Other specific and important topics in the theory of everything

III ADDITIONAL REMARKS

1 The ‘philosophy’ of the number three

A reality which is cognitively well determined is in a way three-element. A long time ago, Aristotle noticed that the number three is exceptional. The whole universe is the third element in a certain order. The human is the third element in the order of free and rational beings. The planet Earth is the third element in the sequence of planets. We have three dimensions of the physical space, three generations of quarks and three generations of leptons. Also three quarks realize one proton or one neutron. It seems to be sensible to assume that we have three fundamental constants in physics, i.e. c, G and h. It is certainly possible to indicate many other examples for the ‘presence’ of this number.

2 Three basic constants of physics  

It seems right to assume that there are three fundamental constants: c, G and h. You can say that:

a)  the constant c in a fundamental manner reflects the character of human sensual cognition of the material world. It is inherent in human cognition,
b)  the constant G is related to the fact that humans reflect on the world rationally and adopt the concept of material being as ‘also a being’ which, as a result, is conceptually expressed primarily with the use of the law of noncontradiction. It is inherent in this reflection,
c)  the constant h is a complementary element. It shows that it is necessary to describe the world in a complex way due to existential and cognitive imperfections of humans. It is derived from these imperfections.

3 Matter and antimatter

According to this TOE, the universe is composed only of large and enormous BEM conglomerates in which single BEMs (from the very beginning of the universe) are residing virtually, which means that they may be extracted (at least conceptually). There is no differentiation between matter and antimatter. The latter is also matter. Antimatter construed literally is an absurd.

4 Dark mass and dark energy

Both of them are suspected to exist in large quantities in the universe. There is nothing special to it in this TOE. Probably the amounts of ‘dark reality’ in the universe is effectively ‘bigger’ than amounts of ‘not dark reality’. Why? This is not a scientific reason but there maybe an analogy with the following: people in morally negative situations are more offen not ‘under cognition of other people’ than in light of moral truth.

5 Absurdity of the materialistic interpretation of particle annihilation and creation

These phenomena are well-known, but the concepts themselves are absurd. Independently existing beings may not be reduced to non-being. Creation is imparting existence. When we take this word literary, we also get an absurd in this case.

6 Expansion of the universe as the effect of the human cognitive nature 

Humans constructed their cognitive perceptions in such way that it seems that the universe is expanding. With other perceptions, there would just be a change in the properties of space-time. It may also be added that the distribution of matter in the universe (galaxies, quasars, nebulas, etc.) seems to be analogical to other ‘being distributions’ occurring on a greatly smaller scale. The reason is that if the whole universe carries out a ‘loving’ reality, its cognitive perceptions must provide many analogies. We could e.g. assume that there is the analogical ‘escape’ to infinity of the borders of the universe, mass, or electron charge (if we do not use the renormalization procedure in our calculations), or the inverse of shrinking black hole volume. We in fact can not speak about the border or the edge or the radius of the universe. We can only speak about the border between the being (here it is the universe) and the non-being, because the set of BEMs is real and they are the most lower (in metaphysical or ontological sense) real substantial beings. In poetry one may say that this is the border between the metaphysical love and lack of it.

7 Alleged superiority of the heliocentric model over the geocentric model

So many centuries after Copernicus, the matter seems closed. But if we realize the incidentalness of our cognition, we see that the heliocentric model, which is based on weak and incidental concepts, does not necessarily have to be better than the geocentric model which is built rather on philosophical premises. There are no complications with epicycles now, but this is not much. Maybe in future humans will begin describing the universe starting from ‘own position’ (as many years ago). There are some reasons according to this TOE.

8 Renormalization as the effect of the human cognitive nature

We obtain infinity as a result of applying too great ‘discipline’ to mathematization of physics,  and we try to remove it artificially. This means that APUs of certain concepts are burdened with huge ‘non-being content’ and they need correcting somehow. The problems with ‘escaping to infinity’ of physical quantities in certain situations ‘show’ that mathematical beings (especially symmetries) are not so good in describing the material world. Sometimes a renormalization is possible and sometimes is not possible. This is the question of incidence. The situation is like with integrals in mathematics; sometimes we obtain finite number and sometimes infinity. So the mathematical beings should be traeted in general as only ‘useful tools’ in our mental exploring of the universe because real beings are not unambiguous (like mathematical beings) but analogical [1]. Analogical means not unambiguous.

9 Black holes and Hawking radiation

The subject is still fascinating, but again, this concept resulted from too high dose of mathematization in ‘perceiving’ the world. Certain sections of being may be ‘black holes’ if we do not reach them conceptually (or reach too weakly). For example, an object which would have infinite energy that could not be eliminated by renormalization would in a way be a ‘black hole’. 

In such very weak cognizable areas the cognition of reality is very weak. Thus ‘metaphysical distances’ between different elements in cognition are also ‘weak’ or ‘small’ and it is easy to pass into the ‘nearest’ metaphysical area, what is practically realised in the case of Hawking radiation.

Additionally we may say that the concept of ‘events horizon’ in the sense used in black holes theories is unacceptable in this TOE. Real events in matter are only unique and metaphysically non-repeatable events in the world of BEMs (practically not possible to reach them directly by our cognition). The ‘events horizon’ in fact concerns only events not important metaphysically, but important in the categories of general relativity. So the holographic principle seems to be of secondary importance and ‘information problems’ concerning black holes do not exist.

10.Quantization of space-time

This concept seems to be reasonable but in the world of BEMs (where are only unique non-repeatable events realised in quasi-rational and quasi-free way), not in the world of our concept of space and time or even in the world of concept of n-dimensional space-time..

11 Condensed matter

There is nothing special to it in this TOE. Every ‘part’ of the universe can be treated here as a ‘condensed matter’ because of analogically the same reality and analogically the same cognition principles of it. In theoretical physics the term condensed matter  refers in general to something different.

12 Waves in physics

The notion of wave is not so fundamental in this TOE as we can think. There is nothing special to it in this TOE. Every ‘event’ in the world of BEMs produces a specific ‘wave’ (or ‘wave impulse’) in the metaphysical sense. These ‘waves’ are practically impossible to identify. Only very little amount of specific (connected with a specific repeatability) ‘waves’ may be known like e.g. electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves or de Broglie waves. All the universe seems to be a unity in which everything can be in a way connected with everything by waves in the metaphysical sense

13 Simplified description of the history of the universe

First, there is a ‘simultaneous’ coming into being of N BEMs. Then, there is the performance of the possible ‘loves’ by BEMs and BEM conglomerates that develop over time. There is no scheme or rules in contradiction to theoretically possible schematic events realizing a kind of ‘slave’ history. There are only individual, unique ‘free decisions’ arising from existential abilities. Existential perfection of the universe progresses through a kind of ‘loving’ self-fulfilment. The best BEMs in terms of ‘lovingness’ are in a way rewarded, first they appear in our galaxy, then in the matter of the Solar System, then in the matter of Earth, then in organic compounds. With a high degree of existential perfectness, biological life emerges as an independent existence of a higher level, because occurring not only in itself, but also outside itself (i.e. by copying itself outside itself). With a high level of existence among living beings, the acquisition of the immortal soul from the Absolute by the first human takes place as a kind of ‘complement’ to non-being. Today we observe ceaseless fulfilment of BEM conglomerates’ histories, just like throughout the whole history of the universe. But the human activity can improve efficiently the whole history of the universe, not only the state of the atmosphere of Earth. That is possible because of enormous methaphysical and strictly physical connections between elements of the universe.

IV CONCLUSION

1 Wastelands, complications and weakness of contemporary physics

Present-day physics (year 2014) seems to be in a deep crisis. Despite various unifications, it cannot provide a single, coherent, and non-contradictory science which would encompass everything we know. The most striking thing about it is lack of any philosophical reflection. We cannot answer the question what really exists independently, or what are the cognitive capabilities of the human nature. In natural philosophy, a theory of hylomorphism used to function, which assumed the fundamental concepts of primal matter and substantial form. Primal matter would behave ‘like modelling clay’ from which, thanks to form, individual particles are formed, and primal matter would not exist independently, only ‘under’ specific forms. This theory does not play a significant role in science nowadays, because it does not say anything substantial about either of the concepts. It seems to be tautological. It can be reinterpretated [5]. Physics, in turn, has introduced many superfluous beings. Further beings may be introduced, but that would make our view of the world even stranger, yet we expect that the world must really be simple and beautiful. I hope that this TOE fulfils these expectations in its assumption that the world of independently existing quasi-free and quasi-rational beings, i.e. BEMs, is a necessary complement of the world of independently existing really free and really rational beings. It fills the existential gap between the latter and non-being.

2 Perspectives for the development of physics

Humans, as beings who participate in the material world, and who are meant to rule it, must possess cognitive tools suitable for this role. The further from it they are, the worse the cognizability of matter, and the closer they are, the better it is. Therefore, physics may effectively develop in cognitive systems which are ‘servient’ to humans. Developing it in all other directions will result in complications, which is the case today. Humans are ultimately surrounded by material reality which should be rather friendly for them. They will obtain a more orderliness cognition (as we can hope) when they direct their attention to more approachable beings instead of exploring remote regions of the universe. It does not seem to make sense to seek for the Higgs boson which is said to impart mass, to create theories introducing large quantities of new beings (e.g. a huge number of other worlds), or to split atoms so frequently. The idea behind the linear accelerator build some time ago in the US, which was to accelerate particles to practically any chosen velocity, could be reminded here. It occurred that the value of c could not be exceeded, but it was not known then. It seems that the hadron collider is something analogical, as it is also supposed to produce great things (great energies of colliding particles). What is the point? The hadron collider does not give any essential information about matter as such and its laws. There are, however, many useful research studies.

Stanisław Mizerski

References

[1]M.A Krąpiec, Metafizyka, Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL Lublin 1985

[2]M.Gogacz, Człowiek i jego relacje, ATK Warszawa 1985

[3]A.Strzałkowski, O siłach rządzących światem, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN Warszawa 1996

[4]M.Jeżewski, Fizyka, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe Warszawa 1970

[5]K.Kłósak, Z teorii i metodologii filozofii przyrody, Księgarnia św. Wojciecha Poznan 1980

2 thoughts on “Other specific and important topics in the theory of everything

  1. Dear sir, I fully agree with your valuable opinion on Quantum gravity. One can find an excellent review on quantum gravity in the Wikipedia. Considering the subject of black hole cosmology as a key branch of the quantum gravity, many fundamental issues of theoretical and observational cosmology can be understood.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine + = 11