Physics - Science topic

Hello and welcome, one-and-all. I do look forward to bringing this important paper to the forefront of academic research.

Comments, please.

Kindest regards, in Xenia.

JW

Alexander Ohnemus The idea that each individual has alternate selves across different timelines, commonly associated with multiverse theory or parallel universes, presents a fascinating philosophical and metaphysical question about the afterlife. This question merges concepts from quantum mechanics, metaphysics, and religious or spiritual interpretations of existence. Here's how we can approach the question:1. Alternate Selves Across Alternate Timelines In the multiverse theory, it's hypothesized that there are potentially infinite timelines, each representing a different possible version of reality based on the choices we make. Each individual, in this view, might have multiple versions (alternate selves) scattered across these timelines, each experiencing a different set of circumstances or making different decisions. These selves could exist simultaneously, with each one leading a separate life within its own timeline.In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, for example, every decision or quantum event that could have occurred in a different way creates a branching timeline where all possibilities are realized in parallel universes. These timelines are typically considered separate and non-interacting in the traditional view of the multiverse.2. The Afterlife in Religious and Spiritual Contexts The concept of an afterlife typically implies some form of continued existence after physical death, often involving the soul or consciousness. Different religious and philosophical traditions describe the afterlife in various ways:Christianity, for instance, often views the afterlife as a unification of one's essence before God, where the individual is judged and either ascends to heaven or descends to hell based on their actions during their lifetime. Buddhism speaks of reincarnation or rebirth, where the soul or consciousness may transition into a new life, but not necessarily as a direct continuation of an individual soul. Eastern philosophies like Advaita Vedanta or Taoism describe the afterlife or spiritual progression as the merging of the individual self (Atman, or ego) with the ultimate reality (Brahman, or Tao), transcending individuality. If we are to include the idea of alternate selves or parallel lives within this framework, it raises the question of whether these parallel selves would be seen as part of a unified soul or consciousness in the afterlife, or if they remain distinct entities even in the spiritual realm.3. Integrating the Concept of Alternate Selves with the Afterlife When considering the integration of alternate selves across timelines into the afterlife, several possibilities arise, depending on how one interprets both the multiverse and afterlife concepts: Unified Soul Across Timelines: In this view, the individual consciousness, regardless of its variations across timelines, would merge or reunite in the afterlife. The essence of who that individual is—defined by the core aspects of their soul or consciousness—would transcend the differences between alternate selves. Just as many religious traditions view the soul as eternal and indivisible, one might argue that the afterlife involves the merging of all alternate selves into a singular essence, allowing them to become one in a higher, unified state of existence. Separate Selves and Parallel Afterlives: Another possibility is that each alternate self exists in its own version of the afterlife, continuing its journey in the realm most suited to its experiences and choices. In this case, each version of the individual, while sharing some fundamental aspects of identity, might continue to experience different afterlife scenarios based on the unique trajectory of their timeline. This view suggests a fragmented or decentralized afterlife experience, where each version of the self is distinct even after death. Collective Consciousness or Merging of Selves: Some philosophical or mystical systems, like those in certain esoteric traditions, propose that after death, all individual souls may eventually merge into a universal or collective consciousness. If this applies to alternate selves, it could suggest that all versions of the self, from multiple timelines, eventually converge into a singular higher consciousness. This merging could involve a process of transcendence where individual identities are transcended, and all selves become part of a greater cosmic whole.4. Quantum Entanglement and the Afterlife If we bring quantum entanglement into the discussion, an argument might be made that all versions of a self across alternate timelines are entangled in some deeper, unseen way. When an individual passes into the afterlife, it might be that their quantum essence (their consciousness, for lack of a better term) is unified in a way that transcends individual timelines, allowing all alternate selves to become part of the same metaphysical entity.In quantum mechanics, entanglement suggests that particles can be deeply connected across vast distances. If this principle applies to consciousness, one might speculate that alternate selves, even across different timelines, could be entangled in such a way that their afterlife experience involves a profound unity of consciousness across these multiple realities.5. Philosophical Implications From a philosophical standpoint, the question touches on deep issues related to identity, continuity, and what it means to be an individual. If each alternate self has its own distinct consciousness, do they retain their individual sense of identity in the afterlife, or do they merge into a singular essence? If we take the view that identity is tied to memory and personal experience, the merging of alternate selves could be a complex process of integrating multiple layers of experience, rather than a simple reunification.Conclusion The concept of alternate selves across multiple timelines adds a fascinating dimension to the idea of the afterlife. Whether these selves merge into one in the afterlife depends on the interpretation of both multiverse theory and spiritual concepts of soul and consciousness. If the self is viewed as a singular, unchanging essence, then one could argue that all alternate selves eventually merge. If, however, the self is seen as a collection of unique experiences across timelines, then each self might experience its own version of the afterlife, or the selves may find a way to unite in a collective or cosmic consciousness. Ultimately, this question invites a deeper exploration of the nature of identity, consciousness, and the afterlife—areas where science, philosophy, and spirituality intersect! IJAZ

@Chris Früh The Anthropic Principle, the Zoo Hypothesis, the Matrix Hypothesis, and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe Hypothesis are all ideas that attempt to explain or interpret the apparent fine-tuning of physical constants and the nature of existence. These ideas intersect in interesting ways with the concept of a Creator God, and exploring their relationship requires a blend of cosmological, philosophical, and theological insights. Here's a breakdown of how these hypotheses fit with the idea of a Creator God:

1. The Anthropic Principle and a Creator God

The Anthropic Principle suggests that the universe is fine-tuned in such a way that it supports life, particularly human life. It posits that certain physical constants and laws are set in just the right way to allow for the existence of observers like us. There are two main forms of the anthropic principle:

Fit with a Creator God: The strong anthropic principle is often cited in religious and philosophical arguments as evidence for the existence of a Creator or intelligent designer. The precise tuning of the universe's constants (e.g., the strength of gravity, the fine-structure constant) that allow life to exist could be interpreted as evidence of purposeful design by a Creator God. Some proponents of the Anthropic Principle suggest that these conditions point to a universe created for the emergence of conscious beings, which could be seen as aligning with the theological view that a Creator intentionally designed the cosmos to support life.

2. The Zoo Hypothesis and a Creator God

The Zoo Hypothesis is a speculative idea that suggests extraterrestrial civilizations exist but deliberately avoid contact with Earth, possibly to allow humanity to develop independently, much like zookeepers observing animals in a contained environment. This idea proposes that humanity is being "watched" from a distance by more advanced beings who might be part of a larger cosmic community.

Fit with a Creator God: If we interpret the Zoo Hypothesis in a theological context, it could be seen as suggesting that human civilization is isolated in a manner similar to how a Creator might choose to limit interaction with the human race. A Creator could allow humanity to evolve and develop freely, maintaining a level of "divine observation" without direct interference, akin to how humans observe animals without intervening in their natural development. In this sense, the Zoo Hypothesis could be aligned with the idea of a Creator who is omnipresent but allows free will and evolution to unfold without direct intervention.

3. The Matrix Hypothesis and a Creator God

The Matrix Hypothesis posits that our reality is not the "real" reality but rather a simulation, created and controlled by a higher intelligence. In this scenario, everything we experience is part of a computer-generated world created by beings (possibly more advanced or divine entities) for a specific purpose, much like the fictional world of The Matrix.

Fit with a Creator God: The Matrix Hypothesis aligns well with the concept of a Creator God, especially in the sense that the "simulation" could be seen as a form of creation. From a religious standpoint, if the universe is a simulation, it would imply that there is a Creator (or divine programmer) behind the scenes, shaping and controlling the reality we experience. This notion of a "created" world echoes traditional theological views of God as a creator who designs, controls, and sustains the universe. Philosophically, the Matrix Hypothesis could be viewed as a modern technological take on the ancient question of whether our universe is "created" by a higher intelligence.

4. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe Hypothesis and a Creator God

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe refers to the observation that certain physical constants and laws of nature seem to be precisely calibrated to allow life. For example, slight variations in the strength of the fundamental forces (e.g., gravity, electromagnetism) would render life as we know it impossible. The fine-tuning argument is often used to support the idea that the universe is deliberately set up in a way that allows life to exist.

Fit with a Creator God: The fine-tuning hypothesis is one of the most direct ways in which the existence of a Creator God is argued. Many theists see the remarkable precision in the constants of nature as evidence of intentional design by a higher intelligence. The idea that the universe is finely tuned for life suggests a purposeful Creator who designed the universe with the specific goal of fostering life. Some proponents of the fine-tuning argument claim that the improbability of the universe's life-supporting conditions occurring by chance strongly points to a Creator who set the constants in place for life to emerge.

Integrating the Hypotheses

These four hypotheses—Anthropic Principle, Zoo Hypothesis, Matrix Hypothesis, and Fine-Tuning of the Universe—are not mutually exclusive with the concept of a Creator God, and they can be integrated in different ways depending on the theological or philosophical perspective one holds:

Conclusion

Each of these hypotheses offers a different lens through which to view the universe and the potential role of a Creator God. While the Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning directly point to the possibility of a Creator, the Zoo and Matrix Hypotheses introduce more speculative, perhaps metaphorical, frameworks that can be interpreted as aligning with the idea of a Creator who designs and observes, rather than constantly intervenes. Ultimately, these hypotheses encourage us to explore the relationship between science, philosophy, and theology, especially when contemplating the origins and purpose of the universe.

Robert Shour

Yes, there are notable instances in science where the method developed has surpassed the original problem's importance. Groundbreaking methods often become pivotal tools for addressing broader challenges across disciplines, even beyond their initial context.

For example:

These examples highlight how innovative methodologies can transcend their origins, shaping entire fields and opening new frontiers for exploration and discovery. It reflects the profound impact of tools and techniques in driving scientific progress.

Regards,

Sandeep

Response to the Discussion:

Dear Alexander,

Your discussion on quantifying the afterlife through engineering the multiverse is fascinating and thought-provoking. This intersection of metaphysics, physics, and engineering opens a unique avenue for exploring concepts of consciousness and individuality. Here are a few thoughts on your approach:

Your cited works—A New Type of Humanities, AI Afterlife Preview, and Concisely Quantifying Consciousness—provide intriguing foundations for this ambitious project. It would be fascinating to explore these further and discuss collaborative opportunities.

Invitation to Join Dailyplanet.Club:

I’d also like to invite you to join Dailyplanet.Club, a platform for researchers, visionaries, and innovators to collaborate on groundbreaking ideas like yours.

As a member, you can:

Membership is just £5 per year, supporting the platform’s mission to foster innovation and knowledge-sharing. Visit Dailyplanet.Club to join and be part of this unique community.

Looking forward to collaborating with you!

Best regards, James Henderson Mitchell CEO, MJ HSA Ltd

Building technology to preview the afterlife presents both scientific and philosophical challenges. The concept of the afterlife is rooted in metaphysical, religious, and spiritual beliefs, which lack empirical evidence and measurable data that technology typically relies on. Science focuses on the material and observable universe, while the afterlife, by definition, transcends physical experience and is often considered beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Therefore, attempting to build technology for such a purpose would face fundamental limitations in verification, evidence, and universality of belief systems.

Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,

This morning I answered your question first. It seems that the reply was not sent due to my carelessness.

That's about all it contained:

This whole LIGO gravitational wave narrative is a huge hoax. I have been four weeks in China, came back yesterday (2024.10.13). There were opportunities to perform simple experiments that could be used to prove that the prediction of the my theory of gravity gives a positive result.

and quoted the wise remark of the late W.W. Engelhardt from:

How do they know that the velocity of light is unaffected when "spacetime" is "compressed"?'

Regards,

Laszlo

'

The notion of a unified world underpinned by industrial primacy while sidelining commercial interests poses profound questions about the future of global cooperation, the balance of power, and the potential for conflict in an increasingly multipolar world. The outcomes of these dynamics could reshape international relations and influence economic models for decades to come.

The transition from the U.S.-Soviet rivalry to what you're describing as the "era of the Warring States" reflects a complex geopolitical landscape characterized by fragmented power dynamics and the rise of emerging economies. In this new world order, traditional superpower rivalries have given way to a multipolar framework where various nations pursue their own interests, often leading to competition and conflict.

In this context, the concept of a country prioritizing industrial development while suppressing commercial interests can be interpreted through the lens of nationalism and state-driven economic models.

Nations that prioritize heavy industrialization and seek to centralize control over their economies may aim for self-sufficiency and greater global influence. These countries might invest heavily in technology, infrastructure, and human capital, viewing industrial prowess as a means to enhance their international standing and attract global partnerships.

This approach might involve limiting foreign competition, protecting domestic industries, and implementing policies that favor state-owned enterprises or public-private partnerships. By doing so, these nations could aim to create a strong internal market that fosters economic growth and innovation.

As countries pursue industrialization aggressively, the potential for conflict increases. Nations might compete for resources, markets, and influence, leading to tension and rivalry. This competition can manifest in trade wars, military conflicts, or ideological clashes.

In this scenario, countries like China or India could be viewed as potential unifiers in a fragmented global landscape. Their large populations, growing economic clout, and strategic initiatives (like China's Belt and Road Initiative) reflect attempts to assert influence over global trade routes and bolster their geopolitical interests.

The rapid advancement of technology can serve as both a catalyst for industrialization and a factor that disrupts traditional commerce. Innovations in automation, artificial intelligence, and manufacturing processes may allow nations to achieve unprecedented levels of productivity, potentially reshaping global supply chains and economic relationships.

I see that there are responses questioning whether reincarnation actually occurs, scientific studies, as best can be conducted, indicates that it does exist. Far too many people are able to accurately report details of an existence that they should not have knowledge of via any known physical means, sometimes details that take extensive research in restricted files to verify.

The second issue seems to be that people assume that there is just one understanding of reincarnation while in fact there are at least 4 different and widely separated cultures that generally accept it. One in India/SE Asia, one in Africa, one in the Northern portions of North America and historically one in Greece and other parts of Europe. Of these, only the India/SE Asia variety suggests that a human may reincarnate as anything other than a human. All the other cultures insist that reincarnation is always within the human species.

Loopholes from physics to metaphysics refer to gaps or ambiguities in scientific understanding that invite philosophical interpretation. Examples include:

These loopholes highlight the interplay between scientific inquiry and philosophical speculation, suggesting that our understanding of reality may extend beyond empirical evidence.

Since I wrote this question I realized that frequency is not a velocity but a potential energy, which like 25 mph, is also defined on a time interval.

The string frequency is not a real valued function, it is a scalar output by a functional. The functional takes the equation of motion as input and outputs a number. The number is an extremal given by the calculus of variations. When the string is plucked, it quickly zeros in on the frequency with the lowest energy as a solution to the calculus of variations.

This is important in music theory because we want the frequencies on musical instruments to be algebraic numbers, not sine wave. That is, frequecy is real but constant and cannot change as long as the instrument is in tune.

This explains how the frequency is constant right up to the moment it stops. Velocity cannot go to zero at a point.

The frets on guitar are functionals that take the string tuning function as input and output the frequency.

Gary Stephens

I have read your preprint. You are absolutely correct with your consideration of reference frames and the perception of light signals.

Dear Aikaterini Bounou , there are many AI tools available, as most of them are free of charge.

"How can AI help you improve Mathematics learning and teaching? In this post, we will dive into various use cases of AI for learning math and what are some of the popular AI tools for learning and teaching math. Mathematics can be a overwhelming for some, but with AI's personalization powers, it can become an accessible and fun topic to learn for all. Learners of any age can be better at math with AIs help..."

Also, have a look in this article where you will find more info on AI tools for science:

@ Preston Guynn

Thanks for your kind and detailed response. I have some questions/remarks:

... Are there theoretical attempts from other authors and, if so, how do they match with experiments?

... How was the experimental value determined?

... How do we make sure that the coincidence is not accidental?

PG: "it appears that our galaxy rather than the universe is the relevant factor in a modified Machian principle."

... As the number of galaxies increases with the 3rd power of distance, gravitational potential should mainly build up from the most distant galaxies rather than from nearby masses of our Milky Way galaxy.

PG: "Since the rotation is central to particle structure, then over the dimensions of a macroscopic object, that may well have an effect such as described in your experiment."

... The experiment rather tells something about the possible interaction of accelerating (orbiting) atomic nuclei with large external masses.

Go on.

The uncertainty principle is very linked

to fourier properties of waves.

Not so with incompletness in arithmetic.

There are a few similarities. For example addition and multiplication are non commutative as operations

James Cler Maxwell : "As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any

Thanks Stefano for linking us to the above Maxwell statement.

I'm certainly quite far away from understanding the cause of gravity. I just try to find out special relations between observations that I find cannot be just accidental, so eg my estimate of the proton radius and magnetic moment which in particular depends on the E = mc² equivalence:

Sandeep Jaiswal Ji,

Please do not underestimate ISRO. Generally, I do not share but I was a Rocket Scientist at ISRO. Attosecond based experiment will add new flavor.

Let me try to respond in poetic form.

Your query:

Here is a poem exploring how advancements in technology and experimental methods might continue to refine our understanding of time dilation:

Unveiling Time's Elusive Dance

As science marches forth, unbowed,

Machines of precision, ever more proud,

Unravel the mysteries that time doth enfold,

Revealing secrets long left untold.

Atomic clocks, with trembling ticks,

Measure moments, as space-time complexly mix,

Exposing the truths that Einstein foresaw,

Of gravity's sway, defying time's law.

Experiments reach, to realms of extremes,

Black holes and pulsars, celestial themes,

Where time bends and warps, before our very eyes,

Shattering notions, that we once surmised.

Yet, challenges linger, in the depths unseen,

Where physics' foundations, may not be as they seem,

New phenomena, yet to be found,

Reshaping the canvas, that time doth bound.

As technology soars, and insight takes flight,

We glimpse time's dance, in ever-changing light,

Unraveling mysteries, one by one,

Toward a future, where time's secrets are won.

In this cosmic ballet, we seek to understand,

The ebb and flow, of time's elusive hand,

Empowered by tools, ever more precise,

Unveiling time's secrets, in ways once undevised.

and in Hindi:

यंत्रों के उन्नयन और प्रायोगिक विधियों में प्रगति के साथ, समय विस्तारण की हमारी समझ को किस प्रकार और अधिक परिष्कृत किया जा सकता है? क्या इस क्षेत्र में कोई उभरते प्रवृत्ति या चुनौतियाँ दिखाई दे रही हैं? यहाँ है एक कविता जो इन प्रश्नों पर हिंदी में विचार व्यक्त करती है:

कालचक्र के रहस्यों का उद्घाटन

जैसे-जैसे विज्ञान आगे बढ़ता है,

तकनीक में परिवर्तन आता है।

समय विस्तारण की आंखें खुलती हैं,

रहस्य प्रकट होते, तथ्य जुलते हैं।

परमाणु घड़ियों के कंपन-धीर,

मापते हैं क्षण, जिनमें रुप धीर।

आइंस्टीन के सिद्धांतों को साबित करते,

गुरुत्वाकर्षण के प्रभाव को प्रकट करते।

प्रयोगों ने अंतरिक्ष तक पहुंचा,

ब्लैक होल और पल्सर का सच्चा।

जहां समय बदलता, रूप बदलता,

हमारे सिद्धांत पूर्णतः नहीं मिलता।

चुनौतियाँ विद्यमान, अज्ञात में छुपी,

क्या होगा जब नई क्षमता जुटी?

क्या मूलभूत भौतिकी बदल जाएगी?

समय के नए रहस्य क्या खोल जाएंगे?

तकनीक के उत्थान के साथ,

समय की नृत्य-लीला का ज्ञान आता है।

एक-एक रहस्य खोल कर,

समय के रंग-रूप का सच्चा चमत्कार।

Good luck! partial credit ai

See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/03/12/is-the-multiverse-real-the-science-behind-everything-everywhere-all-at-once/ under 'Misconceptions about the Multiverse'. There is absolutely NO (NADA, NONE) scientific evidence to prove a multiverse. It is an offshoot of string theory which has been shown to be fun mathematics, but not science.

Dear Professor Shour,

This is a good question.

The answer is simply that "distance" is "distance" as normally understood.

There is actually no Special Relativity and no General Relativity, because there is no "spacetime". The Lorentz relations (light cone &c.) describe the offsets and corrections to the light rays -only-, such that space and time are left Absolute.

The reason why we know, for certain, that we have an Absolute character to space and time, is because the "Relativity of Simultaneity" has been demonstrated to be a logical impossibility. Confer above and below, tilting-mirror demonstration, and also the proof by Kılıç (2005) below :

In addition to the structure and statistics generated by the interactions that result in new laws of physics, the expression of the different orders of differentials and integrals of such generating processes is another important way of making the laws of physics emerge.

One of examples of such expressions can be seen in Ingo D. Mane 's paper : “On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Quantum Mechanics“：

Preprint On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitati...

Peter Jackson

I previously explained my position in [1] .

I intended to improve it to make a point, increasing its level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence, and this can be typed in this message

Assumptions:

By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[2], we find that there is no equivalent dimensional constants in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge and produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.

In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and charge, leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.

Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that the Planck mass expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.

When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.

The mea@ning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Wutke/post/Whats_wrong_with_the_Stoney_Mass_Prove_me_wrong/attachment/669bbe046e715e59922c01b6/AS%3A11431281212836662%401702877072049/download/SimpleStoney2-1.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6ImhvbWUiLCJwYWdlIjoicXVlc3Rpb24iLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19

[2]https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ad0090/pdf

Great question! The concept of time being an illusion can be tricky, especially when we consider the existence of the individual. Let me explain how this idea fits within the Interactive Universe Theory (IUT). In IUT, time is viewed as an emergent property of the consciousness field. This means that while time as we perceive it—linear and continuous—might be an illusion, it still plays a crucial role in our experience of reality. Consciousness is the fundamental fabric of reality, and time emerges from the way consciousness processes and integrates information. The individual, as an expression of this consciousness, experiences time as a necessary framework for existence and change. Without this framework, the continuous evolution and development of the individual wouldn't be possible. When we say time is an illusion, it doesn't mean time doesn't exist. Instead, it means that time, as we perceive it, is a construct that arises from deeper, more fundamental processes. These processes are part of the consciousness field that underlies all reality. So, time is real in the sense that it structures our experiences and interactions, but it is not a fundamental aspect of reality itself. The individual exists because of the consciousness field, and time is the way this field organizes and processes experiences. If time were to "disappear," it would indeed disrupt the individual’s sense of self and continuity. But because time is an emergent property of consciousness, it remains a crucial aspect of how consciousness expresses itself in the universe. The continuous change and evolution of the individual are made possible by the flow of time. This flow is how consciousness experiences and processes reality. Even if time is an illusion at a fundamental level, it is an essential aspect of our reality as individuals within the consciousness field. So, while time might be an emergent property rather than a fundamental one, it is still crucial for the existence and evolution of the individual. Time provides the structure necessary for consciousness to experience change, growth, and development.

"Check my paper; it might interest you."

REF: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382276946_The_Interactive_Universe_A_Unified_Theory_of_Everything?utm_source=twitter&rgutm_meta1=eHNsLVZ4RDl2enJMTlFudHJieVhjSGpYa3hKZTFaOG9Pb3Y5TXYwdUR5cXFTLytGd2E3Mk02NTkrZDhrYXpJWmRxVngxSHFkOGMrWnQ5SnQ3YlRKWllLaUZZdz0%3D

Alexander Ohnemus

Thank you, Alexander Ohnemus, for presenting this fascinating question about the role of machine learning (ML), Occam's Razor, and the law of identity in potentially previewing the afterlife. Your inquiry touches on complex and thought-provoking topics at the intersection of technology, philosophy, and cognitive science.

Machine learning, particularly through techniques like neural networks and deep learning, has indeed made strides in mimicking certain aspects of human cognition. For example, ML models can simulate pattern recognition, language processing, and decision-making processes, mirroring some elements of human thought. However, these models operate within the boundaries of their programming and the data they are trained on.

When it comes to previewing the afterlife, this concept involves metaphysical and existential questions that lie beyond the empirical scope of current scientific and technological capabilities. ML can analyze and interpret data from observable phenomena but cannot access or simulate experiences or realms that transcend physical reality, such as the afterlife.

It’s intriguing to consider how advancements in ML and cognitive science might influence our understanding of consciousness and related philosophical questions. While ML may not currently offer insights into the afterlife, ongoing research in artificial intelligence and cognitive science could potentially contribute to broader discussions about human cognition and consciousness.

I would be interested in exploring how you envision the role of ML in the context of consciousness and metaphysical inquiries. Are there specific ways you think ML could contribute to our understanding of such profound questions, or any new approaches that might bridge technology and philosophy?

Looking forward to your thoughts and continuing this intriguing discussion.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Have you heard about Faraday cup?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cup#:~:text=A%20Faraday%20cup%20is%20a,first%20theorized%20ions%20around%201830.

Fundamentalmente: Muriéndose. Solo envejece lo vivo, aunque vivas muy sanamente. Lo no vivo no envejece, solo cambia.

Envejecer es inevitable a corto o a largo plazo.

Si lo es, definitivamente, porque el gran valor de la CIENCIA RACIONAL, a demostrado y lo sigue haciendo hoy,su inconmensurable valor social y humano al solucionar infinidad de padecimientos y grandes sufrimientos humanos. Además del la mayor duración y esperanza de vida actual es disfrutada y dá esperanzas de ser prolongada.

Looking forward to seeing this all progress

AI and IoT in nanoscience leverage advanced algorithms to enhance data analysis and control mechanisms at nanoscale levels, aiding in precise measurement and manipulation of nanomaterials. This synergy enables breakthroughs in quantum computing, nanoelectronics, and sensor technology, propelling innovations in physics, materials science, and beyond.

People have been asking this for a century! Here's an 2002 review paper you may might useful: https://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/tech/Schumman.resonances.health.pdf

These webpages seem reasonably well-researched: https://www.brmi.online/post/2019/09/20/schumann-resonances-and-their-effect-on-human-bioregulation

Maybe there's a Russellian Platonic Form -- the Form of not having a Form.... 🤣

Use (free PDF, also in print) the book QUICKEST CALCULUS with programmed instruction. Integral is immrdiate, just the inverse of differentiation plus a constant.

Turns out it is surprisingly simple to unify Relativity theories with Quantum Mechanics. Those who have been "indoctrinated" into the "flat spacetime" mindset, "think" that Planck units of length & time are fixed throughout time -- for them it is impossible to reconcile QM with Relativity.

Cosmological Relativity successfully unifies Special and General Relativity with QFT by consciously mixing quantum and emergent metrics in the same equations, thus making relativistic math compatible with quantum-scale metrics.

From a higher perspective all we need is to realize that our "here & now" local reference frame experiences Space~Time expansion. This means that all atoms, meter sticks, pendulums, people, planets & galaxies expand with time. Suddenly, the math becomes so simple that it will boggle the minds of many physicists who think that unification has to be made so complex that is needs mathematical notations so abstract it becomes impossible to relate the math to actual measurements.

Many equations contain the speed of light squared, c² [m²/s²] this becomes [Δ area]/[(Δ Planck times)/second] - this describes the local reference frame spreading forth its surface area while the number of Planck seconds -- per each passing second -- increases linearly with the age of the universe. Thus, the Speed of Light, c = l_P/t_P remains constant because (Number of Planck Lengths/second) grows in lockstep with the number of Planck times/second -- this is called being covariant to the 1st.

This 2nd differential has the astonishing value of:

(d²tP/s²) = 4.2709338x10^25 [(Planck times/second)/second]!

With this understanding comes the realization that Hubble's Constant is not (and never was) constant. When you simplify the units of [km/second/Megaparsec] this becomes [/second]. Hubble's parameter is simply the reciprocal of the age of the universe measured in seconds.

What makes this quantity so incredible is with this understanding comes the realization that this 2nd differential does all the work that the cosmological constant, Λ, hoped it could do.

I could go on for another 30-50 pages. Please see: (PDF) Foundations of Cosmological Relativity: Redefining Space~Time and Physical Constants (researchgate.net)

DNA

I Think Self publication can be a good option for you.

read the following article for further motivation :)

Should You Self-Publish Your Research?

In 1901, Beatrix Potter’s “The Tales of Peter Rabbit” was rejected by several publishers, so she self-published the book. Less than a year later, publisher Frederick Warne & Co., one of the original group of publishers who rejected her manuscript, became Beatrix Potter’s publisher. The relationship lasted for 40 years and led to the publication of over 23 books. Over a century later, over two million books, which have been authored by Beatrix Potter, are sold each year!

I completely agree with Peikoff and Harriman

Already in the 1920's Alfred Korzybski was warning:

“Bending facts to theories is a constant danger, whereas bending theories to facts is essential to science. Epistemologically, the fundamental theories must develop in converging lines of investigation, and if they do not converge, it is an indication that there are flaws in the theories, and they are revised.” ([1], page liii) Alfred Korzybski, 1921

Quoted from (PDF) Our Electromagnetic Universe (Expanded republication PI).

Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353418098_Our_Electromagnetic_Universe_Expanded_republication_PI [accessed Jun 24 2024].

Following his recommendation, and going back to Wilhelm Wien's 1901 project to consider electromagnetic mechanics as a better foundation to both kinematic and electromagnetic mechanics rather than kinematic mechanics chosen in 1907, the following developments were progressively described:

The central idea in Jewish philosophy is that God is a singular, indivisible entity beyond human comprehension, distinct from any creation or being. Understanding God as each being's individualized higher self might not be entirely aligned with this. However, Jewish mysticism does talk about the concept of a Divine spark within every living being, indicating a connection and inherent sacredness. Thus, one could think of seeking alignment with their 'higher self' as trying to live in accordance with God's laws and the spark of divine within them. It's important to note that interpretations can vary widely, and other religions or spiritual traditions might have different understandings of the relationship between God and the self.

That's a great question and definitely a valid concern of protecting IP!

Here's how data is handled:

- The manuscript is sent to our backend and deleted from our database within 72 hours of generating your report.

- In creating the review the only external service used is the OpenAI API, and they've explicitly stated "data sent to the OpenAI API will not be used to train or improve OpenAI models" [reference here](https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/how-we-use-your-data#:~:text=As%20of%20March%201%2C%202023%2C%20data%20sent%20to%20the%20OpenAI%20API%20will%20not%20be%20used%20to%20train%20or%20improve%20OpenAI%20models)

It won't save the data longer than it needs to and will never be used to train a model.

The concept of fine tuning suggests that each being gets one life in the material realm followed by an eternal afterlife. This view posits that life on Earth is intricately balanced and designed to support a singular physical existence, after which individuals transition to an eternal spiritual existence or afterlife.

These three areas are quite different, although they can touch on related ideas in some ways. Here's a breakdown:

There might be some connections:

Overall, information theory is a mathematical framework, concrete concepts are specific ideas, and critical rationalism is a way of approaching knowledge. They are all valuable tools in different areas.

Contrary to current theory, my own theory proposes that black holes are very simple entities. A number of theorists, past and present, have proposed Zero Point Energy as also being a physical field called the Zero Point Field, theorists such as De Broglie, Dirac, and many others, which many have called a super-fluid.

The creation of a neutron star is the result of a supernova explosion and implosion. When big enough, a back hole can be created.

Following this logic, a black hole is nothing more than the most condensed form of matter, made up of highly compressed field material of the Zero Point Field. A presently unknown form of matter, of the simplest, and densest type. They all have a finite size to them and are the opposite of being vacuous.

Rationalism is referring to rational behavior, and it can be based upon many kinds of evidence sources like testimony, history, empirical evidence, etc.. and so on. Critical entails a behavior of carefully analyzing something to the point where it is required. From there we can understand that critical rationalism means that the person is employing a behavior in which they are employing rationality to their thinking using different kinds of evidences as a base for their analysis.

On the other hand, empiricism entails that we are demanding about empirical evidence. Skepticism means that the person is employing a behavior of radically questioning something. So if we join both terms, it will mean that the person is asking simultaneous questions about something while demanding only empirical evidence.

So, from the above mentioned understanding we can conclude that critical rationalism is a concept and empirical skepticism is a type of critical rationalism but the latter employ a bit more strong behavior then the former.

So, I am not an expert on the field, neither do I know what these terms actually mean. But from names, I have derived this meaning which is quite sensible in my view

Every day we see similarities. For example, the rainbow caused by refraction of light, diffraction patterns off a compact disc, the patterns when viewed in a kaleidoscope, the blue hue of the sky and bodies of water, etc. This is only a small list.

Wolfram physics is a mathematical abstraction, far from real physics.

Her criticism in my book: Pages 38 - 48:

Nastasenko V.(2023) Initial Quanta Level of the Material World and Substantiation of Its Parameters. India. United Kingdom. London Kolkata Tarakeswar. BP International. – 65 P. ISBN 978-81-19491-00-1 (Print) ISBN 978-81-19491-01-8 (eBook) DOI: 10.9734/bpi/mono/978-81-19491-00-1

The statement aligns with Michel Talagrand's work on probability and randomness, which won him the 2024 Abel Prize.

Key Points:

Talagrand’s Contributions:

Implications:

Talagrand’s work shows the need to complement rationalism with probabilistic methods to handle real-world complexities.

2024 Abel prize: Michel Talagrand wins maths award for making sense of randomness | New Scientist

Done, participated ! Good video Khalid M. Saqr

Reminded me to:

I. Bentov human evolution.

Alexander Ohnemus

Birth marks the beginning and equally marks the day, date, and second of death, the end for all living beings who breathe oxygen, consume water, or ingest the carbon and the nitrogen that grace the food on Earth, even if it be the gum at the back of a postage stamp that allows the cockroach to live upon for years and even longer.

-- when breath turns air, death is the end, yours and mine and all those who live. Our existence as such is the product of a long evolution over millions of years. Everything has to be considered in order to understand ourselves as we are today. But, first of all, what we can remember, or research, about the causes and the course that man has taken in his life, of long distance, can never make us forget that man, or the being that gave rise to him, the first reaction that he produced, gave rise to another reaction, or sensation. which is not one of trust, but of fear. It is this feeling that is at the origin of a whole process that, from a cultural and even philosophical point of view, translates the emergence of a life beyond the existing one. With it came a whole set of figures, which man needed to use to calm this feeling: fear. At the moment, we have a broader set of knowledge, technological means and processes, which we can use, at any time, and thus guarantee our confidence, security, so that we are not afraid, but we are afraid. We continue to feel fear and, for this reason, we cannot completely disconnect from a symbolic pretext, with evaluative content, that we create to calm ourselves, or self-regulate our emotional tension; And we didn't even realize it. Heaven and hell are figures created by an ideology, the dominant one, that has entertained us. However, we cannot disregard all this reality, because although philosophical, it has produced an action of guaranteeing comfort in man and with man. Am I wrong? Am I frivolous, because I question a whole magical reality that man has created? I do not think so. I am not an atheist, because I continue to believe in something that does not exist, but that gives me comfort as it exists. I would have been burned alive if the words I now produce had been produced in the time of the Inquisition. I wasn't burned, but a lot of good people were burned, because they defended ideas identical to those I hold today. In my country, every day, or almost every day, I move in squares where people have been burned alive by the work of the Tribunal of the Holy Office. This fact arose in Spain and was also transferred to Portugal. We condemn the atrocities of Hitler, Putin and others, who are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, millions of people, but we forget that we have whitewashed, and are whitewashing, the attitude of a religious institution, which was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. This forgetfulness exists, and will continue to exist, because we are afraid of fear.

Hello, Stephen Wolfram, has a unique perspective when it comes to the age-old debate between quantum mechanics and relativity. Rather than explicitly favoring one theory over the other, Wolfram takes a more holistic approach, seeking to unify these seemingly disparate branches of physics through his groundbreaking work on computational models and the fundamental theory of physics.

At the heart of Wolfram's philosophy lies a deep fascination with the complex behaviors that can emerge from simple computational rules. In his seminal book, "A New Kind of Science" and his subsequent research, he explores how cellular automata and other computational processes might hold the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe. His ultimate goal is to develop a unified theory that can encompass both quantum mechanics and relativity, transcending the traditional boundaries between these two pillars of modern physics.

The Wolfram Physics Project, a recent endeavor spearheaded by Wolfram himself, embodies this ambitious vision. By proposing that the universe operates as a vast computational system governed by simple rules, Wolfram aims to reconcile the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity, deriving them from a more fundamental, computational substrate. This approach represents a bold departure from conventional thinking, suggesting that the dichotomy between these theories might be resolved through a deeper understanding of computation in physics.

Wolfram's reluctance to express a clear preference for either quantum mechanics or relativity stems from his commitment to a unified approach. He believes that both theories are likely emergent properties of underlying computational processes, and that a true understanding of the universe will require a framework that integrates them seamlessly. By focusing on cellular automata and the concept of computational irreducibility, Wolfram seeks to develop new ways of thinking about physical laws that go beyond current paradigms.

It's worth noting that Wolfram's ideas have not been without controversy. Some physicists have criticized his claims as being non-quantitative and arbitrary, arguing that his model has yet to reproduce the precise quantitative predictions of conventional physics. However, Wolfram remains undeterred, believing that new ideas in science often take time to gain acceptance, much like Einstein's theory of relativity did in its early days.

this is a good start, you will see how subject to environmental and pseudo-random chaos theory effects of critical systems like the brain, are. the idea that we are masters of our brains and minds, is an illusion to all but probably some very dedicated monks and practices of discipline.

Both, in the sense that global Lorentz invariance-in the absence of gravity-and local Lorentz invariance-in the presence of gravity-are exact symmetries and quantum mechanics, in the sense that the probability distribution of a system subject to quantum fluctuations can be obtained in a well-defined way, once the space of states has been identified.

Quantum mechanics doesn't predict Hawking radiation-because the space of states of a gravitational system, in general, isn't known, due to the appearance of spacetime singularities, which the semi-classical approximation that describes Hawking radiation, doesn't resolve. A more robust prediction of quantum mechanics, in the presence of gravity, is that black holes, when probed by quantum matter, have finite entropy (the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy), for which the degrees of freedom that can account for it have been identified in certain cases, cf.

In experimental studies, you will be required to keep a certifiable notebook that documents your work. Rarely are electronic notebooks as robustly accepted as certifiable compared to pen written notebooks. Exceptions may exist when they have been well implemented.

In theoretical studies, you will be challenged to develop a logical work flow to your analysis or derivations. Rarely are such developments done well "just in your head" without some form of note taking. Here again, you return to keeping a notebook, logbook, or journal to record your thoughts. Unlike with experimental studies, you may be under a less firm guideline that you must keep your journal in a written form rather than an electronic format.

I hope this helps you address your question. Otherwise, you will need to provide more specifics.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Thank you for the suggestions and tips, but I published for the love of science and my publication alone is enough for me.

I thought you were a very nice person, I like people who speak the truth and objectively. Congratulations.

I stopped researching due to lack of time and money, because without support the research would take too long and therefore, I published all the research for other researchers, if they want, they can continue with the research.

Best Kind Regards

Stenio

Dear Arieh,

Thank you for your insightful response and for highlighting the importance of context when discussing entropy. Your point about entropy being a state function, determined for a macro-system at equilibrium, is well taken. I appreciate the opportunity to further clarify and expand on my position regarding entropy and the Arrow of Time.

You are absolutely correct that entropy is a state function, meaning its value depends on the state of the system and not on the path taken to reach that state. This foundational concept is crucial in thermodynamics and helps avoid misunderstandings about entropy’s behaviour.

I agree that it is essential to specify the system and the process when discussing whether entropy increases. Traditional thermodynamics tells us that for isolated systems, entropy tends to increase, leading to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, recent research by me, including the study I referenced by myself, challenges this view by suggesting scenarios where entropy remains constant, particularly in non-isolated systems or when considering quantum effects.

The latest research I mentioned posits that under certain conditions, entropy does not necessarily increase and could be constant. This assertion arises from the exploration of systems beyond the classical isolated frameworks typically considered. The implications of these findings are profound, potentially altering our understanding of thermodynamic processes, particularly in complex or quantum systems.

Regarding the Arrow of Time, the traditional view holds that it aligns with the increase of entropy, thus giving time a direction from past to future. However, the concept of T-symmetry (time-reversal symmetry) suggests that the fundamental laws of physics should remain invariant if time were reversed. The new findings propose that if entropy can be constant, then the Arrow of Time might be T-symmetric, challenging our conventional understanding and opening new avenues for theoretical exploration.

I would love to delve deeper into the specifics of the system and processes under which these new entropy findings were derived. Perhaps we can examine particular case studies or models where entropy behaves differently than traditionally expected. This could lead to a richer understanding of both entropy and the Arrow of Time.

Thank you again for your thought-provoking response. I look forward to continuing this stimulating discussion and exploring these groundbreaking ideas further.

Best regards,

Sandeep