Alternative Models of Reality

Michael Blasco

WatsonWang Your proposal surely is interesting and I agree that matter and fields most likely emerge from a single underlying physical reality. However, I would challenge the assumption that energy itself is that fundamental entity.

Within my own Nonlinear Vacuum Medium (NVM) framework, the more fundamental candidate is a continuous, intrinsically dynamic nonlinear physical substrate. Matter represents persistent, localized organizations of that substrate while fields represent other forms of its collective dynamics.

Energy, in this interpretation, is not the substance from which reality is constructed. Rather, it is a physical quantity associated with the substrate’s configurations and transformations.

The crucial distinction is between what physically exists and undergoes transformations and the mathematical quantities we use to describe those transformations.

Mathematics describes the relationships and laws governing physical behavior, but those descriptions should not automatically be mistaken for the physical mechanism itself.

The deeper question, therefore, is not simply whether everything is energy, but what underlying physical reality possesses energy and produces the organized phenomena we observe.

WatsonWang

Following Feynman’s approach, let me ask: What is the fundamental nature of matter?

Steve Dufourny

WatsonWang nobody has the answer, it is beyond our understanding, what we measure, observe are emergent properties . We have evolved in 100 years with the special and general relativity, the einstein field equations, the quantum field theory, the spacetime, we have described these emergent properties with the curvatures of the spacetime, the quantum mechanics and the particles and fields, bosonic, fermionic, but we have limitations ontological, mathematical and physical. We cannot assert that the energy or matter are the primary essence. The same for the fundamental objects, we don t know what they are and from what. The points , the strings in 1D in this spacetime of the GR connected with the 1D strings or points are an assumtion, the same for my theory of spherisation and evolution of the universe, and these 3d quantum spheres. In fact we don t know simply and a person asserting to know lies and lacks of humility. The energy and matter is a complex puzzle, Why they exist and from what, a lot of thinkers consider a mathematical accident from a infinite energy,or a kind of god of spinoza like Einstein said, so they consider that something codes with the informations, this energy to create the reality. And so the geometrical topological algebras are utilised with the associativity, commutativity, non commutativity of connes to complete the puzzle of these emergent properties we have actually ranked, but we don t know I repeat the general universal ontology of this universe, we could have a 0D infinite eternal consciousness playing with the DE , DM, photons merging to create the ordinary matter, so with the informations, matter and energy and we express a finite part of consciousness but it is an assertion also, in all the cases, the infornations, the matter, the energy are a reality and there is an universal specific mechanism with the maths, physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology .The informations that the universe utilises are probably different than our informations and the Bits ,It is this ontology of the primary essence the key and we are far from it . we evolve yes but we know so few even with our technologies discovered and our sciences and maths. The photons have been taken like the primary essence, so like the energy but it seems limited and an ontological error . Regards

WatsonWang

You are right. No one here is claiming to know what the cosmic ontology is.
To do so would be the height of arrogance.

What is stated here is merely: if the universe exists and possesses a unique underlying substrate, what it is most likely to be.

This aligns with my earlier question framed in Feynman’s spirit: “What is the intrinsic nature?”
What is the nature of energy?
What is the nature of matter?
What is the nature of the Nonlinear Vacuum Medium?
And what is the nature of light?

Michael Blasco

WatsonWang I would have to agree, and I make no claim to posses the ultimate ontology of reality either. As you should already know, my NVM framework is a proposed physical ontology and not an established fact.

However, I think there is an important distinction between identifying something as fundamental and explaining its intrinsic physical nature.

As for the nature of the NVM itself, I propose that it’s a continuous, nonlinear, nonequilibrium physical medium that is intrinsically dynamic. Its transformations do not depend on an independently existing fundamental time dimension. Instead, observable time emerges from the relational ordering of those transformations. The creation of matter emerges as persistent organizations of those transformations and what we experience and measure as time arises from the ongoing changes and relationships within those material substrate organizations.

But of course this does not answer why the substrate exists or establish its ultimate nature but it does propose a deeper physical mechanism from which familiar phenomena might emerge.

WatsonWang

"Transformations do not depend on an independently existing fundamental time dimension. Instead, observable time emerges from the relational ordering of those transformations."

I strongly agree with this statement. In my understanding, time is not intrinsic; rather, it is an emergent phenomenon of change. Time may simply be the sequential order of changes—the ordering of before and after. If there were no change in the universe, there would be no time. Even four-dimensional spacetime might not be fundamental either.

Michael Blasco

WatsonWang I most certainly agree and I would take that reasoning one step further. In my NVM model, change is not simply something that occurs within time. Rather, the underlying nonlinear physical substrate is intrinsically dynamic, and what we call time emerges from the relational ordering of its transformations.

Matter itself is proposed to arise as persistent organizations of those transformations. Consequently, what we experience and measure as time reflects the ongoing physical changes and relationships within matter and not the passage of an independently existing temporal dimension.

This also raises the possibility that four-dimensional spacetime is not fundamental but an emergent geometric description of deeper substrate dynamics, a possibility which I explore within my NVM framework.

In other words, the nonlinear substrate does not require time to undergo transformations because its transformations give rise to matter, and the changing relationships within matter give rise to our experience and measurement of time.

The challenge, of course, is to demonstrate mathematically how this deeper physical organization produces the spacetime structure and temporal behavior described by established physics.

WatsonWang

I agree 100%. I deeply resonate with this. At the same time, allow me to expand on your statement that "what we call time emerges from the changes of matter," and raise a question: What is the fundamental nature of matter?

Here is my own somewhat preliminary understanding: Modern physics has discovered 48 fundamental spin-1/2 fermions, fundamental propagators such as the photon, W and Z bosons, and gluons, as well as the Higgs boson. The modern scientific community defines quantum particles in terms of energy. Energy sustains the existence of fields; fields are the background stage for energy fluctuations, which forms the fundamental relativity of change. Condensed energy forms matter states, alters the curvature of the surrounding spacetime field background, and gives rise to gravity. There is also the mass-energy equivalence equation, the Einstein field equations, and so on.

Many physical theories indicate that: 1. Energy and matter are unified attributes. 2. Simultaneously, energy, fields, and fluctuations within fields are unified attributes.

Then, regarding what you said—that the changes of matter give rise to time, or that the changes of fields give rise to time—can it be inferred that these changes originate from changes in energy, and that time emerges sequentially with the changes of energy (matter, fields)?

I strongly agree with what you said: these are merely theoretical constructs; they require precise mathematical formulation and objectively measurable physical experiments to prove or falsify them. This is exactly the work I am currently engaged in. If there are people who can relate to or agree with me, I hope to get in touch with them.

Michael Blasco

WatsonWang Yes, our perspectives share considerable common ground, particularly regarding the possibility that matter, fields, and time emerge from a deeper unified physical reality.

However, I would make one important distinction concerning energy. Within my Nonlinear Vacuum Medium (NVM) framework energy is not itself the fundamental physical substance responsible for change. Energy is merely a measurable property associated with the configurations and transformations of an underlying nonlinear physical substrate.

In this interpretation, matter is not fundamentally condensed energy, but a persistent, localized organization of the substrate, maintained through its ongoing physical transformations. What we describe as fields and particles would likewise emerge from different conditions and forms of substrate organizational dynamics.

Consequently, I would not say that changes in energy fundamentally produce time. Instead, I propose that the nonlinear substrate is intrinsically dynamic, independently of any preexisting temporal dimension. Matter emerges from these dynamics, and what we experience and measure as time arises from the relational ordering of physical changes within material systems.

Energy changes may therefore accompany these transformations, but energy itself does not need to be the underlying cause of them. Physical configurations can evolve even when their total energy remains conserved.

The deeper question, in my view, is what physical reality possesses energy, undergoes transformations, and produces the organized structures we recognize as matter and fields.

yusrob

Dear ladies and gentlemen!
In your messages, you discuss the structure of nature and the universe.
You are talking about the generation of matter, the emergence of matter.
This is wrong. This is not true. This is a false understanding.
Matter does not arise from nothing.
Matter does not arise from energy.
Matter does not arise from an idea.
Matter does not arise by the will of God.

There is no God in nature. Nature does not need God.
Nature gets along just fine without God.
My “Theory of Nature” does very well without the hypothesis of God.
And matter always exists in nature.
And nature always exists.
Nature has neither beginning nor end.
There will be no end to nature.
And nature is fundamentally material and dialectical.
The dialectic nature is the constant variability of nature.
The dialectic nature of nature is the reverse side of its eternal existence and evolution.
The dialectical character of nature is the constant variability of nature.
The dialectical character of nature is the reverse side of its eternal existence and evolution.
The materialistic character of nature is manifested in the fact that all natural things, objects, bodies are ultimately composed of matter.
Matter is the most important essence of nature.
Matter is the primary principle, the primordial essence, the origin and the first cause of everything and everyone in nature.
Matter is the unique and only substance of nature.
Matter is the unique and only active agent of nature.
Specifically, the matter of nature is represented and manifests itself in the form of matter quanta ( QS ).
UC=1.210 256×10^{ 44} is a unique and universal constant of nature and the Universe (see book “Theory of Nature”).
A quantum of matter is also the minimum amount of matter in nature: QS=UC^{-1}.
A quantum of matter is in a state of constant pulsation. Pulsation is the internal movement of matter.
A quantum of matter is in a process of constant external displacement. This displacement is one quantum of length ( QL ) in a time equal to one quantum of time ( QT ). This is the greatest speed of movement in nature, the quantum of velocity ( QV ). In the modern era of the Universe, this speed is equal to the speed of light in a vacuum ( c).
Internal pulsation and external movement are two forms of motion of a quantum of matter ( QS ).
The quantum of matter is in constant motion. This is the concrete connection between matter and dialectics.
The matter of nature is in constant motion.
There is no matter without motion. And there is no motion apart from matter. These are the global laws of nature.
And matter in motion exists in time. Time is the form in which matter exists.
The very processes of internal pulsation and external movement (displacement) of a quantum of matter occur in the rhythm and tempo of nature, that is, at the frequency of nature. And this frequency is expressed by a number, a constant, a unique and universal constant of nature and the Universe: the constant UC = 1.210 256×10^{44}.
A quantum of action ( QA) is the minimum action that occurs in a quantum of time ( QT ) with a quantum of matter ( QS ).
As a result of the quantum of action ( QA ), a quantum of change ( QC ) occurs in the quantum of matter ( QS ). This also speaks of the organic, inseparable connection between matter (quantum of matter QS) and dialectics (quantum of change ( QC ) in the quantum of matter ( QS ) over a quantum of time ( QT )).
The sequence of time quanta ( QT ) and the sequence of quanta of changes ( QC ) in matter quanta ( QS ) are strictly synchronous:
… QT_1, QT_2, QT_3, QT_4, QT_5, QT_6, ... ,
… QC_1, QC_2, QC_3, QC_4, QC_5, QC_6, … ,
… QS_1, QS_2, QS_3, QS_4, QS_5, QS_6, … .
In this case:
………
QS_2=QS_1+QC_1,
QS_3=QS_2+QC_2,
QS_4=QS_3+QC_3,
QS_5=QS_4+QC_4,
QS_6=QS_5+QC_5,
……… .
In this regard, we speak of an inseparable, organic connection between moving matter and the time of nature.
Matter (of nature), movement and time form a kind of triune essence of nature: “ matter & movement & time ”.
The quantum of matter ( QS ), which is in constant motion (internal and external) and constant renewal, is the material “first building block” of the foundations of nature and the universe.
At the core of every elementary particle lies a pulsating quantum of matter.
Because of this, the very existence of an elementary particle has a pulsating nature.
Changes in the time of the quantum of matter ( QS ), the changes introduced by the quanta of changes ( QC ) are reflected in the internal properties of the quantum of matter.
These changes concern primarily the change in the quantum of length ( QL ) and the associated him quantum of mass ( QM ).
The quantum of length ( QL ) changes with time according to the formula:
QL=QS ^{ 1-p},
where the numerical parameter p changes according to the formula, the law of nature:
p=0.125×log_UC⁡{A},
where A is the absolute universal time or the absolute age of the Universe in natural units of nature ( UT ), and
UT=UC QT.
In the framework of the “Theory of Nature” on page 169 the following system of identities is given for the quantum units of nature:
1 QS=UC^{-1} US – quantum of matter,
1 QT=1 QS – time quantum,
1 QL= QS^{1-p} – quantum of length,
1 QE = QS^{0.5} – quantum of electric charge,
1 QM=QS^{p} – mass quantum.

All this clearly and unambiguously testifies to the fact that at the basis of nature, at the basis of the universe, there is a material “first building block”, and this is the quantum of matter ( QS ).
All this convincingly confirms, at a scientific level, the indisputable fact that “nature is fundamentally material and dialectical.”
To eliminate philosophical illiteracy, we all need to begin a careful study of the philosophy of dialectical materialism (DMP). It is the only true and scientific philosophy. This philosophy is the philosophical core of the “Theory of Nature” (TN). And TN is a scientific revolution in physics and cosmogony (cosmology). Within the framework of TN, 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of physics and cosmogony (cosmology) have been solved. These same problems are fundamental problems of the foundations of nature and the universe. These 40 fundamental problems cannot be solved simply or on the basis of false hypotheses. The foundation of TN is based on more than 50 scientific hypotheses. If even one of these scientific hypotheses were false (incorrect), then not a single one of the 40 fundamental problems could be solved. And feedback. If, within the framework of TN, 40 fundamental problems of the foundations of physics and cosmogony (cosmology) are solved, then all 50 scientific hypotheses underlying TN turn out to be correct, true, and accurate.
This means that the hypothesis about the quantum of matter is a true scientific hypothesis.

Sincerely
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, USSR, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

Steve Dufourny

yusrob Hi Robert, I have difficulties to understand why you assert ontological and physical assumptions, really. A thing that I have also difficulties to understand is about you approach the consciousness in asserting this about God. The best past thinkers like Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Maxwell, Heisenberg,Galilei, Newton, Born,Faraday, Lemaitre,Compton,...and so more considered a God Of Spinoza, a god of nature wich has nothing to do with the religions, because they have seen in their general works and studies that something conscious must know and code the informations, matter, energy to permit to this reality to emerge. We don t know in fact due to limitations , we know so few. And you you arrive and assert assumptions in telling that you have solved all, is it a joke or a hidden camera because it is odd you know. Regards

yusrob

Steve Dufourny
Dear Steve,
I have a simple piece of advice for you and everyone else.
Try to read and understand the “Theory of Nature” (TN): https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSTON.pdf. The mathematics and physics in the TN are accessible to high school students who are not averse to these subjects.
However, I first recommend familiarizing yourself with a simpler article: “Nature as an objective reality” (https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSNAA.pdf).
I also have a request and a wish regarding this process:
Please do not bring appeals to authority—whether scientific, ecclesiastical, or religious—into this ordinary conversation of ours.
Do not impose artificial conditions or limitations on the discussion from the outset. Do not cite the limitations of our understanding of consciousness, our general limitations, the limitations of our senses, or the limitations of our knowledge.
Do not demand a solution to the problem of consciousness as a prerequisite.
Do not invoke various gods or Spinoza’s God; I do not employ the God hypothesis in my TN.
Do not assume beforehand that the theory of modern physics (TMP)—including the theory of relativity (GR)—is flawless in every respect.
Do not turn a blind eye to the falsehoods and flaws inherent in the TMP.

One should not erect an impenetrable wall between physics and philosophy. Philosophy is present—invisibly and implicitly—in all physical theories. The “Theory of Nature” (TN) rests on the philosophy of dialectical materialism.
There is no need to set any preconditions before beginning to read the TN.
It would be beneficial, however, to briefly familiarize oneself with some of the fundamental tenets of the philosophy of dialectical materialism (FDM) before reading the TN. The central tenet of FDM is the postulate regarding the primacy of matter (the material) over the idea (the ideal) in nature. In FDM, nature is viewed as an objective reality that exists outside of and independently of our consciousness. Nature is regarded as fundamentally material and dialectical. Nature has no beginning, nor will it ever have an end. It is pointless to search for a primal origin for nature; nature has no such origin. Matter is the unique and sole substance of nature. Matter exists eternally; like nature itself, matter has neither beginning nor end.
I come from the USSR. The USSR was a country of atheists, and the philosophy of dialectical materialism (FDM) was its state philosophy. FDM was not the cause of the USSR's collapse. This is something worth knowing and understanding.

Everyone should read and understand the “Theory of Nature” (TN).
After all, the TN represents a scientific revolution in physics and cosmogony (cosmology)!
The TN provides us with true knowledge about nature and its fundamental laws.

Sincerely,
Wishing you good health!
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok, USSR—independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, and communist.

Steve Dufourny

yusrob You assert an ocean of assumptions ontological, philosophical, physical, it is total non sense , really . Me I doubt about things not known, you no, you assert, that is why it is non sense generally . I can understand that you are persuaded, but you have no proof about what you assert, it is odd Robert, really. You can be fan de Marx , and his book das capital, or the materialism or the communism, and this and that, but it is odd your assertions. Wish you good health too,
ps the human nature is the problem in the socialism, communism or capitalism, and it is about the consciousness this human nature not from the nature in itself...........Regards

« Previous Page