Alternative Models of Reality

Lorraine Ford
It makes no sense to you, because it does not fit, anywhere at all, into the faulty picture of the Reality, that you, like the physicists, have constructed; a picture that cannot possibly be "fixed" by only moving around, or readjusting, just a few pieces. It needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. It is a daunting fate indeed, to watch, as one's entire world view is destroyed, and replaced by another.

Like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, your picture of Reality, maybe a beautiful edifice. But it is out of kilter, as the result of having been built upon a bad foundation.

Shannon explicitly stated that, in order to work without errors, as he was the first to prove was both possible and practical, "the transmitted signals must approximate, in statistical properties, a white noise." That does not sound much like any of your "man-made symbols of the world", that you have used to construct your out-of-kilter Picture of Reality; and that is the problem.

Zeeya Merali

I believe that the origin of space and time does not lie in some “more fundamental matter” or “entity,” but rather in the self-organization, holographic feedback, and dynamic resonance of the information field. Space and time are experiential emergences of the information field at specific interfaces—they are projections of the multidimensional dynamics of the universe’s essence. Understanding this helps us break through our conventional views of space and time, allowing us to deeply explore the true nature of the universe and the profound mysteries of reality’s structure.

Lorraine Ford

There is a big difference between the real world and mere symbols of the world!!

Far bigger than you have ever imagined. Why do you persist in the pointless use of "mere symbols of the world", like the English language, to describe your Picture of Reality, when you also insist that those symbols, and all such languages, are hopelessly inadequate to the task?

Unlike you, Shannon deciphered an entirely "unearthly" language, Mother Nature's own tongue - the language of noise.

Learn to speak it, if you ever wish to understand what Reality has been saying, for a very long time indeed.

Robert McEachern
Rob,

I have never “insisted”, or thought, that “languages, are hopelessly inadequate to the task”. I don’t know where you got that idea from. Man-made language symbols and other human-devised symbols are all we have got for communication. Symbols are used for communication; symbols are necessary for communication.

But what are symbols? Symbols are special man-made arrangements of matter: i.e. symbols are not the matter as such.

Examples of man-made symbols include special arrangements of ink on paper, special arrangements of pixels on screens, special arrangements of sound waves, and special arrangements of voltages in computers. Unlike the matter itself, which is affected by laws of nature, man-made arrangements of matter, using these materials, and at this scale, are not significantly affected by laws of nature.

And so man-made symbols have a very useful property: man-made symbols can be used to represent something different to the matter the symbols are made out of. So, for example, arrangements of ink on paper can be used to represent things that are not actually ink on paper.

Symbols are necessary for communication, and Shannon’s Theory of Communication is all about the use of BOTH special human-devised electronic symbols AND the properties of matter, in order to successfully get a relevant-to-human-beings message across.

However, Shannon’s Theory of Communication does not explain anything at all about the underlying matter, or the underlying world or the underlying “reality”.

Robert McEachern
“Chaos” and “order” are vague superficial descriptions that apply to an already existing system, where all outcomes are caused by the system's underlying equations and algorithm.

Genuine order lies, not in outcomes, but in the underlying mathematical and algorithmic order.

There is no such thing as “order” (i.e. your “non-chaotic, deterministic "cause and effect"”) emerging “into existence, from chaos”.

Order underlies a system, it doesn’t emerge from a system. No one has mathematically shown that causal mathematical equations and/or algorithms emerge from a system.

Spacetime Waves and Object Motion – A New Perspective on the Fundamentals

When you throw a ball, the space surrounding the object is no longer still. Instead, wave-like oscillations emerge and propagate from the point of impact. These oscillations are spacetime waves. The important point is: the object does not “fly away” by force, but rather slides along the very spacetime wave it has generated. It slides and simultaneously spins, much like the planets. The wave propagates—and the object moves in the direction of that wave, like a boat gliding on water waves.

Spacetime is a unified entity, a combination of space and time. When we observe that time passes differently on Earth and in satellites, we have evidence that spacetime is not flat—it is curved or oscillating. Earth does not rotate and travel like an isolated block; instead, it slides along a field of spacetime waves. That is why it both rotates on its axis and moves around the Sun.

If spacetime waves truly exist, we should be able to detect them by measuring subtle time shifts—just like how one might deduce the existence of an invisible vehicle: even if we don’t see the vehicle, knowing the speed of the person allows us to infer the speed and presence of what they’re riding. Spacetime waves are the same—we cannot see them, but we can perceive and measure them through time. If the existence of spacetime waves can be proven, humanity will unlock an era of futuristic technologies, such as space travel and antigravity.

Is Space Geometrically Linked? A Testable Model for Global Synchronization in a Continuous Universe.
I recently submitted this work to PRL, and would like to invite foundational-level feedback here.
It proposes that synchronous curvature linkage is not speculative, but mathematically required by spacetime continuity.
Any local curvature disturbance must be globally reflected, not through energy transfer, but through geometric compensation.Energy is observable, information is structural.If space is continuous, linkage is not optional—it is mandatory.
Core formula：
\mathbf{O}\left(\mathbit{x}\right)=\frac{\mathbit{dK}}{\mathbit{dx}}\cdot\frac{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbit{r}^\mathbf{2}}\cdot\mathbf{\chi}\left(\mathbit{x}\right)\geq\ \mathbit{\epsilon}
Zenodo DOI:10.5281/zenodo.15861537
I welcome any questions, critiques, or cross-references to similar geometric structure models.
Best regards,
Zhang Xiaohui
E-mail：zhangxiaohuiB2M@gmail.com

Claudio Marchesan
Thank you for sharing your research findings. I will read them carefully and think about them. However, there is one point that I firmly believe: space is three-dimensional.

Roney
You have symbolically represented a relationship that, you seem to consider, must exist in the world.

These types of relationships/ equations are an unmeasurable aspect of the world because these relationships/ equations have merely been inferred to exist by human beings from a pile of experimental results and findings. But “law of nature” relationships/ equations DO seem to exist.

However, the existence of particular relationships/ equations doesn’t cover the issue of: how come the real-world system (or small parts of the system) can distinguish/ detect/ know about its own mathematical relationships/ equations? And for that matter, how come the real-world system (or small parts of the system) can distinguish/ detect/ know about its own numbers that apply to the categories in the equations? It can reasonably be inferred that base-level proto-knowledge/ proto-consciousness aspects of the real-world system must exist in order for the system to operate.

Also, the existence of particular relationships/ equations doesn’t cover the issue of: how come the real-world system is moving, i.e. how come the numbers (that apply to the categories in the equations) are jumping? Jumping, because there is no such thing as a number that smoothly morphs into another number; but jumping in what direction? It can reasonably be inferred that base-level aspects of the real-world system must exist in order for the system to operate, aspects that jump the numbers (whereby the relationships/ equations then kick in and jump other numbers).

What I’m getting at is: clearly, any relationships/ equations, that are inferred or purported to exist, can only ever be A PART of a viable, moving real-world system. As described above, additional aspects are required in order to explain the existence of a viable, moving real-world system. Equations alone CAN’T do the job.

Lorraine Ford
The DOI address of the paper is provided above. It clearly describes the observable verification method.

I've since made progress on my idea of motion as the fourth spatial dimension.

"Saint Stuart’s visionary debut presents a radical new way to consider the fourth dimension—not as time, nor as a static spatial axis, but as something hiding in plain sight: motion.

Surprisingly, this perspective has remained absent from both academic science and alternative New Age speculation. Writing as an amateur science enthusiast and self-proclaimed Christian mystic, Stuart expands this insight into a full seven-dimensional framework.

Beginning with pure geometry, the model advances through motion toward force as the final physical dimension, and from there moves beyond into the non-spatial realms of consciousness. It continues with the dimension of possibility, the logical foundation of awareness, and culminates in intelligence—the organizing, creative, and directive principle of conscious experience, from which choice and will emerge.

Bridging physics, metaphysics, and spiritual insight, this concise philosophical monograph invites readers to rethink the very structure of reality."

https://thefiretongue.com/motion-dimension/

Lorraine Ford
Equations give a mathematical description of what happens, which is a lot more precise than a word description, but nevertheless, just a description of what happens. Just like a newspaper reporter might describe an event. In the case of “laws of nature”, equations also describe a relationship between categories which has experimentally been found to exist.

However, in a viable moving system, there must be a causal aspect, something that makes it happen. What makes it happen is not the same as the superficial mathematical-equation description of what happens. Equations can never represent a causal aspect of a system: the necessary causal aspects of a system can only be represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols.

Lorraine Ford
Leaving aside the religious views, there are those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to an underlying set of equations, and those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to people, and other suitably-integrated forms of matter, being genuinely free (i.e. free to jump their own numbers), as well as the underlying set of equations.

The former group, those who think all the bombing and killing in the world boils down to nothing more than an underlying set of equations, are looking for the killer equations/ the killer mathematics whereby everything about the world is suddenly explained. This group seemingly includes most of the physicists, mathematicians (and also philosophers) in the world. And despite years and years of effort, and years and years of purportedly killer mathematics, they are not having much luck, and every one of them has a different set of killer equations/ killer mathematics.

But a world where people are genuinely free, i.e. a world where suitably-integrated forms of matter are partially free to jump their own numbers, is a fundamentally different type of world from its foundations up. These suitably-integrated forms of matter would presumably be: particles, atoms, molecules and living things including human beings.

Lorraine Ford
Yes, there is indeed a problem with my formula. Due to my limited mathematical ability, this theory is the inevitable result of my logical reasoning. I welcome any modifications you may wish to make to my mathematical formula. Thank you very much.

My FQXi Theory – Aryan Theory (Entry #262) and the Origin of Conscious Timelines

Hi everyone,

I’m Abhinav Gupta, a 15-year-old independent researcher and thinker. I come from India, and I’ve been working on several deep ideas that connect time, consciousness, paradox, memory, and origin — not only in scientific logic but also from a metaphysical lens.

This year, I’ve submitted Entry #262 – “Aryan Theory: A Multiversal Resolution to the Grandfather Paradox” to the FQXi Essay Contest. It explores how a paradox (such as killing your grandfather before your birth) doesn’t actually destroy causality, but instead leads to a reactive split in timelines, allowing for both the paradox and continuity to coexist. In this view, the universe doesn’t break — it intelligently redirects.

Core Idea:

My central belief is that time and reality are not just mechanical progressions — they are part of a conscious timeline framework. When a paradox threatens the core of continuity, the universe responds by creating alternate paths to preserve balance. This becomes a metaphysical response mechanism: the universe avoids collapse by branching, remembering, and re-routing experience through origin-based logic.

Other Theories in My System (Each Based on Deep Logic + Metaphysical Reflection)

I have also been building a unified theory system across various essays — all deeply connected and grounded in scientific thinking with cosmic intuition. Here are the core theories:

1. Origin Collapse and Possibilities Control
   → What happens when someone disrupts their own timeline origin, gaining awareness of all potential outcomes.

2. Timelines Origin Theory (Scientific Expansion)
   → A structured scientific view of how all timelines may arise from a single origin and diverge based on memory and observation.

3. Pre-Big Bang Consciousness Hypothesis

Version 1: Based on Unknown Beyond Entities

Version 2: Based on Sanatan Dharm (Shiva–Vishnu Origin)
→ Exploring how consciousness may have existed before the Big Bang — and how origin might not be matter, but memory.

4. Abhinav’s Soul Control and Cosmic Command Theory
   → A bold model combining neuroscience with cosmic awareness — where the soul operates as the prime driver of the universe’s logic through memory and intent.

5. Memory Transfer and Timeline Awareness
   → When a person shifts timelines, parts of their memory come along — leading to déjà vu, intuitive knowledge, or strange familiarity.

6. Timeline Resurrection and Cosmic Imprint Theory
   → Near-death events might not just be accidents — they could trigger a dual timeline, one where death occurs and another where survival rewrites reality.

7. Consciousness Split and Memory Shadows
   → In emotional or traumatic events, your consciousness may split across timelines — leaving behind “shadows” that explain strange dreams or unexplained emotions.

8. Reverse Reincarnation Loop Theory
   → Souls may sometimes return backward in time to repair cosmic imbalance or heal broken origin timelines — explaining certain ancient memories in young minds.

9. Water as the Soul’s First Vessel
   → A poetic-scientific exploration into how water might be the universe’s first memory carrier — and possibly the earliest interface of soul and matter.

Final Thought:

I believe that when we look at reality not just with formulas but with possibility logic, a new type of physics opens up — one that respects paradoxes, consciousness, and the hidden memory of the universe.

I’d love to connect with thinkers who resonate with this path — whether you're a physicist, philosopher, or just a curious soul.

With curiosity and purpose,
Abhinav Gupta
FQXi Entry #262
Age: 15
India