This article examines the need for a comprehensive theory that explains the creation of the universe and the enigmatic behaviours observed in quantum particles. Recent advancements in quantum physics have revealed phenomena in the microscopic and macroscopic realms that challenge conventional explanations based solely on natural laws. This article introduces an argument centred on the concept of “presence of metaphysics in physics” as a means to provide a plausible account for the improbable existence of the universe and the mechanics of the space-time continuum. By incorporating ontological principles in classical physics and quantum mechanics, this proposed model sheds light on the origins of natural laws while also considering the mysterious balance and intricacies observed in micro and macrocosms. Moreover, this article argues that a mere succession of random events guided by mathematical probabilities cannot adequately establish and govern the natural laws that appear to have arisen with the aim of fostering life within the universe.
This article examines the need for a comprehensive theory that explains the creation of the universe and the enigmatic behaviours observed in quantum particles. Recent advancements in quantum physics have revealed phenomena in the microscopic and macroscopic realms that challenge conventional explanations based solely on natural laws. This article introduces an argument centred on the concept of “presence of metaphysics in physics” as a means to provide a plausible account for the improbable existence of the universe and the mechanics of the space-time continuum. By incorporating ontological principles in classical physics and quantum mechanics, this proposed model sheds light on the origins of natural laws while also considering the mysterious balance and intricacies observed in micro and macrocosms. Moreover, this article argues that a mere succession of random events guided by mathematical probabilities cannot adequately establish and govern the natural laws that appear to have arisen with the aim of fostering life within the universe.
Metaphysics, as discipline dealing with the most fundamental aspects of reality, studies the essence of entities, leaving to particular sciences the study of empirical, specific, changeable and unstable aspects. In this sense metaphysics is close to ontology, tackling problems as the existence of God, the being in himself, the immortality of consciousness, the origin and meaning of the universe. Speculative physics pushes its interest to metaphysical questions too, both at atechnical (mathematical) level, and at the level of thought (in relation to philosophy). In recentyears interesting concepts and ideas have been considered and developed, involving the latest unified quantum-relativistic theories and the consequences on reality deriving from them.The search for a meaning of life, one of Anscombe’s themes, finds ferment in the search for meaning about the existence of our universe in itself and as a possible part of a multiverse containing it.The problem of measurement in quantum mechanics appears from the application of themathematical formalism to macroscopic situations and the central position of the observer in this process has produced a deviation towards a metaphysical subjectivism. There are controversial aspects about the role of consciousness in the process of reducing the wave function of quantum mechanics. This narrows the field of validity of some fundamental principles during the interaction between microsystems and macrosystems, with consequent diversification of thedefinition of the ontological state of consciousness and reality. (Local) holism has often been linked to Wittgenstein. From Wittgenstein’s answers to the paradoxes of communication and conceptual relativism, a tension emerges in his vision of linguistic games and in his mental experiments, traditionally interpreted in contrasting ways. This tension can be better understoodthrough some reflections by Wittgenstein on Einstein and his theory of relativity.
The incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity is not a lack of technical details, but a fundamental one—they are each built on distinct local invariants: quantum mechanics relies on gauge invariance, while relativity is based on Lorentz invariance. Starting from different mountain feet, they naturally cannot converge at the summit. What physicists are truly seeking is a global, absolute, and simple invariant—one that can govern all physical phenomena and serve as the common source of all physical laws. This paper proposes the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness: all events, physical states, particle configurations, and interaction relationships in the universe are strictly unique, and there are no two identical forms of existence. From the perspective of group theory, this axiom is the ultimate invariant that physicists have long pursued—because the attribute of "everything is unique" remains unchanged regardless of any transformation applied (temporal evolution, spatial translation, rotation, gauge transformation, etc.). Based on this single axiom, this paper argues that: · The essence of time is the sequential unfolding of unique states, and the unidirectionality of the arrow of time is a direct inference of uniqueness; · The essence of space is the topological structure of causal correlations between unique events; · Causality possesses absolute necessity, and the "randomness" in quantum mechanics is a cognitive limitation rather than physical reality; · Probability has no physical reality and is purely an instrumental approximation under cognitive limitations—because the definition of probability relies on "repeatable experiments", a premise negated by the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness; · The paradox of the origin of life is thus resolved: the origin of life has already occurred, and no probabilistic explanation is needed under the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness—the so-called "extremely low probability" is a pseudo-problem arising from the misapplication of the concept of probability to unique historical events. This axiom requires no presupposition of any physical laws, particle properties, or spacetime frameworks, and achieves self-consistency solely through ontological logic. It is a more fundamental global invariant than Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance, and can govern the core laws of classical physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmic evolution—for all of them are branches growing from this common source.
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
The incompatibility between quantum mechanics and relativity is not a lack of technical details, but a fundamental one—they are each built on distinct local invariants: quantum mechanics relies on gauge invariance, while relativity is based on Lorentz invariance. Starting from different mountain feet, they naturally cannot converge at the summit. What physicists are truly seeking is a global, absolute, and simple invariant—one that can govern all physical phenomena and serve as the common source of all physical laws.This paper proposes the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness: all events, physical states, particle configurations, and interaction relationships in the universe are strictly unique, and there are no two identical forms of existence. From the perspective of group theory, this axiom is the ultimate invariant that physicists have long pursued—because the attribute of "everything is unique" remains unchanged regardless of any transformation applied (temporal evolution, spatial translation, rotation, gauge transformation, etc.).Based on this single axiom, this paper argues that:· The essence of time is the sequential unfolding of unique states, and the unidirectionality of the arrow of time is a direct inference of uniqueness;· The essence of space is the topological structure of causal correlations between unique events;· Causality possesses absolute necessity, and the "randomness" in quantum mechanics is a cognitive limitation rather than physical reality;· Probability has no physical reality and is purely an instrumental approximation under cognitive limitations—because the definition of probability relies on "repeatable experiments", a premise negated by the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness;· The paradox of the origin of life is thus resolved: the origin of life has already occurred, and no probabilistic explanation is needed under the Axiom of Cosmic Uniqueness—the so-called "extremely low probability" is a pseudo-problem arising from the misapplication of the concept of probability to unique historical events.This axiom requires no presupposition of any physical laws, particle properties, or spacetime frameworks, and achieves self-consistency solely through ontological logic. It is a more fundamental global invariant than Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance, and can govern the core laws of classical physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmic evolution—for all of them are branches growing from this common source.
I combine the idea of a primitive ontology with the metaphysics of laws of nature. In so doing, I examine the theoretical entities that are postulated in Newtonian mechanics, classical electrodynamics, and the de Broglie–Bohm quantum theory. I argue that the existence of mass, forces, fields, and the wave-function depends on the status of laws. The three major theories on laws of nature I treat are Humeanism, dispositionalism, and primitivism about laws. I point out that properties are notoriously ignored in debates on primitive ontologies. In fact, I show that properties, both intrinsic and relational, aren’t needed in physics; therefore, I replace the primitive ontology with a primitive stuff ontology, whose elements have no properties. Recently, a debate has started on the ontological status of forces in classical mechanics; I criticize the major positions and present my own idea that focuses on the status of laws of nature. Another hot topic is the status of the wave-function. Here, I develop a new interpretation in the framework of Humeanism that crucially differs from that advocated by David Albert and Barry Loewer, in that our world is not an illusion of a reality in configuration space. In addition, I propose a hitherto unconsidered way in which the wave–function can be construed as a holistic disposition.
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – This central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts to understand quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. Additionally, several hidden major assumptions have been present in Classical Mechanics (represented by continuum mathematics) since its inception by Newton that are blocking progress and understanding of quantum mechanics. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 1.195 10-07-2016 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 80, 70.4 Kw; 800 KB}