Dear Basudeba,

Thanks for the comment on my essay. There are many interesting and resonating points condensed into your essay and I will attempt to discuss a few of them which resonated.

"...since density of space is the minimum, the velocity of photon in space is maximum." "Particles are nothing but locally confined fields of densities." "The interval between objects is space and that between events is time"

One way is to treat 'density' as the overall remnants/effects of the state of motion of particles or more precisely the state of location and displacement of particles from the prior and next state (analogous to one frame after another in a video). For a photon, which is not a localized or confined particle (sort of spread out in comparison), it will navigate with greater ease in a less dense (less particle perturbation) environment.

"There is a continual pressure starting from the creation event to achieve complete knowledge."

The way I treat it is that once 'density' and information come into existence, it has already set the stage for moving towards the ultimate event where the 'overall density' is at its 'optimum'.

Regards,

Hon Jia

    Dear Sir,

    Thanks for your comments. We fully agree with your first comment, which can be further extended.

    Regarding your second comment, we must differentiate between 'density', which is a state and 'information', which is the description of the state in a 'language'. Knowledge is the perception of the contents of this language. Description or reporting is action. The content is perceived only after this action. Hence it is not action. It is compared with the stored concept in memory. Thus, ultimate knowledge is the ultimate store house of all concepts.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Thank you Sir,

    But we are not interested in making money. While money is important, we consider excess money as a disease. We do research for our self satisfaction.

    You will get many people to collaborate with you. You can try them.

    Thanks for the offer.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Basudeba,

    You have put a ,,strange,, task - ,,harmonizing the generalities of the macro world with those of the micro world,, from viewpoint of modern ideology,adopted in the oficial physics as indisputable principle! I mean there finitelly are accepted - our macroworld has its own rules (that is the cause-effect relations)- and thre are the microworld, which controled by brobable-statistical own relations (i.e. by quantum laws.) So, how you can dared to go against to thousands professors, uncountable quantity of courses and handbooks? You puting also laffulness questions - what is photon? What is the electron? Who give you permission to put such eretical questions?

    Dear Basudeba! You are on very right way! I welcome your work and hope you can find some answers of your right questions from my work ESSAY(after you need check the referenses there)I am inclined to high rate your work, and hope to listening your opinion about our common points in my forum.

    All the Best,

    George

      Dear Sir,

      Thank you for your gracious comments.

      Modern physics is at cross roads and needs to be saved by independent research. In this forum itself, we have received monetary offers and offers to mutually vote high, which we have declined.

      We can give our independent views because we are not running after any prize or recognition, but we want to understand Nature for our own satisfaction. We do not accept the 'established theories' blindly, because that is superstition. We accept only those that stand scientific scrutiny based on latest observations and experiments. Additionally we try to link similar principles in different fields like the Doppler effect or inverse square law were used in different fields in the last century. We do not fantasize with physics and follow strict mathematical principles.

      We will surely visit your site and comment on it.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      basudeba,

      "Quantum states give only probabilities, which aredetermined by observation.

      The probability is related to the observer's inefficiency to control the environment and not to the way the quantum world behaves"

      A lot of pearls of wisdom like the above and a lots of good unanswered questions. As your assessment indicates, We share a number of concepts and questions.

      Jim

      Dear Basubeda,

      I have read through your essay and I have noticed that you are only describing some of the most fundamental principle in physics and you are trying to be philosophical about the subject - unfortunately you are not doing it the right way. I do not understand how the Essay title "it from bit or bit from it" is related to your writings.

      Firstly I do not see how the water waves experiment you carried out - you are implying that the observations made are similar to the double slit experiment with one electron? There are interferences and diffraction observed in both cases because of the way the waves propagates. [by the way your experiment was carried with matter waves (like water waves or waves in a string) while the waves in the wave/particle duality are electromagnetic waves - there are some fundamental differences from a quantum mechanical point of view! Unfortunately you are in a classical world!] You cannot compare with a classical experiment water molecules and the behavior of a single electron quantum mechanically speaking! The water waves are just energy propagating, the molecules are right here but you do not know in what state is the electron until you observe it ( This reduction or collapse of a wave function as per the Copenhagen interpretation).

      Secondly I do not understand why you would say that no one knows what is an electron? It is a fundamental and stable particle, a proton is however a composite and stable free hadron - the only one. An electron however can exhibit wave like properties ( this is how the quantum world operates ). Otherwise modern medicine would not be existing since most researches in the field requires the extensive use of electron microscopes which makes use the wave like nature of an electron.

      Finally I would say that if you are to question the most fundamental principles of Physics and thereby Nature, then do so by including some references as this is a very important part of any kind of research which has been undertaken by the author of the article.

      Best

      Salvish

        Dear Basudeba,

        The first part of my post is a joke only! (Maybe it is not successfully because of my imperfect English) I hope listening your comments to my work.

        Regards,

        George

        Dear Sir,

        You have justified our addressing you Sir, because you have shown real inquisitiveness to know. We are pleased with your questions, but since space is a constraint, we will reply a few points briefly. You can read other comments in other threads or write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

        If you read the original Essay announcement, you will realize that, our essay is one of the few essays that strictly follow the principles and conditions of relevancy and interest mentioned therein and is the only one that follows all conditions in its entirety. This has been published only after FQXi was satisfied about these conditions - specifically the possible questions and sub-topics.

        October 2005 issue of the Notices of American Mathematical Society has published a paper, in which it has been shown that the macro and the micro worlds share the same sets of mathematics. We use this principle universally. The Copenhagen Interpretation is restricted to text books now. Most in the research community have abandoned it. You say that we are philosophical, because we are not taking the language of mathematics. But what about the concept of the observer? Though observer has a central role in Quantum theories, its true nature and mechanism has eluded the scientists. There cannot be an equation to describe the observer, the glory of the rising sun, the grandeur of the towering mountain, the numbing expanse of the night sky, the enchanting fragrance of the wild flower or the endearing smile on the lips of the beloved. It is not the same as any physical or chemical reaction or curvature of lips. Do you call these philosophy? Are they not real? If they are real, they description about them must be physics. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.

        We have shown in various threads the correspondence of macro objects with micro objects like the internal structure of proton and Planet Jupiter are similar. We have shown there is nothing as quantum weirdness and all quantum phenomena including superposition, entanglement, spin, tunneling, etc. have macro equivalents. We have shown how the experiments of the double slit experiment are faulty. It is in our essay. If you can, prove us wrong. Take this as a challenge.

        Regarding wave function and its collapse, the less said the better. We have quoted one of them in our post below your thread. Since it is widely agreed that any quantum mechanical system is completely described by its wave function, it might seem that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the behavior of wave functions. Quite naturally, all physicists starting with Erwin Schrödinger, the father of the wave function, wanted this to be true. Nonetheless, Schrödinger ultimately found it impossible to believe. His difficulty was not so much with the novelty of the wave function: "That it is an abstract, unintuitive mathematical construct is a scruple that almost always surfaces against new aids to thought and that carries no great message". Rather, it was that the "blurring" suggested by the spread out character of the wave function "affects macroscopically tangible and visible things, for which the term 'blurring' seems simply wrong" (Schrödinger 1935).

        For example, in the same paper Schrödinger noted that it may happen in radioactive decay that "the emerging particle is described ... as a spherical wave ... that impinges continuously on a surrounding luminescent screen over its full expanse. The screen however does not show a more or less constant uniform surface glow, but rather lights up at one instant at one spot ....". He observed that one can easily arrange, for example by including a cat in the system, "quite ridiculous cases" with the ψ-function of the entire system having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. Thus it is because of the "measurement problem" of macroscopic superpositions that Schrödinger found it difficult to regard the wave function as "representing reality". But then what does reality representing? With evident disapproval, Schrödinger describes how the reigning doctrine rescues itself by having recourse to epistemology. We are told that no distinction is to be made between the state of a natural object and what we know about it, or perhaps better, what we can know about it. Actually - it is said - there is intrinsically only awareness, observation, measurement.

        Many physicists pay lip service to the Copenhagen interpretation - that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about observation or results of measurement. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to find an ardent supporter of this interpretation. It is assumed that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about atoms, electrons, quarks and strings (if they exist at all), and not those particular macroscopic regularities associated with the measurements of the properties of these things. But if these entities are not to be somehow identified with the wave function itself - and if any discussion about them is not a short-hand for elaborate statements about measurements - then where is their place in the quantum description? Discerning the objects we believe quantum mechanics should be describing in the quantum description is a difficult task. We are not discussing the probability wave, whose intensity is given by a complex number, so that it has to be squared to make it meaningful. Intensity is physical. Complex numbers are non-physical. Hence they cannot be used in computer programming.

        Your reply about what is an electron is like telling Salvish Goomanee is a person. This is not the answer, because it is only a name and you are much beyond this name. Find out the most intelligent Professor of physics in your locality and put him this question. See what he replies and compare with your views.

        Regards,

        basudeba

        Dear Basudeba,

        I am glad to find with you many common views on how must be seen

        the science based on objective principles but not on the subjectivism,

        which mainly find place in disputable sections of physics.

        Caming to your detailed interpretation of Schredinger equation, I must tell you

        sorry, because I have my own approach to this very intriquing problem

        (you know already whit this question mostly has conditioned the origin of

        quantum representation). If you have enogh time (I mean after this battle!)

        just open ref. [9] from my work. I hope my explanation will deserved your

        attention. There you can find also my viewpoint about relation of matematics,

        logic and physical reality.

        My Best wishes to you,

        George

          11 days later

          Dear All,

          It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

          iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

          One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

          Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

          the second sub series is always defined by the equation

          Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

          Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

          Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

          Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

          Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

          Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

          Examples

          starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

          where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

          -27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

          Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

          Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

          where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

          Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

          0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

          The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

          As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

          d-super.pdf"> The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory](https://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

          d-super.pdf)

          Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

          I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

          I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

          All this started with a simple question, who am I?

          I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

          I super positioned my self or I to be me.

          I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

          I am Fibonacci series in iSeries

          I am phi in zero = I = infinity

          I am 3Sphere in iSphere

          I am pi in zero = I = infinity

          I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Dear Sir,

          We have refuted your equating zero with infinity in our first post. We avoided replying to that telling that you do not want to discuss relativity. Then why are you continuing with such weird ideas?

          In your Author bio-data, you have said "I am your alter ego. We are one and the same i or the singularity or the conscience or the soul or the absolute or the god." I is discrete (consciousness is not) and alter ego suggests duality. Then how can both be same?

          What is the rationale of your writing or post to the topic at hand? It is beyond us! You are advocating 'pravritti' path, which only tempts the sense organs to go more for it (material enjoyment) and away from salvation. Of course it is your choice.

          Regards,

          basudeba

          Dear Basudeba -

          It is interesting in this contest to see how disparate thinkers start from such different perspectives and draw near to a concept of the Cosmos that can, I sense, accommodate a grand synthesis of their views.

          Simply put, we're all questioning the established parameters, as has occurred throughout history - and we're doing so for the same reason as always: so that we might interact with a field of reality that is more comprehensive (or consistent), and less paradoxical.

          I was captivated by your combination of thoroughness, and your concern for the 'real-world' aspect of whatever paradigm will one day resolve the issues at hand.

          At the beginning you state how time is fundamental to information language, and wires in certain distortions. This brings in the observer-bias, I think - and ultimately, evolution.

          I found your description of the dual waves meeting in the photon very interesting - and this is something I trace to the 'gravitational-magnetic force' of pure energy. I think you'd agree that there's duality in the foundation of the Cosmos: you see two types of waves meeting, I speak of this duality as fundamental to energy itself, and the source of electrons and protons (negative and positive charges that - once properly aligned - got the cosmic process going.

          You address what can be called the general topic of distortion in a very interesting way in your analysis of Einstein's time dilation experiments. Ultimately relativistic and quantum distortions occur at the periphery of the Cosmos - very far away, at great speeds, or within particles - but are less relevant in the universe at hand. However, these factors, or distortions, are always taking place - and they are always relevant in defining the Cosmos.

          What is the Cosmos? You have raised several interesting points here to help us answer this question - and given your broad perspective (your exploration of information systems and the mechanics of perception were very helpful - as were your cosmic conclusions) I'm sure you'll find many useful insights in my essay, too.

          I have rated your paper, of course, and I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

          John

            Basudeva

            Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

            (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

            said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

            I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

            The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

            Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

            Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

            I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

            Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

            Good luck and good cheers!

            Than Tin

            Dear Sir,

            We fully agree with your opening remark. We are sorry for over-looking your essay till now. Our views are very similar, though from different perspectives; so that it will take some time to finalize the common language. Due to space constraint we may not be able to express our views fully here and we will like to continue our interaction beyond this forum. We are also going to write to FQXi to devote more time for discussion (at least 2 months) than writing the essay (not more than 45 days) and abolish the prizes, since the list of finalists are being manipulated.

            We will write more detailed comments on your essay in your thread. Here we will like to comment with appreciation only on "duality as fundamental to energy itself ... that ... got the cosmic process going" to further elaborate and corroborate.

            Let us consider motion. It requires application of a force. Two things happen simultaneously when a force is applied: the object changes its position in space over time and continues to move due to inertia of motion, which, in turn, generates the complimentary inertia of restoration (elasticity) in the field due to differential velocity (friction). Both these are equal and oppositely directed. Thus, application of one force generates a pair of reactions, which, when faced with other reactions, become non-linear and express themselves in a multitude of ways. Now suppose a body is in equilibrium. It means, all forces acting on it cancel themselves. (We have shown elsewhere mathematically that there is nothing as inertia of rest). Let us remove one of the forces acting on the body. The body starts moving due to the other forces acting on it. In other words, by both applying force as well as by removing force, we induce motion in the body. Thus, equilibrium resolves into two oppositely directed motions.

            Motion can bring one body near another (proximity) or take one body away from another (distance). The rate of change will vary depending upon the force applied. This duality will compound when we consider both bodies together. Thus, when the equilibrium resolves into two oppositely directed motions, the variable effect can be of four types: proximity-proximity variable, proximity-distance variable, distance-proximity variable and distance-distance variable. These are called the strong, weak, electromagnetic interactions and the radioactive disintegration. The relationship of two bodies in equilibrium to each other (may be in orbit) is the gravitational interaction.

            Let us examine what is a force? A medium or a field is a substance or material which carries the wave. It is a region of space characterized by a physical property having a determinable value at every point in the region. This means that if we put something appropriate in a field, we can then notice "something else" out of that field, which makes the body interact with other objects put in that field in some specific ways, that can be measured or calculated. This "something else" is a type of force. Depending upon the nature of that force, the scientists categorize the field as gravity field, electric field, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, etc. Thus, ultimately we arrive at a duality of a field and an object that experience a force if placed in the field.

            In the primordial state, this is referred to as the quark-gluon plasma. But in the first instance, how did the difference arise? We hold it to be in five stages, out of which the first two stages belong to your Sensory-Cognitive realm. The last two stages belong to your inorganic realm, while the third was the threshold of transformation. This again leaves two thresholds. The first created the qualitative differentiation and the second the quantitative differentiation, which is the charge. Thereafter, the objects interacted as per their positive or negative charge, which behaves like moving out of the center and confining to the center respectively.

            Regards,

            basudeba

            Dear Basudeba -

            Thank-you for this very detailed exposition of some very important points. I just saw your message, and am grateful that you will presently be reading and assessing my paper.

            I very much look forward to your verdict!

            Best Regards,

            John

            This is our letter to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread.

            Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic - "complex, even inexplicable behavior". Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of "the deer population in Northern Michigan", is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

            Infinities are like one - without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others - every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

            Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use "a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers", you do just that through "comparison and exchange instructions". You develop these by "inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by 'mating' parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated" and repeat it "thousands upon thousands of time" till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought "evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible". After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

            Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area - the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

            The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

            However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally 'illuminates' the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

            Regards,

            mbasudeba@gmail.com

            Basudeba,

            I was very pleased to read your analysis od all points universally consistent with mine, though I'd not gone back beyond Leibniz Law and Russel so Adwaita was new to me, thank you.

            Also true of Maxwell and Schrodinger, but then you again say; "sorry to disappoint" which I find very confusing, and can only assume means again that you have not understood my points. That's very easy with limited space and time! Perhaps what is needed is to read my previous two essays which are background and precursors, leading to a great fundamental new truth you haven't yet gleaned from my ontology.

            In terms of my ontological construction as an elephant I feel you are 'attacking' the elephants ears, trunk and knees but are describing them perfectly and consistently with the elephant you have not yet seen, which unifies all of physics. It is a kinetic relation as truth function and modal logic, of infinitely nested hierarchical inertial systems starting from a single non-zero particle, which does have a structure. You should have the capacity to see this if you step back further as Wittgenstein specified and take an overview using evolution of interactions.

            Best wishes.

            Peter