categories) of Reality-in-total must be ontological qualitative universals involving both the qualitative and quantitative aspects. The most basic of universals that pertain properly to Reality-in-total are now to be found.

Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge so that the axioms of a system of Reality take shape from a set of the highest possible ontological Categories as simple sentential formulations of the Categories which directly imply existents? This must be deemed necessary for philosophy, natural sciences, and human sciences, because these deal with existents, unlike the formal sciences that deal only with the qualitatively quantitative form of arguments.

Thus, in the case of mathematics and logic there can be various sorts of quantitative and qualitative primitive notions (categories) and then axioms that use the primitive notions in a manner that adds some essential, pre-defined, operations. But the sciences and philosophy need also the existence of their object-processes. For this reason, the primitive axioms can be simple sentential formulations involving the Categories and nothing else. This is in order to avoid indirect existence statements and to involve existence in terms exclusively of the Categories.

Further, the sciences together could possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions of all knowledge, from which also the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived. I support this view because the physical-ontological Categories involving the existence of Reality and realities, in my opinion, must be most general and fully exhaustive of the notion of To Be (existence) in a qualitatively universal manner that is applicable to all existents in their individual processual and total processual senses.

Today the nexus or the interface of the sciences and philosophies is in a crisis of dichotomy between truth versus reality. Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But who, in scientific and philosophical practice, wants to draw unto the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths, and not final truths as such?

Finalized truths as such may be concluded to in cases where there is natural and inevitable availability of an absolute right to use the logical Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, especially in order to decide between concepts related to the existence and non-existence of anything out there.

Practically very few may be seen generalizing upon and extrapolating from this metaphysical and logical state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences. In the name of practicality, ever less academicians want today to connect ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total by drawing from the available and imaginable commonalities of both.

The only thinkable way to accentuate the process of access to ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total is to look for the truest possible of all truths with foundations on existence (nominal) / existing (gerund) / To Be (verbal). The truest are those propositions where the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle can be applied best. The truest are not generalizable and extendable merely epistemologically, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.

The agents that permit generalization and extrapolation are the axioms that are the tautologically sentential formulations of the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the Categories of all that exist – that too with respect to the existence of Realit-in-total. These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze further in the present work. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.

My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitatively qualitative, and purely qualitative imagination.

I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with the ontological universals of existents, expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions based on spatial and temporal imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, that space-time are epistemically measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.

The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly here.

Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the exhaustively physical-ontological implications of To Be in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality, not merely after truths and truths about specific processes.

Bibliography

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 – that EM and G are, are "existent" neither like nor unlike material bodies – but that EM and G are to be treated or expressed as mathematical waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist for all sciences.

Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical objects, fields, etc., and not physically existent objects or fields of energy emissions that then become propagations from material bodies. If propagation from material bodies, then their nature too would have to be similar to that of material bodies!!! This is something that the mathematical realists of theoretical physics and cosmology cannot bear!!!

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that at least gravitation and perhaps also other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles. But I admit that I explained certain things in the first paragraph above as if I myself were a Newtonian. This has been on purpose.

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!!

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

There exists the tradition of lapping up whatever physicists may say about their observable and unobservable constructs, based on their own manner of using mathematics. The mathematics used are never transparent. Hence, the reader or the audience may not have the ability to makes judgements based on the minimum physical ontology expected of physicists. I believe that this should stop forever at least in the minds of physicists. Moreover, physicists are not to behave like magicians. Their readers and audience should not practice religious faithfulness to them. Nor should physicists expect it from them.

When the search is for the foundations of any science, it is in fact for the invariant aspects of all the realities of that science, and not merely for the invariant aspects of some parts of the realities (object-set/s), methods, conclusions, etc. This does not suffice for science for maximizing success. This is because, any exclusive search for the foundations of the specific object-set or of the discourse of the specific object-set will further require foundations upon the totality of all specific object-sets and their discourse.

We find ourselves in a tradition that believes that proportionality quantities are to be taken as the invariables in physics. But I used to reduce into universal qualities the quantitative-structural aspect of all sciences, that are represented in mathematics as the ontological quantities dealt with in science. The real invariants of physics are not the ontological quantities or proportionalities of certain quantities being treated in physics.

The latter, being only the constant quantities, are one kind of ontological qualities, namely, (1) the quantitatively expressible qualities of processes, e.g., ‘quantity’, ‘one’, ‘addition’, etc. are explicable, respectively, as the qualities: ‘being a specific quantity’, ‘being a unity’, ‘togetherness of two or more units’, etc. The other kind is (2) the ontological qualities of processes in general (say, malleability, toughness, colour, redness, etc.) which cannot directly be expressed as ontological quantities of processes. This shows that pure ontological qualities are a more general notion than ontological quantities and includes the latter.

Explaining ontological qualities in terms of physical quantities cannot be done directly by fundamental physical quantities, but by physical properties that involve fundamental physical quantities. Properties are a mix mainly of ontological qualities and of course includes ontological quantities, of which some are the fundamental physical quantities. Hence, the invariants must be qualities that are generative of and apply to both quantities and non-quantities. These invariants then are fully qualitative.

If the invariants apply to all physical processes, these invariants are qualities ontologically universal to all of them in the specified group. Out of them are constructed properties by mixing many qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals. Clearly, universals applying to all existents are the real invariants of all Reality – which is a matter to be discussed later.

Since universals are all qualitative and some of them are quantitative as qualities, ontological qualities are broader than mathematical in scope, because, the moment mathematics uses quantities, the use is not of quantities devoid of qualities, but instead, of the quantitative variety of general / universal qualities.

Qualities can also behave as some of the primitive notions that underlie all of physics and other sciences – but this will not exhaust the most necessary foundations of physics and other sciences, because these sciences require the general qualities of all existents, and not merely those of mathematics. These are the axiomatically formulable Categorial notions of philosophy, which latter is thus a general science.

In short, quantitative proportionalities as invariants are very partial with respect to existent processes and their totality. Naturally, philosophy too needs general qualities and not merely quantitative qualities to base the discipline.

We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. They call themselves or attempt to be as quantitative as possible. But are adequate comparisons between mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, human sciences, and philosophy, and adequate adaptation of the axiomatic method possible by creating a system of all exact, physical, and human sciences that depend only on the quantitively qualitative proportionalities and call them invariables?

They cannot do well enough to explain Reality-in-total, because Reality-in-total primarily involves all sorts of ontological universals that are purely qualitative, and some of them are the most fundamental, proportionality-type, quantitative invariables of all physical existents in their specificity and totality in their natural kinds. But as the inquiry comes to Reality-in-total, ontological qualitative universals must come into the picture. Hence, merely quantitative (mathematical) explanations do not exhaust the explanation of Reality-in-total.

Existence as individuals and existence in groups are not differentiable and systematizable in terms of quantitatively qualitative universals alone. Both qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals are necessary for this. Both together are general qualities pertaining to existents in their processual aspect, not merely in their separation from each other. Therefore, the primitive notions (called traditionally as Categories) of Reality-in-total must be ontological qualitative universals involving both the qualitative and quantitative aspects. The most basic of universals that pertain properly to Reality-in-total are now to be found.

Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge so that the axioms of a system of Reality take shape from a set of the highest possible ontological Categories as simple sentential formulations of the Categories which directly imply existents? This must be deemed necessary for philosophy, natural sciences, and human sciences, because these deal with existents, unlike the formal sciences that deal only with the qualitatively quantitative form of arguments.

Thus, in the case of mathematics and logic there can be various sorts of quantitative and qualitative primitive notions (categories) and then axioms that use the primitive notions in a manner that adds some essential, pre-defined, operations. But the sciences and philosophy need also the existence of their object-processes. For this reason, the primitive axioms can be simple sentential formulations involving the Categories and nothing else. This is in order to avoid indirect existence statements and to involve existence in terms exclusively of the Categories.

Further, the sciences together could possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions of all knowledge, from which also the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived. I support this view because the physical-ontological Categories involving the existence of Reality and realities, in my opinion, must be most general and fully exhaustive of the notion of To Be (existence) in a qualitatively universal manner that is applicable to all existents in their individual processual and total processual senses.

Today the nexus or the interface of the sciences and philosophies is in a crisis of dichotomy between truth versus reality. Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But who, in scientific and philosophical practice, wants to draw unto the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths, and not final truths as such?

Finalized truths as such may be concluded to in cases where there is natural and inevitable availability of an absolute right to use the logical Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, especially in order to decide between concepts related to the existence and non-existence of anything out there.

Practically very few may be seen generalizing upon and extrapolating from this metaphysical and logical state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences. In the name of practicality, ever less academicians want today to connect ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total by drawing from the available and imaginable commonalities of both.

The only thinkable way to accentuate the process of access to ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total is to look for the truest possible of all truths with foundations on existence (nominal) / existing (gerund) / To Be (verbal). The truest are those propositions where the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle can be applied best. The truest are not generalizable and extendable merely epistemologically, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.

The agents that permit generalization and extrapolation are the axioms that are the tautologically sentential formulations of the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the Categories of all that exist – that too with respect to the existence of Reality-in-total. These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze further in the present work. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.

My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitatively qualitative, and purely qualitative imagination.

I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with the ontological universals of existents, expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions based on spatial and temporal imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, that space-time are epistemically measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.

The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly here.

Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the exhaustively physical-ontological implications of To Be in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality, not merely after truths and truths about specific processes.

The problem of axiomatizing philosophy, and/or philosophy of science, and/or all the sciences together is that we need to somehow bring in the elemental aspects of existence and existents, and absorb the elemental aspects of non-existence and non-existent objects that pertain to existents. Here it should be mentioned that axiomatizing mathematics and logic does not serve the axiomatization of philosophy, and/or philosophy of science, and/or all the sciences together. So far in the history of philosophy and science we have done just this, plus attempts to axiomatize the sciences separately or together by ignoring the elemental aspects of non-existence and non-existent objects that pertain to existents.

Existence (To Be) is not a condition for the possibility of existence of Reality-in-total or specific processual objects, but instead, To Be is the primary condition for all thought, feeling, sensation, dreaming, etc. All other conditions are secondary to this. If To Be is necessary as the condition for the possibility of any philosophy and science as discourse, we need to be axiomatic in philosophy and science about (1) existence (To Be, which is of all that exist) and/or (2) the direct and exhaustive implications of existence.

It is impossible to define existence without using words that involve existence. But it is possible to discover the exhaustive implications of To Be in order to use them in all discourse. Therefore, towards the end of this short document, I shall name what could be the inevitable primitive notions that are exhaustive of To Be and that may be used to create axioms for both philosophy and science together.

To put it differently, I attempt here to base all philosophy and science on the concept of existence of Reality-in-total as whatever it is, by deriving from the concept of the existence of all that exist the only possible (i.e., the exhaustive) implications of To Be.

Of course, the basic logical notions of identity and contradiction will have to be used here without as much danger as when we use them in statements on other less fundamental notions. I would justify their use here as the rational inevitabilities in the foundations – not as inevitabilities in the details that issue later. The inevitabilities in the later details need never to be realized as inevitabilities, because To Be implies some fundamental notions which will take case of this.

That is, the various ways in which the principles of identity and contradiction should be seen as inexact and inappropriate may be discovered in the in fields of derivation beyond the provinces of the fundamental Categorial implications of To Be. This latter part of the claims is not to be discussed here, because it involves much more than logic – in fact, a new conception of logic, which I would term as systemic logic.

Let me come to the matter that I promise in the name of the foundations of ‘Axiomatic Philosophy and Science’. First of all, to exist is not to be merely nothing. In this statement I have taken access to the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle at one go in that whatever is, must be whatever it is, and not its opposite which is nothing but nothing, nor a middle point between the two extremes.

Therefore, existence must always be non-vacuous. That is, the primary logical implication of To Be is the non-non-being of whatever exists. But such a logical implication is insufficient for the sciences and philosophy, because we deal there with existents. Hence, let us ignore the logical implication as a truism. The existential implications of To Be are what we need.

I have so far not found any philosopher or scientist who derived these implications. But let us try, even if the result that obtained may be claimed by many ancients and others as theirs. In fact, theirs were not metaphysical / physical-ontological versions. Their epistemic versions of the same have been very useful, but have served a lot to misguide both philosophy and science into give “truth/s” undue importance in place of “Reality”. My claim about the exhaustive physical(-ontological) implications of To Be that I derive here is that they do not incur this fallacy.

To Be is not a thing. It is, as agreed at the start, the very condition for the possibility of discourse: philosophy, science, literature, art … and, in general, of experience. The To Be of existents is thus not a pre-condition for To Be – instead, it is itself the source of all conditions of discourse, not of existence.

If To Be is non-vacuous, it means that all existents are something non-vacuously real. Something-s need not be what we stipulate them to be, both by name and qualifications. But the purely general implication is that existents are something-s. This is already part of philosophical activity, but not of the sciences. We need to concretize this implication at the first tire of concrete implications. Only thereafter are sciences possible.

To be something is to be non-vacuous, i.e., to be in non-vacuous extendedness. However much you may attempt to show that Extension does not follow from the notions of To Be, something, etc., the more will be extent of your failure. You will go on using the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and never reach any conclusion useful for the sciences. Then you will have to keep your mouth and mind shut. I prefer for myself meaningful discourse in science and philosophy – when I meditate I shall attempt to keep my mind and lips as “shut” as possible.

As said above, Extension is one of the primary physical-ontological implications of To Be. Nothing exists without being extended, without being in Extension. Extended something-s are not just there in Extension. If in Extension, everything has parts. Thus, having parts is one of the primary implications of being something in existence. I term it alternatively also as Compositionality.

It is the very implication of being something that something-s are in Change. The deepest and most inevitable form of implication of Change is this: nothing that is in existence with parts can have the status of being something existent without the parts impacting at least a few others. This is the meaning of Change: impact-formation by extended parts. Any existent has parts existing in the state of impact formation in other parts and in themselves.

Hence, Change is the only other implication of To Be, not second to but equally important as Extension. I call it differently also as Impact-Formation. The notion of motion or mobility does not carry the full weight of the meaning of Change.

There cannot be any other implication equally directly derivable from To Be as Extension and Change can be. In other words, all other implications can be found to be sub-implications of Extension-Change, i.e., involving only Extension-Change. Showing them as involving only Extension-Change would suffice to show their sub-implications status with respect to Extension-Change.

Existence in Extension-Change belongs to anything existent, hence ubiquitous – to be met with in any existent. This is nothing but existence in the ubiquitously (to be met with in any existent) extended form of continuance in ubiquitous (to be met with in any existent) impact formation. What else is this but Universal Causality?

If you say that causation is a mere principle of science – as most philosophers and scientists have so far thought – I reject this view. From the above paragraphs I conclude that Causation is metaphysically (physical-ontologically) secondary only to existence. Everybody admits today that we and the universe exist. But we all admit that every part of our body-mind and every existent in the world must be causal because we are non-vacuously existent in Extension-Change.

This means that something has been fundamentally wrong about Causality in philosophy and science. We need to begin doing philosophy and science based fully on To Be and its implications, namely, Extension-Change-wise continuance, which is nothing but being in Universal Causation. It is universal because everything is existent. Universal Causality is the combined shape of Extension-Change. Causation the process of happening of Extension-Change-wise continuance in existence. Causality is the state of being in Extension-Change-wise continuance in existence.

Note that what we measurementally and thus epistemically call as space is metaphysically to be termed as Extension. Space is the measuremental aspect of the primary quality of all existents, namely, of Extension. That is, space is the quantity of measurement of Extension, of measurements of the extended nature of existents. In this sense, space is an epistemic quality.

Further, note also that what we call time is the measuremental aspect of the primary quality of all existents, namely, of Change. If there is no impact-formation by parts of existents, there is no measurement called time. Hence, time is the epistemic quality of measurements of Change, which is the impact-formation tendency of all existents.

Immanuel Kant termed space as the condition for the possibility of sensibility, and Edmund Husserl called it as one of the fundamental essences of thought. Space and time in Kant are epistemic since they are just epistemic conditions of possibility; and essences in Husserl are epistemic, clearly as they are based on the continuous act of epochḗ.

Nothing can exist in epistemic space-time. That is, language and mind tend to falsely convert space and time into something that together condition existents. Thus, humans tend to believe that our measuremental concepts and derivative results are all really and exactly very essential to existent something-s, and not merely to our manner of knowing, feeling, sensing, etc.

This is the source of scientific and philosophical misconceptions that have resulted in the reification of the conclusions and concepts of thought and feeling. Thus, this is also the source of conceptual insufficiencies in philosophical and scientific theories. Scientism and scientific and mathematical instrumentalism justify these human tendencies in the name of pragmatism about science and thought.

Reification of certain statistical conclusions as probabilities and the metaphysicization of probable events as the only possible events are not merely due to the above sort of reification. It is also by reason of the equivocation of probability with possibility and the reification of our scientific and statistical conclusions of probabilities as real possibilities. Humans tend to forget that a certain amount of probability is exactly and properly the measure of the extent of human capacity (and by implication, of human incapacity), at a given instance and at a given measuremental moment of history, to use instruments to get at all the existents that are the causes of a given process.

As we know, To Be is not a Category / Quality. It is the very condition that is the same as the existence of something-s as whatever they are. This is a tautology: To Be is To Be. If To Be is a metaphysical notion, the physical-ontologically and scientifically relevant metaphysical implications of To Be are Extension-Change. These are the highest and only highest Categories of all philosophy and science. Universal Causality is the notion of combination of Extension-Change. It is not an indirectly derived notion.

If scientists tend to relegate such notions as philosophical, they are trying to be practical in a silly manner. Even scientific results need the hand of proper and best possible formulations of notions and theoretical principles. Theoretical principles (say, of causation, conservation, gravitation, matter, mass, energy, etc., which may clearly be formulated in terms of Extension-Change-wise existence and existents) must be formulated in the most systemic manner possible.

I would call Extension, Change, and the combination-term Universal Causality not merely as the highest metaphysical Categories. They are the very primitive terms in addition to terms like ‘existent’, ‘matter-energy’, etc., which are necessary for an axiomatic formulation of the foundations of the sciences. Hence, we need to formulate axiomatically both philosophy and science.

Universal Causality may hereafter also be taken as an axiom in philosophy and the sciences. An axiom is a formulated basic principle. In that case, why not formulate also the primitive notions (Categories) of Extension and Change as axioms? In short, the difference between mathematical-logical axiomatic foundations and physical-philosophical axiomatic foundations is that in the former set primitive notions are not axioms, and in the latter primitive notions may be formulated as axioms.

In the light of the above discussion, it becomes clear that Einstein’s postulation of gravitation and matter-energy as space-time curvatures is at the most a formulation of these notions in terms of the mathematical necessity to use space-time (epistemic) measurements and theorize based on them in theoretical physics.

Einstein was immersed in the neo-positivism and logical positivism of his time. Hence, he could not reason beyond the use, by mathematics, of quantitative notions as concrete measurements. Scientists and philosophers who still follow Einstein on this sort of a misguided reification of epistemic space and time are taking refuge not on Einstein but on his theoretical frailties. Even today most scientists and philosophers are unaware that quantities are in fact quantitatively characterized pure qualities – and not properties that are combinations of qualitative and quantitatively qualitative notions.

Minkowski formulated the mathematics of space-time and thus reduced space-time into a sort of ether in which physical processes take place gravitationally. Einstein put gravitation into this language and mistook this language (the language of mathematical space-time) to be the very matter-energy processes that curve according to gravitational processes. For the mathematics this is no too great error, because it worked. This is why some physicists even today consider gravitation and/or all energy forms as ether, as if without this stuff in the background material bodies would not be able to move around in the cosmos! A part of the cosmos is thus being converted into a background conditioner!

Only formal functioning has so far been found necessary in mathematics. Derivation from the metaphysical sources of existents and non-existents has not so far been found necessary in mathematics. But, note here also this: for more than 100 years physicists and philosophers of physics lapped up this substitution of the language of mathematics for the actual, physically existent, processes, which otherwise should have been treated also metaphysically, and if possible, in a manner that is systemically comprehensive of the sources of all sciences.

The implications of existence, non-existence, existents, and non-existents too can help to make the mathematical adaptations work pragmatically. Hence, clearly it does not suffice that only the mathematical formalism attained so far be used in physics and the sciences. The project of science, philosophy, mathematics, and logic must grow out of their limits and become parts of a systemic science with foundations in the implications of existence, non-existence, existents, and non-existents.

I have been attempting to explain in these pages a limited realm of what I otherwise have been attempting to realize. I show only that there are two physical-ontological Categories and some derived axioms (out of these many axioms, only one is discussed here, i.e., Universal Causality), using which we need to formulate not merely philosophy but also physics and other sciences.

But I suggest also that the existence-related and non-existents-related mathematical objects too must be formulated using some primitive terms and axioms that are compatible with the philosophical and physical primitive terms and axioms that may facilitate a systemic approach to all sciences.

The awarding of the Nobel Prize 2023 for quantum informatics to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger does not, therefore, mean that all of quantum physics and their assumptions and results are ‘the realities’ behind the ‘truths’ formulated. Instead, it means only that the truths they have formulated are relatively more technology-productive within the context of the other truths and technologies that surround them in physics. Quantum informatics works at a level of effects where we involve only those movements and processes that result in the resulting discoveries, general truths, and the derivative technology.

Similarly, the successes of engineering, informatics, medical processing technology, and the medical science that (as of today) are based on these need not be a proof for the alleged “absolute truth status” of the theories based on Newtonian physics, of molecular and atomic level chemistry and biology, etc. These sciences use only certain contextual levels of interaction in the physical world.

Recollect here the ways in which occidental philosophers dating at least from Parmenides and Heraclitus and extending up until today have been mistaking space and time as (1) two metaphysical categories, or (2) as mere existents, or (3) as illusions.

Oriental philosophies, especially Hindu and Buddhist, have been the best examples of rejecting space-time as metaphysical and as equivalent to permanent substances in a manner that made some Occidental thinkers to look down on them or to reject all of them. In the course of conceptualization that is typical of humans, having to create further theoretical impasses is necessarily to be avoided as best as we can. Such an ideal requires the help of Extension, Change, and Universal Causality.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have only hinted at the necessity of axiomatic philosophy and science. I have only suggested some basic notions in this systemic science. I do also use these notions and some axioms developed from them to formulate a new philosophy of mathematics. I have already published some books based on these and have been developing other such works. I hope to get feedbacks from earnest minds that do not avoid directly facing the questions and the risk of attempting a reply to the questions themselves.

Bibliography

This question has been closed, reaching a YES conclusion and preventing being hijacked by 'wolves" in ResearchGate. It served the purpose of explanation to those interested, as an open group, from a core of 10 people who participate behind the scenes. Enjoy and pursue the new ideas with your contributions in your space. The question is now open again.

To be objective, K=26 661 462 837 357 923.

This large base 10 number is found to be the product of two prime numbers, K=p×q.This breaks the RSA cybersecurity method for K.

The much larger number H=74 481 443.869 551 262 986 707 503 438 165 513 011 429 940 762 703 277 812 267 530 769 921 052 121 342 275 484 565 273 568 067 051 66*10^991 with the missing integer values known, albeit not shown here, reveals quantum properties of numbers, that help break RSA structurally, making it impossible to protect.

That number is found quickly to be the product of two very large prime numbers, H=m×n, where m=2189435657951002049032270810436111915218750169457857275418378508356311569473822406785779581304570826199205758922472595366415651620520158737919845877408325291052446903888118841237643411919510455053466586162432719401971139098455367272785370993456298555867193697740700037004307837589974206767840169672078462806292290321071616698672605489884455142571939854994489395944960640451323621402659861930732493697704776060676806701764916694030348199618814556251955925669188308255149429475965372748456246288242345265977897377408964665539924359287862125159674832209760295056966999272846705637471375330192483135870761254126834158601294475660114554207495899525635430682886346310849656506827715529962567908452357025521 and n= 340185579782030309029142285845485748073406778702270938755484147318382420338087834406828955714187005654640257038495796545155402280055987076251704557994637589726712709889312042801858044039590155407650471667907995888292123909278046563998441725881316702608454953284969473141146885140822683049274853701491, breaking RSA with values naively considered large enough to be "safe".

We postulate without proof here, except numerical, that this exemplifies how RSA can be quickly broken, e.g., for a 2048 bit-length number. in 2048 bits one can store a number with 617 decimal digits; and we passed that in the last example. The larger the number of digits in each prime number, the easier it is to numerically calculate them.

RSA gets weaker with large prime numbers. This is a structural weakness, much more important for cybersecurity than numerically finding prime numbers.

This shows objectively the weakness of RSA. QM is our most successful model of nature. Classically, i.e., without QM, those results are not calculable and RSA looks stronger for large numbers.

RSA seems to be broken easily by quantum computing -- more so for very large numbers. It is a hopeless case using QM, and quantum computing.

This shows the importance of periodic structures in mathematics. And we can find them using QM, and quantum computing.

What is your opinion?

1)

2)

I may be the world's leading expert on parapsychology:

1) http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24739.43040

2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation

Maybe I deserve an honorary PhD in parapsychology. I would then teach afterlife studies @ UC Davis.

1. Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking of Choice

2. Defining Causality

3. Defining Symmetry Causally

I discuss here the concept of symmetry and relate it to Universal Causality. I do not bring in the concept of Conservation here. Nor do we mention or discuss the mathematicians and physicists who deal with this concept, because such a short document cannot study their work or critique them in order to related them to Universal Causality.

Suppose that, by use of a conventionally decided unit of physically causal action α (of whatever, say, a photon) from A, the choice is met by the unit of action between two given electrons B and C. We consider B and C to be the immediate candidates for direct causal action by α, but the said causal action does not take place in B or C by an external causal action α from A. Then we tend to claim that there exists a PERFECT SYMMETRY OF CHOICE between B and C, for the unit of action α from A.

Whether α is from A or anything else does not matter here. What matters is that in nature such a perfect symmetry is never the case. Suppose there is no choice for α other than that between B and C, that is, there exist only A, B, and C in the world. In that case, at some point of time in the future of occurrence of the physically real mutual (causal, if A were to interact with B or C through the exertion of the causal action α) approach between (1) the unit of action α issuing from A and (2) any one or B and C, then there occurs the causal choice between the two.

If it is possible to stipulate that A, B, and C are in motion at various directions, then there exist some other D, E, etc. in the universe and A, B, and C have had causal interaction with many others. In that case, the decision of α for interaction with either B or C at a stipulated point of time lies in the acquisition of the knowledge as to how much A, B, and C have been causally affected by others, and to what extent of time.

This is not determinable given the fact that we are unable to causally contact all the agents of causal action upon A, B, and C. The final choice by us will be considering at least in a percentage-wise manner how much, how many other As, Bs, and Cs have causally influenced A, B, and C, beginning from a certain past relative point of time. But our decision is a speculation based on a few nearby-lying causal influences upon them. But this is not as much true as when we had the whole information.

We tend to term the action that follows with the so-called “choice” for B or C by the action potential α of A as symmetry breaking. Symmetry breaking here is nothing but the ability of any action potential α of A to affect B or C (or any other) processual entity causally – but this ability is presumed and calculated without taking, and without being able to take, into consideration all the causal antecedents of the action potential α of A and the processual entities B, C, etc.

These causal antecedents are such that, if known fully well, the action route of the action potential α of A can be predicted without access to the notion of symmetry or symmetry breaking. Such symmetry breaking may then even be cited by some physicists as the reason for the choice. Note also that this or any other concept of symmetry and symmetry breaking is not such that all the causal antecedents in A, B, C, etc. are already summed up in it. Recall to mind here also the Bohmian notion of hidden variables. Hidden variables are not actual variables, but instead, a device to merely represent unknown and non-represented variable values.

One may argue that symmetry too is causal. The direct cause of the choice is the action α by A on B or C. But even within the notion of the direct or immediate cause, cannot be included the notion of other external and remote causes of the event of the action potential α of A choosing B or C causally. That is, immediate causes do not contain within themselves all the remote past causal routes that have contributed to the choice by the action potential α of A to choose B or C causally at a moment to interact with.

This shows that the notions of symmetry and symmetry breaking are the results of conceptually ostracizing (or of our inability to reach and include) the past causal horizon of the causal event at discussion. Hence, these are instruments to do physics in our given context. This does not mean that science and philosophy should not recognize the universal nature of causality or that physics and philosophy should ostracize Universal Causality.

The action is physically processed in the form of a conglomeration of existent processes, whichever be the participating causal forces from within them and from outside – the latter of which normally are not being taken into consideration by the experiment and the symmetric-mathematical description, because there are limits to experimental setups and mathematical tools. But theoretically generalizing inquiry has no limits. This is why we need a theoretically generalizing notion of Universal Causality based solely on the notion of existence. The generalities in the natural kinds of physically existent processes are called ontological universals. These are not merely and exclusively in individual token entities.

In nature there are only causes, not reasons. Reasons are in human minds, and are active in two ways:

(1) In a connotative manner (i.e., consciousness notes together the generalities in processes. and then concatenates the connotative universals achieved / formed within consciousness in order to facilitates concepts and their expression in statements).

(2) In a denotative manner (i.e., connotative universals are mixed with brain elements and then expressed in symbols and language, and thereafter denotative universals are concatenated in various ways in symbolically formulated statements in language, mathematics, automated intelligence, and other symbolic instruments).

Both these are aspects of the constitution of reason in their own ways as and when they have to do with reasons in consciousnesses and expressions via symbols and languages. Causes in physical processes are existent as such outside our connotative universals, connotative concatenations of connotative universals, denotative universals, and denotative concatenation of denotative universals. Reasons occur in the concatenations of connotative and denotative universals, respectively in the pure conceptual aspect of consciousness and in its symbolizing aspect in various natural and artificial languages.

The symmetry or symmetry breaking in any given case is such an explanation, a reason. It is not a cause or the cause of anything. Many a time physicists tend to get confused between reasons and causes. Symmetry is just an example for instances where this universal phenomenon of confusion occurs.

Anything existent is in Extension, i.e., is composite and thus has a finite number of parts, none of the parts of which can be taken as an infinitesimal in any exercise of division and counting. Anything in existence is in Change, i.e., all existent processes and parts thereof make new impact-generation on other such and as a result also within itself – this is the only other aspect of composition of existents. The latter part of Change, namely, the inner and inward action as a result of the previous action, is to be recognized as an additional action.

The combined action of Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but causation. Everything existent is in causality – hence Universal Causality. Causes are always in the Extension-Change-wise mode of being of existents. Extension and Change together are the exhaustive meaning of existence (To Be) of Reality-in-total. All Extension-Change-wise instances of existence are instances of causation.

In short, everything existent has parts (Extension), every part has parts because it is in Extension, and all of them are in their own proper action of impact-formation (Change) inwards and outwards. Extension and Change are the only two exhaustive modes of the meaning of existing non-vacuously. Every existent is thus in causal action.

Such causation is everywhere, in all existents, as the very implication of existence. Hence, Universal Causality is the principle of nature that is instantiated when the choice by a unit of processual action (α of any A) between two electrons (B, C) breaks the principle of symmetry. Symmetry breaking with respect to a preferred or prescribed sort of action should always be causal, because this event has a past causal horizon, however long. (The question as to whether the past causal horizon is physically past eternal or past finitely eternal is the cosmogenetic question. We do not treat it here.)

Symmetry and the symmetry breaking are names for what may be called reasons in any case that may be discussed. But reasons must be explained always in terms of the causal actions within the given contexts. If physics is unable to do that in any instance, it is not entitled to call it non-causality or a-causality. Nor should the situation be filled up with an indescribable something called vacuum energy, ubiquitous ether, etc., and make vacuum energy and ether do the creation of the universe/s.

If the various laws of Conservation are considered as instances of symmetry, such symmetry is not merely of a choice of interaction, but much more, as a symmetry that may be defined as not being otherwise than what the processes involved (and thus all that exist as processes) are.

Existent processes are fundamentally in existence, which is the same as being in Extension-Change, i.e., in Causal existence, and only derivatively (i.e., by preferring to involve only a few causes) from the continuously Causal existence are they in the states of symmetry or symmetry breaking – whatever be the states or choice of states considered. This is done in terms of reasons, in terms of conceptual explanation, all this is in fact based on causal processes that guide everything being considered for investigation in the cosmos.

To be clearer in terms of what physics does, symmetry is a mode of perception and explanation of causal physical action quantitively within a given limited context of causes, where the totally causal nature of all existents does not get considered as playing a direct role in the formation of the immediate causes that are being considered.

Universal Causality is equivalent to non-vacuous existence, because Universal Causality, composed of Extension and Change, is the very exhaustive meaning of existence. Hence, Universal Causality is physical-ontologically more a priori than the symmetry and symmetry breaking of some select states, where the state of having two sides, aspects, choices, possibilities of actions, etc. are based on the Extension-Change-wise modes of existent processes in being in finite measures of activity and in stability in the same finite measures of activity.

The finite measures of causal action may be quantified. But this quantification in terms of any conventional mode of measurement does not represent all that the physical processes involved are in themselves, in terms of all that have causally happened in them.

Symmetry is not a matter of absolutely virtual knowledge. It is naturally based on the causal action of parts in parts of the universe and their comparability with respect to certain criteria of comparison. Various mathematical tools have come to be used to make comparisons effective and productive.

But this is not the case concerning Universal Causality, which I have defined here, because mathematical applications in physics, astrophysics, cosmology, etc. tend to forget the basic fact of the universality of Causality, which should have been dealt with in every little part of these sciences. This is the sad part of the story of Universal Causality.

Bibliography

Source:

I think the leading parapsychologist is me.

1)

2)

Pulsed electric field is considered a "non-thermal" method for food processing that involves the application of short high-voltage pulses to create pores in cell membranes. However, since I am not familiar with the physics of the phenomenon I wonder if it is possible that at high frequencies (say 50 KHz) and using nanosecond-pulses this technology can be used to generate heat for other applications?

I don’t think eternal damnation is universal.

1)

2)

I'm trying to solve the integral shown in the picture.

I'm using python libraries to plot the integrand (numpy and matplotlib.pyplot), as well as scipy.integrate library to solve the integral.

However, I'd like to see other suggestions or tips to solve this problem.

Any comment will be well appreciated.

Thanks, Pablo

1)

the nature of time

If one biological male repopulated the Earth with 5 billion birthing people, what diseases could spread? How?

1)

2)

3)

Are other species currently becoming humans? How?

When reading the literature, I frequently encounter the assertion that the arrow of time is controlled by increasing entropy. But I never find an explanation of what physical system the entropy refers to. Is the physical system the entire universe? Or is it the environment that is local to a point in space in question? There are examples of physical systems that can be divided into two interacting subsystems with a decreasing entropy in one subsystem and a correspondingly increasing entropy in the other so that the entropy of the combined system is increasing. Should a clock that is residing in one subsystem run in a different direction than a clock that is residing in the other subsystem? Perhaps this question is answered by the answer to the original question: The entropy of what?

Respectfully, across reincarnation belief and scientific materialism, why is considering the individual self, as an illusion, a commonality? 1)

2)

We are not in a position to scientifically accept five fundamental forces.

According to relativity, gravity is not considered a force. Nevertheless, scientists, including those who advocate for relativity, persist in asserting that there are four fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Simply put, physicists who celebrate the triumph of relativity decisively undermine its credibility or completeness.

This raises the question: Why haven't physicists reduced the fundamental forces to three?

Are current scientific views propped up by censorship of competing ideas and mutual complacency?

I am asking this controversial question because I cannot get a single astronomer, physicist, cosmologist, or astrophysicist to take the other side of my arguments.

I hope some of the outstanding scientists here will accept to talk shop.

I made a special request to Dr. Brian Keating.

Liberalism is a highly hegemonic and maybe all encompassing force that stems from God as humans would NOT have the ability to reason to implement social justice WITHOUT The Holy Trinity.

I guess the literal epistemological plausibility of a belief system is almost impossible to measure. An important question is for whom is both the sustainability and vastness of the belief system.

I am somewhat Hegelian because I do not believe in martyrdom, and or dying on a hill, and usually the popular, and or traditional, opinion has a deeper less obvious reason.

Please shar refences

Sources:

Respectfully, which esoteric beliefs are the least plausibly true ? Why?

1)Scientific materialism because the fundamental choice to reason, DESPITE UNCERTAINTY, requires more than material. Source:

2)Reincarnation because if every entity is unique, or might as well be due to UNCERTAINTY, then sharing spirits is less likely. Source:

Elementary explanations of the second law of thermodynamics refer to probabilities of system states and seem convincing. But not when considering time-reversals, because the same statistical arguments should also apply there but they produce contradictions regarding entropy increases with time. (I think the difficulty is in whether or not the assumption of statistical randomness is appropriate because it depends on what is given and maybe also on the direction of time but I'm not an expert and this doesn't answer my question anyway.) While reading some literature about the direction of time I learned that the direction of time and the second law of thermodynamics all come from a very low entropy immediately after the big bang, with increasing entropy produced by things that include gravitational clumping (e.g., the formation of black holes and the merging of black holes to produce larger black holes). I learned that this is responsible for the second law of thermodynamics but it seems to me that this is an incredibly large-scale thing. Given this explanation it seems amazing to me that we can randomly select a tiny piece of matter (large enough to be macroscopic but tiny from the point of view of human perception) and find that it obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Is there an explanation of how such large influences on entropy (e.g., objects produced by gravity clumping) can produce a second law that is so incredibly homogeneous that we find the law obeyed by all of the tiny specs of material?

I search the internet for quantum computing and find that it uses qbits. I search the internet for qbits and find that they are used in quantum computing. I'm not learning anything from that. Some discussions on the internet talk about superpositions of quantum states. I already know about superpositions of quantum states. I already know about the deterministic time evolution of states between measurements, and the probabilistic effects of measurements. And I know a little about quantum entanglement. But I still have absolutely no idea how any of this is used for computing. The literature I found on the internet mentions all things above without any explanation of how we use that for computing. Can you help to explain this?

Afterlife: Universalist Christian Heaven

Epistemology: falsifiability and skeptical empiricism

Ethics: deduced from tradition, then risk analysis, and lastly skin in the game. Manifested as natural law(moderation and negative utilitarianism), political correctness.

Politics: progressivism and open society.

Source:

Source:

Are sciences more of a continuum from hard to soft than those two as discrete categories? How? Why? I think the former. My book here somewhat touches on that question:

Updated information of my thoughts and activities.

This is meant to be a one-way blog, albeit you can contribute with your recommendations and comments.

Superposition is real, I know this. It's usually represented as containing contradictions (opposite spins of electrons). Therefore it's claimed that Aristotle's Logic does not work here. But is this "superposition thing" a quality or an explanation of a quality?

What if this particle disappers and appears so quickly that, and we're saying (while it's disappered) "it's in a superposition state" ? I mean, containing contradictions is OK for non physical being, because there is no existence at that moment? But when electron exists, it has only one spin. Is it possible to explain superposition in such way? Are there any similar comments by physicists?

My answer: Yes, in order to interpret history, disincentives are the most rigorous guide. How?: Due to the many assumptions of inductive logic, deductive logic is more rigorous. Throughout history, incentives are less rigorous because no entity(besides God) is completely rational and or self-interested, thus what incentivizes an act is less rigorous then what disincentivizes the same action. And, as a heuristic, all entities(besides God) have a finite existence before their energy(eternal consciousness) goes to the afterlife( paraphrased from these sources : 1)

2) )

, thus interpretation through disincentives is more rigorous than interpreting through incentives.

How to find the relative density of the 3D printed cellular structures like honeycomb, double arrowhead?

Please see my Postings on He-4 works where I calculate its mass accurately in 3 Parity ways using 2 Theorems in Physics, satisfying 6 Constraints (Quark, QCD, Yukawa Quantum, Most Symmetrical, Most Stable and Mother Nucleus to Rest except Hydrogen) and discovering 3 new constraints (Most Strong using Vector Equilibirum Theorem, Most Efficient Packing using HCP, Thompson Problem of Distributing Charges, and Evidence of Gravity). This work took from 2008 to 2010, where I discovered He-4 and then from 2010 to 2017, it took to Geometric Model and Predict its Mass to very close unit of 3803.688 MeV/c^2 vs 3727 MeV/c^2 of Alpha Particle (I did not know this before the work).

To satisfy Gravity modeling, and Nuclear Binding Mass, I get some mass of 1901.844 MeV/c^2 Mass.

I see a few papers here:

Raphael Neelamkavil,

Ph.D. (Quantum Causality), Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)

This document consists of some reflections in the conceptual practices in physics, and starts with some questions at physicists. It is conceived as a sequel to the text of the following discussion: [[https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution]]. Thereafter follow some arguments with examples, showing reification in physics.

Questions on Reification of Concepts in Physics: The best of physicists and philosophers of physics even today do not seem to be decided on any concrete but all-encompassing solution by reason of the rational strength of arguments given in favour of the one or another solution here below. The questions not answered here are these:

(1) Why do physicists not let their reification of mathematical concepts rest for some time, think from the side of POC, and question the epistemic processes of identification of energy propagations as a geometrical wave at some occasions, as a geometrical particle at other occasions, at times paradoxically even as their alternation, or even as their superposition as if this would solve the problem? What are the reasons for such misplaced identification of concreteness of the mathematical entities as if they both existed physically out there?

(2) Then, when they feel confronted from outside or in themselves as to the gravity of paradoxes involved in their own ad hoc explanatory creation, why do they tend to declare that all these solutions rationally and realistically (doubtlessly by way of reification of the mathematical objects used, but, as they seem to suggest, mathematically), (a) demonstrate that quantum reality is just virtual, or (b) need to be accepted merely by reason of a statistical causality in the existent world – and not by reason of the statistical measurements of causal events upon the experimental history of extent of access of causal events via measurements and identification of causes, or (c) show that these reified mathematical objects (waves and particles separately, alternately, or superpositionally) should be paradoxically the external reality because the mathematics says so?

(3) Are these traditional quantum solutions not also the modes of reification of what is made out in concepts in our brains, of which the only possible basis is the continued tendency to indirectly hold on to substance metaphysics and/or to oppose such a metaphysics absolutely, as if it were unnecessary to accept that in the cosmos there would be existents at all, behind the phenomena and the data that are being spoken of in fundamental physics.

(4) When one, for example, says that the wavefunction collapses in the physical calculations, does one, in quantum physics, tend to insist that the existent carrier of propagative energy is just collapsing into nothing or into something else that is either existent or mysteriously absolutely virtual? Does any of this sort of solutions solve anything explanatorily and realistically? Or, does it mean only and merely that the wave function collapses in the written paper, because thefunction exists in the mathematical expression, and not in the wavicles out there? In the name of the collapse of the wavefunction, are not quantum physicists reifying the mathematical entity into something existent?

(5) Are all these not the results of the reification of our concept of collapse of a mathematical function so as to naming it as an external physical process, wrongly suggesting that the function has an exact existential correspondence with our imaginative and mathematically driven conceptualization? One might argue that it is not the function but the functioning that collapses. But can the functioning be represented by a mathematical function in such a manner that the collapsing of the functioning of the physically existent wavicle would then mean a dysfunction of some sort? Would such dysfunction mean that the wavicle disappears into nothingness or becomes transformed? If it disappears into nothingness, physical matter-energy would not be conserved; and if there is only a transformation, it is not a collapse of the mathematical function. If the mathematical function alone has the collapse at observation, then the superposition causes reduction to classical concepts.

(6) In the above scenario, why do some physicists not have enough ability to recognize the need to further establish that the physical equations must first be proved to have an existent process out there at least somewhat as mentioned in the equations, in order for them to equate the mathematical function and the existent process out-there? But why are they unable to spell out the ontological and epistemological reasons for the human inability to identify the collapse in the equations in a better-than statistical manner, with its supposed correspondent event in the external world identified (as we do when we say that the pen exists)?

(7) Can they not rationally imagine at least that any epistemic identification via any version of logic and mathematics does not ipso facto produce a correspondence between the notion and the physical reality or events outside? In case of absence of sufficiency in this ability in physicists, is not fundamental quantum physics again becoming prey to the same age-old correspondence theory of truth that they tendentially denounce and accuse many philosophers of the past as having already been prey to?

A typical manner of countering the above arguments is to allege these same arguments as originating from classical physics and notions. But such a counter-allegation is feasible only if the epistemology of concept formation that I have presented can be shown to be reifying in any manner. My viewpoint may be summarized as follows: Except that whatever exists, exists in processuality of every near-infinitesimal part, I have not suggested an ontology that holds either (1) that every existent is in infinite flux, or (2) that everything existent is existent as such without flux. The epistemology of concept formation in the system I have suggested consists in (1) the connotative and denotative abstractions and concatenations of the ontological universals and the respective conglomerations that pertain to finitely fluent processual existents. Finite fluency of every near-infinitesimal part of existents is physical process; and hence finitely existent finitely fluent consciousnesses can never obtain any static manner of conceptualization of any existent process.

The classical origin of some reified notions is exactly what I attempt to demonstrate as present in quantum physics and other related sciences – using notions of concept formation, of their foundation in existent physical processes, and of the ultimate and undeniable Categories of all existence – because quantum physics is still at the realm of believing that what the physicist “sees” are mathematical waves and points. That is, more than the physical existents, they find mathematical entities as existent in physical entities, for which they give statistical and other mathematical reasons of correspondence of the two mathematical objects with the experimentally perceived reality.

Arguments with Examples, Showing Reification: I add here a few clarifications to what I said above, based on some examples from physics, beginning from a traditional concept and ending with some recent ones. There exists in physics reification of notions and quantities beyond limits permissible. By reification is meant here not merely the crude ideational substitution of a concept with a denotable thing or process. Even a quantity, when used beyond its permissible realms of application, can be taken as a reification of the significance or applicability of the quantity in a different context or in the form of a generalization. Especially (2) and (3) below are of consequence to the present work.

(1) Take the case of potential energy. It is a form of energy termed after a certain difference of states, positions, or arrangements of parts. It arises due to the difference created by the storing of any kind of energy, which will be active at release of the state or arrangement by a suitable action. This energy is not carried by any one sort of wavicle. It is the difference of states of any sort of energy expressed in any one sort of action. Thus, gravitation is one sort of potential energy; and potential energy is not gravitation. Just because of this, the sub-types of potential energy must each be carried by a specific sort of wavicle. The difference between any two stages of such special propagations is termed potential energy from the viewpoint of the earlier stage. After release to the next stage, it is spent and is no more the potential energy within those two stages exhibiting a difference. We may discover its effects quantitatively everywhere. But the discovery is as the energy obtained due to a difference of calculated or calculable energy values, not directly as of an energy carrier so identified or identifiable as in the case of photons.

But the case with photons, neutrinos, gravitons, etc. is different. These wavicles are experimentally identifiable as the carriers of one kind of energy, whatever quantity of energy they may carry, and the carrier is an existent with the basic Extension-Change Categorial characteristics (ontological universals). The energy carried is measured in terms inevitably of criteria dependent on conventions. Whatever energy they contain is of a finite amount, of course not necessarily the exact amount of energy that we tend to calculate them to contain at any time and context. Science must insist on its exactness. For the purpose of generalized discussions on such quantities, it suffices to use what pertains to it from the Maximal-Medial-Minimal (infinite, finite, zero) values. The finite quantity of energy is carried by energy wavicles, and hence the energy wavicles are identifiable with the energy carried. This is not the case with potential energy.

No specific measurement result can be exact, also in the case of values concerning photons, neutrinos, gravitons, etc., because humans cannot get at absolute accuracy. As an absolutizable general truth about these quantities, it is tenable that we can only determine whether they are zero or finite in quantity as long as the measurements are of existents. This is clear enough from the fact that within a finite quantity a sudden evolutionary or other sort of annihilation of the energy into zero and augmentation into infinity are only mathematically imaginable, but physically these are unimaginable. Zero and infinity can only work here as limiting but unrealizable evolutionary values of some existent finite-content energy or matter. Any quantity of measurement of matter-energy beyond finitude is merely by mathematics.

Absolute ontological commitment in mathematical conclusions in physical theory is impossible, and cannot be borne out via experimental verification and augmentation of theoretical and experimental results by use of any future theories and experimental expansions, even if it happens in the future that humanity can experiment with universes or phases of a universe in their totality. Here too the main reason is that here too there cannot exist a phenomenal ontological commitment (POC) to the effect of evolution of the finite into non-entity or infinitude. Hence, it is clear that finite Extension and Change are the foundational criteria upon which such measurements and the proofs of existence of both observable and unobservable energy and matter should be based. This fact becomes sacrosanct also in the case of the merely mathematically possible infinite density in black holes.

Thus, the speculations of existence of an infinite number of finite universes merely topologically from the “infinite volume in the null and negative curvature” case of the Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker cosmological models and their large-scale homogeneity and isotropy of the distribution of matter-energy: e.g., speculations like “the existence of an infinite number of models, which are based on these same metrics, but have compact, finite volume, multiply connected spatial sections” [Fagundes 2012], are physical nonsenses. Similar is the truth-value of the popping up of infinite number of universes from the quantum vacua within a universe or between its expansion and contraction phases can only be nonsensical and an eyewash dependent only on the mathematics. The constant experience of finite phenomenal ontological commitment (POC) behind true statements and theories permits us to pronounce a corollary: No POC is possible concerning any evolutionary disappearance of matter-energy into zero or augmentation into infinite content at any point or stage of evolution of any universe or parts thereof.

In the case of potential energy, the verification is of the difference, and not of the necessary correspondence with a wavicle as the carrier of potential energy. The latter should have been seen as a must for us to suppose that potential energy does not exist as an energy carrier propagation. Here exists no chance of obtaining POC of anything existent in a finite quantity termed potential energy, because there is no existent energy carrier here. One thing becomes clear here: Genuine (existent) energy propagations are theoretically to be posited as energy carriers. Of course, the energy as such is not a thing. Instead, it is the quantity of some finite capacity of any so-identifiable “energy carrier” to cause an amount of work, always involving movement.

As a result of such movement, some Change takes place in the stuff of the energy carrier, however minute the Change is. This Change is not the same as motion, but instead, it is the ontological aspect of motion anywhere. Moreover, the Change is in stuff in Extension. The stuff of the energy carrier is not in the epistemic space that the millennia have spoken of. The quantity of some work / action being transferred by an energy carrier is not the same as the difference between two states of quantity of work / action, the difference being what we call potential energy. The energy carrier has the Categories of Extension and Change as its internal ultimate qualities. That is, the movement is within it not merely as an additional capacity but as the very quality. Every part of an energy-carrier is in Extension-Change. But potential energy is not in Extension-Change. Thus, it is clear that the concept of potential energy has been reified by a couple of centuries of practice in physics.

(2) If the electron is taken as the same sort of energy carrier as photons, gravitons, etc., there is a conceptual difficulty. At least from today’s perspective in physics, an electron is a matter wave, i.e., at the most a carrier of many energy carriers. It is not a relatively well finalizable carrier wavicle of energy of the type that photons are, with respect to the phase of the universe or parts of it or groups of universes wherein photons are relatively more unified as energy carriers than perhaps in other phases of this world or in other worlds. Electrons are matter-wavicles containing many smaller quanta of photon energy.

There is nothing wrong in saying this, even if these energy-carrying quanta are processually resident in electrons i.e., under some constant processual transformation, but not in the very form in which they produce the sort of work or as when they are freed of the higher condensation of electromagnetic wavicles in electrons and are transmitted at the luminal speed or transformed processually into something else. Hence, electrons are essentially matter particles moving in the wave form. If an electron is termed as energy carrier and conceptualized on par with photons and other electromagnetic energy, we may have to term also a stone as energy wavicles themselves, and not as a set of energy wavicles in condensation. That would miss the mark set as the purpose in general of scientific activity and thought. But this is a fact.

As already discussed, wavefunction collapse cannot be identified as an existent process out there in a manner similar to that in which we can adduce quanta of energy to any pure wave or pure point particle. Wavefunction collapse is a collapse of measurements into one of the states. The states are purely mathematical cases, surmised by reason of some statistical values. The existent energy-carrier wavicle in propagation alone is the real case. This is because the wavefunction collapse is not a collapse of some existent waves and/or existent particles out-there, but the collapse of a certain quantitative symmetry between the mathematically fixed states, a certain expected behaviour of the quantities yielded by theory, implied within the relationship between the mathematical wave and mathematical point-particle.

This is not the same as what happens when we create a notion to correspond to a process and identify the latter with a supposed external correspondent of the notion. Hence, a wave function collapse is not to have an exactly corresponding change definable as what the word ‘collapse’ can mean, in any existent energy-quanta carrier wavicle. We witness many physicists taking for granted, or omitting to differentiate between, the technical and the ordinary meanings of ‘collapse’; and thus, their audience gets convinced into believing in their new physics under the same lack of clarity and belief in the superiority of quantum mathematics.

Is it not necessary to condone such matters in the sciences on the count that human cognition has limits? True. But if this is admitted, the same limitedness must be admitted also at the theoretically notional sources of any system of thought and science. It must especially be infused at the experimental methods and interpretations of experimental and theoretical results of the system of thought and science at question. This aggravates the need to avoid reification of purely mathematical concepts of waves and points in microphysics.

To conclude, the successes of quantum physics consist in that at least many of the measurementally determined mathematical explanations of phenomena (phenomenon: the showing-themselves of existent processes from some layers of the processes) are such that, within the system of mathematically discussing these explanations, (1) further calculations and approximations fall in place, and (2) further theoretical constructions are made possible.

This demonstrates a certain extent of consistency in the theoretical apparatus wherein the initial mathematical definitions and experimentally approximate quantifications permit the acceptance of many further results as true to the foundations of the theoretical apparatuses. But if very evident paradoxes arise, then evidently their source most probably should bee seen to lie in the foundational notions of the system, their definitional specificities, etc.

Fundamental quantum physics has many unclarified notions that play into its interpretations as miraculous mystifications of physical events, which may directly be attributed to the custom of misplaced identification of concreteness in quantum physics. The test case will be that of entanglement. Even on a day when the instrumentation evolves to high capability to observe or calculate what is behind the statistical causalities in quantum physics, teleportation via entanglement may be developed as a technological advancement as whatever teleportation is in reality, even when the concept of entanglement may be found to continue to be true beyond the maximal level of the speed of light.

This is similar to when water continuously – presumed here ad hoc – falls on two adjacent leaves of a tree, where the leaves send an algorithmic signal as and when they come into contact with a drop of water stipulated as heavy enough for the signal during the flow of water over the leaves. The water that continuously flows does not make the leaves to send signals so continuously. Heavier drops within the flow send signals. This is an intermittent process and can be used to formulate an algorithm. In the EPR experiment a mesoscopic device is made to work on some selective micro-, nano-, or more minute effects without asking about the apriority or not of the causal/non-causal continuity of the totality of micro-effects on the discrete quanta of any level existent thereby. [Neelamkavil 2018: 195-196]

The processes in the objects of inquiry create some processes and their phenomena in the apparatuses. The apparatus-related phenomena and data behind the experiments related to the existent object processes within the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, which is meant to bring out a theory of the physical processes behind two wavicles in prior entanglement, can continue to be the same even after our explanation of the EPR goes clearer than today and the explanation clarifies that the processes in both the wavicles are fully caused by each other – in this case, superluminally-locally. [Neelamkavil 2018: 191 ff; 2014: Chapters 9 and 10]

These phenomena and data can be utilized further to create technological devices. This is like using the continuous falling of drops on two leaves can be used to give algorithmic signals, which may be used to create a system of harnessing the phenomena and data for service to humanity. Even today Newtonain phenomena and data are being used in engineering, medical, and other sciences profitably. But these do not mean that these successes render these branches of physics as representing reality best. The technological successes do not justify accepting in a literal manner all that is intended by the “even-now substance-philosophically” dominated or “radically virtual-philosophically” dominated minds of many physicists. Quantum cosmology is no exception to what is said above. [Neelamkavil 2018: Chapter 6]

(3) Another example is the case of reification of a quantity in the special theory of relativity. It defines in a scientistically tacit manner in the velocity-dependent Lorentz factor (γ = 1 / √(1 – [v2/c2])) that, since all our physical observations are based on the speed of electromagnetic propagations, the said system of theory “proves” the velocity of light as ultimate and, even more mysteriously, that this fact does not permit superluminal velocities. This is nothing but begging the question. For more than a century, practically none questioned this assumption that does a self-defeating of the foundations of all reason and physical ontology. Almost everyone today is blissful about the technical tool this stipulation offers for science and technology: if sonar velocity is taken as the speed limit in nature, and if all other velocities are measured in terms of this value, all higher velocities will involve zeros and infinities. Even at the level of sonar velocity as the highest limit, much technological success is thinkable, and that does not preclude higher velocities. This is an example for reification of experimental quantities. Under a similar attitude are also many AI specialists who do not inquire what the stuff of information is, but can manipulate it for much technological success, even to create BI. This will be discussed much later I detail.

Who agrees heaven may be more interesting than hell because individuality possibly is kept in salvation more so than in damnation? How? Why? Stimuli:

Inflationary cosmology adopted its primary (free lunch) concept from Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), the latter being an evolved version of the steady-state model. However, its supporting evidence appears lacking. The theory leans heavily on two graphical representations: one illustrating the distinction between false and true vacuum, and the second utilizing a piston and cylinder diagram merely to emphasize that false vacuum behaves differently from true vacuum, as traditionally taught in textbooks.

Given the malleability of storytelling, numerous inflationary ideas have proliferated since the initial acceptance by the scientific community[1]. This raises the question: Who is accountable for this type of science, its proliferation and ensuing confusion?

For details please see Appendix A in

[1] J. Martin, C. Ringeval, V. Vennin; [1303.3787] Encyclopaedia Inflationaris (arxiv.org)

Who agrees the uniqueness of each entity suggests both an all knowing and all powerful creator and against reincarnation? Elaborations welcome.

My answer: I agree the uniqueness of each entity suggests both an all knowing and all powerful creator and against reincarnation. My elaboration: an all knowing and all powerful creator could make each entity unique without an identifiable arche. The uniqueness of each being suggests no being shares spirits, thus not supporting reincarnation. Plus, the lack of absolutes suggests no guiding force exists to guide reincarnation. Thus, the most likely afterlife is a Universalist Christian Heaven. Source:

One person, called the observer, is far from a black hole and is watching another person, called the victim, fall into the black hole, where "fall in" is defined by crossing the Schwarzschild radius. My understanding is that, from the victim's point of view, he will fall into the black hole in a finite amount of time. But from the observers point of view, the victim will approach the Schwarzschild radius but never reach it. So, from the point of view of the observer, how can the mass contained within the Schwarzschild radius (i.e., the mass of a black hole) ever grow?

I figured out that as new mass enters, the Schwarzschild radius gets larger, so the falling mass and the Schwarzschild radius are approaching each other. But I still don't understand how the falling mass gets within the Schwarzschild radius when it can't cross that radius.

Respectfully, diversely, equitably and inclusively, who agrees the lack of moral absolutes(morality is objective but relative) decreases the likelihood of reincarnation? How?

Discussion Stimuli:

.

I had said Redshift is pre ordained in the Doppler Equations rearranged and Big Bang is a not an absolute fact but a relative fact. Universe as Multiverse was always there and locally they will have emergence from White Holes behind the Black Holes.

Also see my He-2-4 Work - the first paper in history to model an important nucleus and calculate its mass in 3 parity ways, satisfying 6 constraints and discovering 3 new constraints. And showing evidence of Gravity.

Here I present my findings that the solar system mirrors atomic systems and has a quantum mechanical solution to the Schrödinger wave equation based on a base unit of 1 second. I further suggest that this solution for our spectral class G2V star the Sun, may indicate that life is a uniform cosmic unfolding throughout the Universe. In this age where we are able to now infer planets around other stars, including Earth-like planets in the habitable zones, and can obtain some of the orbital data, that this theory can soon be tested, because major efforts are underway to build better telescopes and equipment for such inferences, and the the James Webb space telescope has already been employed and is being geared up for such jobs.

Yellow G2V Stars With Habitable Planets May Be A Property Of...

Hear me out. I know this is going to be tad bit long but I assure you this is thought provoking. ( I mean I still have a hard time convincing myself if this doubt is even well founded)

Firstly we don't know the most fundamental shape of all and consequently the dimension for existence. Now I say this because firstly a circle although a shape, is mathematically defined as a polygon of infinite sides, right?

Secondly, now when you want to construct a line in a single dimension, what you do is that you take a point in 2 dimensions of infinitesimal size and glue a bunch of points together, in order to amount to a given length( note that here when the size although infinitesimal is fixed one tends to replicate those sizes and then actually make it amount to that length), but when we see that the solid circle that we are calling our point here can't really be though of as the most fundamental shape, then we can actually see that this infinitesimal point of the smallest length comprehensible still can be called as an infinite sided polygon and therefore we can never really define the point of any dimension rather we would be stuck in cycles, and we can never really define a point because for that we would need some line segment and basically we can't define even an infinitesimal point, right?

PS: I am still very much confused if at all this thought is well founded, and if it is, what might this imply.

Please prove me right or wrong.

I have recently published a paper [1] in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 150 years does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As). They are inherently incommensurable in the SI, as well as in CGS units.

The commensurability of physical quantities may however depends on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [1] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m³ s^-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×10^21, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron.

As much as the proof is quite simple and straightforward I start meeting persons disagreeing with my claim but they cannot come up with a rational argument.

I would like your opinion and arguments pro or against. This could be the most rewarding scientific discussion given the importance of this claim for the history of science and beyond.

The short proof is in the attached pdf and the full context in my paper

[1] https://doi.org/10.1088/2399-6528/ad0090

Who is the first mad person to attempt to model a nucleus and calculate its mass accurately in three parity ways using two well-known theorems in Physics, with 6 known constraints of Physics, and then discovering 4 new facts? How long it took?

The mad person is me but it is the Divine Hand guiding me over 10 years from 2007 to 2017.

Since 9th Grade

In the Fleming Left and Right Hand Rule, I always believed in 3 Fields - Electrical, Magnetic, and Space but Modern Physics just gave acknowledgment to the first two. The Third was Newtonian.

My argument was the seed for these fields was bottom-up in the Stack and not top-down. And if Vacuum of Space has the first two, then it also has the Space Field which in the 2nd and 3rd iteration, becomes Gravity, moving up the stack.

The Space Field is the Modern Physics Poynting Vector.

2008-2010

In 2008, in my Kundalini Awakening Episode, I realized that the Electron, and Positron, and even Neutrino, are nothing but Photon caught up in a Space-Time Vortex like a 3D-Standing Wave.

I asked how I can fit my theory to the Strong Force? So, I must satisfy the Quark and the QCD models. Satisfying it, I hit the nucleus He-2-4!

Amazing 3 Properties

1. Most Symmetric

2. Most Stable

3. Nother Nucleus of the Rest of Elements in the Stars after Hydrogen.

I was encouraged to pursue it further. This element is not mentioned in the Periodic Table. And Modern Physics does not teach about this nucleus.

Nature Uses Recycling Principle.

I chose Muon and Anti Muon as the Building Blocks, the next iterations of Electron and Positron. They are roughly 200 Electrons/Positrons in mass.

Moving Forward 2017

After writing the paper, I was holding back from publishing it. But then I came across the paper by Yukawa on the Strong Force predicting the Quanta for the Strong Force to be around 200 Electrons! I was very shocked and pleasantly surprised at this! He was the first Noble Prize Winner for the Strong Force!

So Came to 12 Muons and 6 Anti Muons

Satisfying QCD and Quark led to this. The factors of 1/3 and 2/3 biased me into Pyramids, Cones, and Spheres even in terms of Volume being translated into Quark Charges. The QCD led me to Cube as the Skelton.

First Layer Cubicthedron and Second Layer as Octohedron

So the first 6 Muons and 6 Anti Muons were placed in Cubictohedron corners. They were derived after chopping the 8 Pyramid Corners, which represented the 3 QCD Color Combinations.

The second layer was constructed with 6 Anti Muons as an Octohedron, wrapping the Cubictohedron.

The 8 Corners of the Cubes were imagined as QCD Forces holding the two layers together!

Two Theorems of Physics

1. Energy Equivalence Principle

2. Energy Partition Theorem.

I said I do not understand much about the Strong Force but I understand about the Electrostatic Force. And if I can calculate the Potential Energy, all I have to do is 2x it for accounting the QCD Total Energy.

Three or Five Parity Iterations

1. As Block Box, I could just multiply 18 x 200 (actually 204) Electron Mass, and 2x it, and know what the mass of the Nucleus should be.

2. Then I could calculate the contribution of the first 6 Muons and 6 anti Muons in the Cubictohedron layer, and apply the same logic as in 1.

And this logic also matched to all digits when I did complex Electro Static PE calculations and applied the 2nd Theorem.

So this can be counted as 2 Parity Ways.

3. Then I could calculate the contribution of the 6 Anti Muons in the Ocohedreon Layer.

The same two approaches mentioned in 3, were also found to be true here.

So this can be counted as 2 Parity Ways, too.

Satisfying 3 Laws of Physics

Quark, QCD, and Yukawa Quanta Units

Discovering 4 New Facts

Cubic Centered Packing (CCP) - CCP and Hexagonal Centered Packing of Spheres is the most efficient way of packing mass/energy over volume. This made sense for a Nucleus.

Vector Equilibrium Theorem - For the most stable structure, the combinations of Tetrahedron (Strong Force Representation), Cubictohedron, and Octohedron, was desirable, and it again made sense to have a Stable Nucleus.

So the Noble Gases are not only stable with 8 Electrons, as for 'He' it is 2 only, and it is more important for them to have a stable Nucleus!

Finding Solution to the Thomas Problem of Distributing Charges Symmetrically and in Equi Distance! Again it made sense.

Finding evidence of Gravity. The gradient or slope of gravity, the jerk, which is a change in acceleration per second, is proportional to the negative (for the increasing force with decreasing distance) of the surrounding density, e.g., lighter things float up.

As for example, light beam attenuation is described by the differential equation

dS/dx = -S

which solution is S~e(-x).

But what physical processes could be described by the differential equation:

dS/dt = -t*S or dS/dx = -x*S

which solution is S~e(-t^2) or S~e(-x^2), with t as time and x as distance.

Do you have ideas?

Thank you very much in advance,

Algis

1. The Logic of PhysicsPhysics students begin with meso-world experiments and theories. Naturally, at the young age, they get convinced that the logic they follow at that level is identical with the ideal of scientific method. Convictions on scientific temper may further confirm them in this. This has far-reaching consequences in the concept of science and of the logic of science.

But, unquestionably, the logic behind such an application of the scientific method is only one manner of realizing (1) the ideal of scientific method, namely, observe, hypothesize, verify, theorize, attempt to falsify for experimental and theoretical advancements, etc., and (2) the more general ideal of reason.

But does any teacher or professor of physics (or of other sciences) instruct their students on the advantages of thinking and experimenting in accordance with the above-mentioned fundamental fact of all scientific practice in mind, or make them capable of realizing the significance of this in the course of time? I think, no.

This is why physicists (and for that matter all scientists) fail at empowering their students and themselves in favour of the growth of science, thought, and life. The logic being followed in the above-said mode of practice of scientific method, naturally, becomes for the students the genuine form of logic, instead of being an instantiation of the ideal of logic as reason. This seems to be the case in most of the practices and instruction of all sciences till today. A change of the origin, justification, and significance of the use of logic in physics from the very start of instruction in the sciences is the solution for this problem. The change must be in the foundations.

All humans equate (1) this sort of logic of each science, and even logic as such, with (2) reason as such. Reason as such, in fact, is more generic of all kinds of logic. Practically none of the professors (of physics as well as of other sciences) terms the version of logic of their science as an instantiation of reason, which may be accessed ever better as the science eventually grows into something more elaborate and complex. Physicist gets more and more skilled at reasoning only as and when she/he wants to grow continuously into a genuine physicist.

As the same students enter the study of recent developments in physics like quantum physics, relativity, nano-physics (Greek nanos, “dwarf”; but in physics, @ 10-9), atto-physics (@ 10-18), etc., they forget to make place for the strong mathematical effects that are due by reason of the conceptual and processual paradoxes due to epistemological and physical-ontological difference between the object-sizes and the sizes of ourselves / our instruments. The best examples are the Uncertainty Principle, the Statistical Interpretation of QM, Quantum Cosmology, etc.

They tend to believe that some of these and similar physics may defy our (meso-physical) logic – but by this mistakenly intending that all forms of reasoning would have to fail if such instances of advanced physics are accepted in all of physics. As a result, again, their logic tends to continue to be of the same level as has been taken while they did elementary levels of physics.

Does this not mean that the ad hoc make-believe interpretations of the logic of the foundations of QM, Quantum Cosmology, etc. are the culprits that naturally make the logic of traditional physics inadequate as the best representative of the logic of nature? In short, in order to find a common platform, the logic of traditional and recent branches of physics must improve so to adequate itself to nature’s logic.

Why do I not suggest that the hitherto logic of physics be substituted by quantum logic, relativity logic, thermodynamic logic, nano-logic, atto-logic, or whatever other logic of any recent branch of physics that may be imagined? One would substitute logic in this manner only if one is overwhelmed by what purportedly is the logic of the new branches of physics. But, in the first place, I wonder why logic should be equated directly with reason. The attempt should always be to bring the logic of physics in as much correspondence with the logic of nature, so that reason in general can get closer to the latter. This must be the case not merely with physicists, but also with scientists from other disciplines and even from philosophy, mathematics, and logic itself.

Therefore, my questions are: What is the foundational reason that physicists should follow and should not lose at any occasion? Does this, how does this, and should this get transformed into forms of logic founded on a more general sort of physical reason? Wherein does such reason consist and where does it exist? Can there be a form of logic in which the logical laws depend not merely on the size of objects or the epistemological level available at the given object sizes, but instead, on the universal characteristics of all that exist? Or, should various logics be used at various occasions, like in the case of the suggested quantum logic, counterfactual logic, etc.?

Just like logic is not to be taken as a bad guide by citing the examples of the many logicians, scientists, and “logical” human beings doing logic non-ideally, I believe that there is a kernel of reason behind physics, justified solely on the most basic and universal characteristics of physical existents. These universals cannot belong solely to physics, but instead, to all the sciences, because they belong to all existents.

This kernel of reason in physics is to be insisted upon at every act of physics, even if many physicists (and other scientists and philosophers) may not ensure that kernel in their work. I shall discuss these possibly highest universals and connect them to logic meant as reason, when I elaborate on: 3. The Ontology of Physics (in a forthcoming discussion in RG)

The matter on which physicists do logical work is existent matter-energy in its fundamental implications and the derivative implications from the fundamental ones. This is to be kept in mind while doing any logically acceptable work physics, because existent matter-energy corpora in processuality delineate all possible forms of use of logic in physics, which logic is properly to be termed nature’s reason.

Moreover, conclusions are not drawn up by one subject (person) in physics for use by the same subject alone. Hence, we have the following two points to note in the use of logic in physics and the sciences: (1) the intersubjectively awaited necessity of human reason in its delineation in logical methods should be upheld at least by a well-informed community, and (2) the need for such reason behind approved physics should then be spread universally with an open mind that permits and requires further scientific advancements.

These will make future generations further question the genuineness of such logic / specific realization of reason, and constantly encourage attempts to falsify theories or their parts so that physics can bring up more genuine instantiations of human reason. But is such human reason based on the reason active in nature?

Although the above arguments and the following definition of logic in physics might look queer or at least new and unclear for many physicists, for many other scientists, for many mathematicians, and even for many logicians, I define here logic for use in physics as the fundamental aspect of reason that physics should uphold constantly in every argument and conclusion due from it:

Logic in physics is (1) the methodological science (2) of approaching the best intersubjectively rational and structural consequences (3) in what may be termed thought (not in emotions) (4) in clear terms of ever higher truth-probability achievable in statements and conclusions (5) in languages of all kinds (ordinary language, mathematics, computer algorithms, etc.) (6) based on the probabilistically methodological use, (7) namely, of the rules of all sensible logics that exemplify the Laws of Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle, (8) which in turn must pertain to the direct and exhaustive physical implications of “to exist”.

Here I have not defined logic in physics very simply as “the discipline of the rules of thought”, “the discipline of the methodological approach to truths”, etc., for obvious reasons clarified by the history of the various definitions of logic.

But here comes up another question: Is the reason pertaining to physical nature the same as the most ideal form of human reason? From within the business of physics, how to connect the reason of physical nature with that of humans? I may suggest some answers from the epistemological and ontological aspects. But I would appreciate your responses in this regard too.