Description Relativity on Mathematics versus Physics: The desired Theory of Everything from Metaphysics by Sascha Vongehr

Dear Sascha Vongehr,

You speak of logic "implying the physical" and state that an "External Reality Hypothesis" before a "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" must lead astray.

I believe that physical universe underlies logic, rather than is "an implication of logic." As I stand in the shower, shampooing my head and moving around with my eyes closed, I am guided by gravity, not by logic, and the fact that my physical neurons operate logically does not contradict the physical reality that is at work. There are no abstractions employed here, nor any implications.

If, instead, my neurons operate logically to solve a calculus problem, or even to address metaphysical problems, the neurons are physical, their operation may lead to abstractions, but the abstractions, i.e., the "implications" are always secondary, and this encompasses "The Mathematical Universe".

I do not directly perceive gravity because I understand Newton or Einstein. I understand Newton and Einstein because I perceive gravity. By the way I'm glad you specified Einstein's relativity of synchronicity, as opposed to the physically unreal "non-simultaneity".

I found your point about Popper very interesting:

"The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory."

The key word here is "correct", and seems to bear some resemblance to "This statement is false." But I may be wrong.

You later state:

"We eventually complete a full pull-back onto phenomenal experience and the ultimate limits of description," which I take to be the abstractionless experience of gravity with my eyes closed.

Your arguments are too many to be addressed at length, although you do ask "is the found Bell violation standard quantum, namely the empirically observed sin^2(delta)?"

The empirical observation agrees with the quantum prediction, and neither confirms nor denies locality. Bell's abstract theorem denies locality, and in my essay I analyze the exact abstraction where he went wrong. I hope you will read it and comment.

Thanks for a very interesting essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

"However, the Theory of Everything is precisely the theory that is by 'fundamentally satisfying definition' supposed to take account of - and therefore "allow" - all possible observations O. The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory!"

Do you imply that the correct ToE would offer both propositions: "The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer" and "The speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer"?

Pentcho Valev

"The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory!"

Let me give a Wittgenstein type reply to this assertion: this is simply playing with words. Take for example the special theory of relativity. The conceivable observation are speeds higher than the speed of light. If you observe them then the theory no longer describes nature. For QM a falsifiable prediction would be correlations above the Tsirelson bound. For CM a falsifiable prediction would be correlations above the Bell limit.

The fault of the statement is that what can conceivably be observed (for falsification purposes) ARE NOT consequences of the theory (in the STR case above speeds above the speed of light). Looks like the statement got trapped in something resembling "the set of all sets" due to the E in ToE.

Let me try this. Do you agree that the correct ToE must imply QM? If yes, here is a falsifiable prediction: no correlations should exceed the Tsirelson bound. Observe them and QM no longer describes nature.

How does this square away with: "not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory!"?

If you remove "conceivably", then you get your tautology: I think therefore I am. If from "A implies A" you get many-worlds, this is simply incorrect. Why? Because this implies that all other QM interpretations should either be inconsistent or should not exist. Well, they do exist, and they are not inconsistent. Show me the money. Show me in any interpretation you want (Bohmian, transactional, consistent history, etc) where they are inconsistent. If you manage to do that this would be a very big deal!

Dear Dr. Vongehr,

Could you please explain to me why you thought that my comment about the real Universe was inappropriate?

You are I hope aware that suppression of the truth is unethical.

Eagerly awaiting your answer,

Joe Fisher

Dear Professor Vongehr,

You titled your essay: "Description Relativity on Mathematics versus Physics:

The desired Theory of Everything from Metaphysics."

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

tis-the-season-for-a-tithe?::www.youtube.com/results?search_query=I+am+your+leader+nicki+minaj+Rick+Ross+cam_ron

Dear Sascha,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

We have used this tricks many times and i had been successful always to get clash royale free gems whenever you want.

Listen to Free Internet FM Radio Live Online Streaming. Enjoy live radio, music online. Bookmark favorite radio stations. Listen to the top-rated and most popular radio stations from all over the world.

Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog? My blog is in the very same niche as yours and my users would definitely benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thank you! TV Live Online Streaming

Very Thanks for sharing this useful new print calendar

Thanks a lot.

I have left saying about that If you want to know more about me then

Click Here.