Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Progress in physics

A Review On Natural Reality With Physical Equations

Linfan Mao

Published Jul 1, 2015• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A natural behavior is used to characterized by differential equation established on human observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or one field complied with reproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle P and the mathematical consistence determine that such a understanding is only local, not the whole reality on P, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e., how to establish a physical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing. As it is well-known, a thing consists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e., out-observation and in-observation for discussion.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.22863

Related papers

A Review On Natural Reality With Physical Equations

Linfan Mao

A natural behavior is used to characterize by differential equation established on human observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or one field complied with reproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle P and the mathematical consistence determine that such an understanding is only local, not the whole reality on P, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e. how to establish a physical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing. As it is well-known, a thing consists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e. out-observation and in-observation for discussion.

•Jul 3, 2015•0 citations

A Review on Natural Reality with Physical Equations

Linfan Mao

A natural behavior is used to characterize by differential equation established on hu- \nman observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or on \ne field complied with \nreproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle \nP \nand the mathematical \nconsistence determine that such an understanding is only local, not the whole reality \non \nP \n, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e. \nhow to establish a \nphysical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing \n. As it is well-known, a thing \nconsists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e. \nout-observation \nand \nin-observation \nfor discussion. The former is such an observation \nthat the observer is out of the particle or the field \nP \n, which is in fact a macroscopic \nobservation and its dynamic equation characterizes the coherent behavior of all parts in \nP \n, but the later is asked into the particle or the field by arranging observers simultane- \nously on different subparticles or subfields in \nP \nand respectively establishing physical \nequations, which are contradictory and given up in classical because there are not ap- \nplicable conclusions on contradictory systems in mathematics. However, the existence \nnaturally implies the necessity of the nature. Applying a combinatorial notion, i.e. \nG \nL \n- \nsolutions on non-solvable equations, a new notion for holding on the reality of nature \nis suggested in this paper, which makes it clear that the knowing on the nature by solv- \nable equations is macro, only holding on these coherent behaviors of particles, but the \nnon-coherent naturally induces non-solvable equations, which implies that the knowing \nby \nG \nL \n-solution of equations is the effective, includes the classical characterizing as a \nspecial case by solvable equations, i.e. mathematical combinatorics.

•Jul 1, 2015•0 citations

Mathematics With Natural Reality — Action Flows

Linfan Mao

The universality of contradiction implies that the reality of a thing is only hold on observation with level dependent on the observer standing out or in and lead respectively to solvable equation or non-solvable equations on that thing for human beings.

•Oct 5, 2015•0 citations

The mathematical nature of the universe and consciousness: the universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities; consciousness is the use of mathematical models by a Turing machine

Xiaoyang Yu

Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. The so-called “physical interaction” (aka objective interaction) among any number of elementary particles is consistent with the so-called “physical law”. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.

•Feb 3, 2021•0 citations

NONEMPIRICAL REALITY: TRANSCENDING THE PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL IN THE ORDER OF THE ONE

Lothar Schäfer

I describe characteristic phenomena of quantum physics that suggest that reality appears to us in two domains: the open and well‐known domain of empirical, material things—the realm of actuality—and a hidden and invisible domain of nonempirical, non‐material forms—the realm of potentiality. The nonempirical forms are part of physical reality because they contain the empirical possibilities of the universe and can manifest themselves in the empirical world. Two classes of nonempirical states are discussed: the superposition states of microphysical entities, which are nonempirical because observation destroys them, and the virtual states of material systems, which are nonempirical because they are empty. The non‐empirical part to physical reality represents a predetermined and hidden order that exists before it is empirical, and the visible world is an emanation out of it. I discuss consequences for our understanding of human nature, the origin of life, and human values. Reality is an indivisible wholeness that is aware of its processes, like a Cosmic Spirit, and it reveals its awareness in the mindlike properties of elementary processes as well as in the human consciousness. Thus, one is led to G. W. F. Hegel's thesis that the Cosmic Spirit is thinking in us.

Zygon®•May 26, 2008•15 citations

On the Foundations of Physics

Johan Noldus

The road on the foundations of science in general consists in (a) making precise what the assumptions are one makes resulting from our measurements (b) holding a “good” balance between theoretical assumptions and genericity of predictions (c) saying as precisely as possible what you mean. Unfortunately, recent work where these three criteria are met is scarce and I often encounter situations where physicists talk about different things in the same words or the other way around, identify distinct concepts (even without being aware of it), or introduce unnecessary hypothesis based upon a too stringent mathematical interpretation of some observation. In this work, I will be as critical as possible and give away those objections against modern theories of physics which have become clear in my mind and therefore transcend mere intuition. All these objections result from the use of unclear language or too stringent assumptions on the nature of reality. Next, we weaken the assumptions and discuss what I call process physics; it will turn out that Bell’s concerns do find a natural solution within this framework.

•Mar 1, 2016•3 citations
A natural behavior is used to characterized by differential equation established on human observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or one field complied with reproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle P and the mathematical consistence determine that such a understanding is only local, not the whole reality on P, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e., how to establish a physical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing. As it is well-known, a thing consists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e., out-observation and in-observation for discussion.
A natural behavior is used to characterize by differential equation established on human observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or one field complied with reproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle P and the mathematical consistence determine that such an understanding is only local, not the whole reality on P, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e. how to establish a physical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing. As it is well-known, a thing consists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e. out-observation and in-observation for discussion.
A natural behavior is used to characterize by differential equation established on hu- \nman observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or on \ne field complied with \nreproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle \nP \nand the mathematical \nconsistence determine that such an understanding is only local, not the whole reality \non \nP \n, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e. \nhow to establish a \nphysical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing \n. As it is well-known, a thing \nconsists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e. \nout-observation \nand \nin-observation \nfor discussion. The former is such an observation \nthat the observer is out of the particle or the field \nP \n, which is in fact a macroscopic \nobservation and its dynamic equation characterizes the coherent behavior of all parts in \nP \n, but the later is asked into the particle or the field by arranging observers simultane- \nously on different subparticles or subfields in \nP \nand respectively establishing physical \nequations, which are contradictory and given up in classical because there are not ap- \nplicable conclusions on contradictory systems in mathematics. However, the existence \nnaturally implies the necessity of the nature. Applying a combinatorial notion, i.e. \nG \nL \n- \nsolutions on non-solvable equations, a new notion for holding on the reality of nature \nis suggested in this paper, which makes it clear that the knowing on the nature by solv- \nable equations is macro, only holding on these coherent behaviors of particles, but the \nnon-coherent naturally induces non-solvable equations, which implies that the knowing \nby \nG \nL \n-solution of equations is the effective, includes the classical characterizing as a \nspecial case by solvable equations, i.e. mathematical combinatorics.
Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. The so-called “physical interaction” (aka objective interaction) among any number of elementary particles is consistent with the so-called “physical law”. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.
I describe characteristic phenomena of quantum physics that suggest that reality appears to us in two domains: the open and well‐known domain of empirical, material things—the realm of actuality—and a hidden and invisible domain of nonempirical, non‐material forms—the realm of potentiality. The nonempirical forms are part of physical reality because they contain the empirical possibilities of the universe and can manifest themselves in the empirical world. Two classes of nonempirical states are discussed: the superposition states of microphysical entities, which are nonempirical because observation destroys them, and the virtual states of material systems, which are nonempirical because they are empty. The non‐empirical part to physical reality represents a predetermined and hidden order that exists before it is empirical, and the visible world is an emanation out of it. I discuss consequences for our understanding of human nature, the origin of life, and human values. Reality is an indivisible wholeness that is aware of its processes, like a Cosmic Spirit, and it reveals its awareness in the mindlike properties of elementary processes as well as in the human consciousness. Thus, one is led to G. W. F. Hegel's thesis that the Cosmic Spirit is thinking in us.
The road on the foundations of science in general consists in (a) making precise what the assumptions are one makes resulting from our measurements (b) holding a “good” balance between theoretical assumptions and genericity of predictions (c) saying as precisely as possible what you mean. Unfortunately, recent work where these three criteria are met is scarce and I often encounter situations where physicists talk about different things in the same words or the other way around, identify distinct concepts (even without being aware of it), or introduce unnecessary hypothesis based upon a too stringent mathematical interpretation of some observation. In this work, I will be as critical as possible and give away those objections against modern theories of physics which have become clear in my mind and therefore transcend mere intuition. All these objections result from the use of unclear language or too stringent assumptions on the nature of reality. Next, we weaken the assumptions and discuss what I call process physics; it will turn out that Bell’s concerns do find a natural solution within this framework.