Essay Abstract

In the words of Rene Descartes "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." If you cannot do this then read no further. For as Socrates stated, "The only true wisdom is to know that you know nothing." The question then becomes not Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability whose main objectives is to prove that science is correct and that there is no answer, there is no theory of everything as stated by the late Stephen Hawking who once proclaimed that String Theory may be able to unify the various forces although later he became disillusioned thinking that there may be no Theory of Everything; but what is wrong, what are we leaving out, why can't we see it? Is it possible that mainstream science cannot pull all of the pieces together into a cohesive theory because they are missing something? The question is not what is the answer; the question is what's the question?

Author Bio

NOE comes from the ancient text including the Vedas as translated by Dr DK Matai. President Xi Jinping references NOE Theory in his book 'The Governance of China II'. Madonna-Megara Holloway (MMH) is a registered professional engineer with a degree in Chemical Engineering from Queens University, Canada. She is the coordinator of the Nature of Everything Theory (NOE) https://www.noe-theory.com, and is currently a PhD candidate at Cambridge University.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Madonna-Megara.

First read this year and I feel you hit most of the salient points well. I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good number (so may comment again). It did seem very heavy on quotes, so lighter on your own analysis. I don't mind that (though some judges might!) and the quotes were certainly important and on topic.

I'd never come across Newtons words about 'substance' or maybe did when young and skipped over or forgot it. That's as Hermann Minkowski's "everywhere there is substance." I recently published a collaboration paper on that and the key; 'action at a distance' from which my own essay is being drawn. (advise if you'd like a link).

My one criticism perhaps was that it felt a little 'bitty', but you did follow through a common theme, maybe more than I gleaned at first read. Also I've already found that 'unifying' so many aspects in an essay format makes 'flow' very difficult.

Last point. You seem to 'accept' QM with few doubts. I hope I may point you to my last years essay, agreeing with Bell that; "..the founding fathers were wrong" on a key assumption, and identifying one allowing a classic derivation (verified by code & Plot in Trails essay). I hope you may have time to read and discuss that also, but of course wasted on those who can't 'question everything'!

Well done for a pleasant, informative and very relevant first read.

Peter

    Thank you, Peter, when targeting the audience, the specification was broad - essentially high school seniors to Ph D - with the added constraint of the page and character count. There was so much to say. The books of NOE are 2000 pages combined with 450 citations. To satisfy the more advanced reader I used links. I have attached two of the files; the first (PURE CONSCIOUSNESS) comes directly from the Vedas as translated by my partner Dr DK Matai and is the basis for the analysis in the essay; the second 'Quantum Energy, IPR and the Ancient Text' goes to a new energy source described in the Vedas and referenced in the title 'Physics and Metaphysics'.

    The truth is I am more of a coordinator on the various topics and the team is large. President Xi Jinping has endorsed NOE due to his familiarity with the ancient text.

    As for QM (quantum mechanics), I do accept it since it is through fractal analysis, we can link the cosmic and quantum black hole with the spirillae (a new superstring theory).

    With regards to Newton, I included the reference in the essay if the reader wishes to do deeper.

    With regards to Bell, we can add Einstein (Special Relativity - the speed of light is not constant) and Bohm (pilot wave) as having erroneous contemplations but that is the nature of science. As Darwin stated: "it seems to me that, supposing that such [a] hypothesis was to explain such general propositions, we ought, in accordance with the common way of following all sciences, to admit it until some better hypothesis be found out."

    "Bohm's pseudo-Newtonian reformulation of de Broglie's dynamics was a mistake, and we ought to regard de Broglie's original (1927) theory as the proper and bona fide theory." [Valentino - fill citation is available)

    NOE supports de Broglie's dynamics as found in his doctoral thesis and presented at the 1927 Solvay Conference and is vital to unifying QM and GR. Einstein sensed Louis de Broglie's paper as correct but the two (2) could not combine the various theories. The problem came with Einstein's definition of time. NOE defines time as a superluminal, acoustic fracton that emerges from entanglement.

    With warmest regards, MM

    Sorry Peter - files are too big to attach. If you wish to dig deeper you may find the content at the links provided in the essay.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326719333_Pure_Consciousness_Non-Duality_Matter_Multiplicity_of_Forms_Illusion_and_Light_An_Excerpt_from_the_Secret_Doctrine_Volume_IV

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335587487_THE_NATURE_OF_EVERYTHING_ON_QUANTUM_ENERGY_IPR_AND_THE_ANCIENT_TEXT

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316897267_The_Unification_of_Quantum_Mechanics_General_Relativity_and_Consciousness_-_An_Excerpt_from_The_Secret_Doctrine_Volume_IV_The_Nature_of_Everything [accessed Jan 08 2020]

    MMH,

    Is there anything surprising that Xi Jinping would find validation of historic sociological acceptance of absolute rule in Chinese culture, in a philosophy which invokes an all encompassing 'wholeness' of 'everything'? The peculiar hallmark of localized 'Western' culture, is that inherent skepticism that we can not absolutely know anything for certain. That the theory of knowledge recognizes that we must start somewhere and can only choose to accept as axiomatic, some generalized subjective assumption. jrc

      Dear Madonna-Megara Morgan-Helen Holloway, I support your idea of 鈥嬧€媋 fractal universe. In nature, there are no rectangular bricks from which you can build a continuous space without holes. These holes arise and they fill up, as Descartes believed, instantly, well, and we must assume that they fill up at the speed of light. Well, as for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I believe that it must be turned into the certainty principle of the points of space, which, according to Descartes, is matter.

      聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽I invite you to discuss some aspects of the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, which I set out in my essay: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

      Good morning John - did you know that President Xi, Jinping has a degree in chemical engineering and an LLD in law - equivalent to Ph D. As you said the western educational system accepts only axiomatic knowledge - coming from the West. However, the East countries are more willing to review alternatives. NOE belongs to the latter however I have tied it to the former and referenced the work of a plethora of scientists.

      Quantised Black Holes and Fractional Spacetime

      Why bother with Quantum Black Holes? Does the Universe have a Fractal structure? Where do the dualities and linkages lie between the micro- and the macro- Universe? Two recent important discoveries of physics -- the confirmation that neutrinos have non-zero mass, and the confirmation that the universe is ever-expanding, perhaps at an accelerating pace -- create the need for new physics models beyond the Big Bang and the standard model of particle physics.

      We have devoted much energy and effort to Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Teleportation, Quantum Cognition, Quantum Mind as well as the Fractal aspects of the Universe and Nature at the Macro-, Classical- and Quantum Micro- levels. Therefore, could it follow that at an ultra-high-resolution, the mini Quantum Black Hole geometry could also be fractal? Quantum Black Holes are an essential concept to HQR deliberations, leading to new frameworks for understanding particle physics and astrophysics, for unifying physics' four forces, and for reconciling Quantum Physics and General Relativity.

      Quantised Fractal Spacetime

      What are the implications of Quantised Spacetime -- space and time being granular, not continuous, at their smallest scales? The quantisation of time -- the existence of the chronon as time's smallest quantum -- leads to an explanation of the arrow of time. Quantised Spacetime moves us towards extended particles -- elementary particle building blocks that aren't just dimensionless points, but that have extended dimensions, as suggested by the original String Theory which is superseded by the Spirilla Theory.

      Quantised Spacetime solves a problem that must be addressed in models that incorporate Black Holes, preventing the model from reducing to the naked singularity that appears deep inside a black hole. Quantised Spacetime is fuzzy spacetime, exhibiting the fractional dimensionality of complexity theory's fractal geometry. This leads to Quantised Fractal Spacetime, a framework in which a new Quantum Superstring Theory can be placed. The Nature of Everything (NOE) calls this the Spirilla Theory.

      Quantised Fractal Spacetime's geometry is not our familiar geometry, the geometry dating back to Pythagoras and other Greek philosophers. Quantised Fractal Spacetime is non-Pythagorean, or ultra-metric: lengths and distances cannot be measured as in our familiar Pythagorean geometry. Quantised Fractal Spacetime is also non-commutative: its geometry, its spacetime, is not flat or ordered according to our usual formulæ of geometry and algebra.

      When one uses a different form of mathematics -- p-adic mathematics -- one can begin to describe the physics of Quantised Fractal Spacetime, the fuzzy non-commutative spacetime. Physicists have found useful applications of p-adic mathematics for their work and mathematicians have demonstrated that p-adic numbers have a unique place alongside real numbers as the only two complete mathematical systems. Quantised Fractal Spacetime is a fuzzy non-commutative spacetime, which proposes a unification of electromagnetism with gravity, and in addition, brings physics' strong (and weak) forces into this unification.

      Quantum Black Holes

      The key lies in identifying matter particles -- Fermions -- with Quantum Black Holes. The horizon of the Black Hole -- the event horizon or dividing surface from inside of which nothing, not even light, will ever overcome the Black Hole's gravitational force -- corresponds to a critical quantum wavelength, called the Compton wavelength, based on the Physics Nobel prize (1927) winning work of Arthur Compton. He demonstrated X-rays' dual wave/particle nature. In the context of the fractal universe, the Compton wavelength is comparable to the thickness of the "brushstrokes" with which all of Nature is painted.

      Quantised Fractal Spacetime, fuzzy spacetime, ultrametric and non-commutative mathematics are essential as we move away from conventional spacetime, generalise the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and challenge conventional notions of scale. Looking at recent experimental suggestions of variation in the fine structure constant, which determines the smallest relevant Quanta of space and time, we can conclude that dimensionality is not absolute! It depends critically on the scale of resolution, from the Planck scale to cosmological distances. And then this leads us to the next leap: to quantum effects at multiple macro scales, universally!

      Fluctuational Cosmology

      The logical result is a framework of fluctuational cosmology. In this framework, the universe was created as a phase transition, a fluctuation in the background zero-point field. Dark energy -- the mysterious force fighting gravity, pulling the universe outward -- is one consequence. And more generally, fluctuational cosmology describes the emergence -- from a chaotic universe at the Planck scale -- of quantised Spacetime, the cosmology we inhabit, and all of the laws of physics.Attachment #1: Charm_Quark.jpgAttachment #2: Page_228_-_229_fermions.jpg

      6 days later

      Dear Madonna-Megara Morgan-Helen Holloway,

      I cannot agree with your comment:

      - What are the implications of Quantised Spacetime -- space and time being granular, not continuous, at their smallest scales?

      In my opinion it is:

      What are the implications of Quantised Spacetime -- space and time being continuous, but not granular, at their smallest scales?

      I would be grateful if you would also express views contrary to mine or point out errors in my essay.

      Regards

      Branko

        Good morning Branko. I wanted to give you a bit of background on the statement I made. I actually started my search in trying to understand the nature of time and space plus many other issues back in 1969 following an essay question on the wave particle duality of light in high school. I was deeply discontent with the status of scientific understanding. It has taken my 50 years and thousand of hours to write this response to you and as I approach 70, I am not concerned with how the science community relates to my work.

        As the brief introduction states about me the foundation of NOE Theory comes from the Vedas and other ancient text. I can only state that this is what the ancient text is saying. I can't change it. Also, I am the coordinator - not the author and I work with many others. I cannot change what is not mine.

        Please note that in Einstein's original paper he referred to a particle of time - I have attached a .jpg for you. Since his original published article most editors have worked diligently to remove these words and I had to go to the original Germany and find the original English translation. I have also attached another jpg file for you. The concept is complicated but is explained in greater detail in the book.

        Is Space/Time Fractal and Supersymmetric?

        What if there is just one "law" that defines reality absolutely, i.e., all additional theories are only its fractal or iterative projections? This "law" may be the energy conservation or equivalence principle: the law that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There is no effect without equal and opposite cause and vice versa! Hence, is Space the fractal reaction of Time, just as Time is the fractal reaction of Space? NOE postulates that Space and Time are inverse fractal projections of an inertial reality, in between, which is neither Space nor Time but both.

        Is Duality a Fractal Space/Time Reality?

        Duality is a reality of two equal opposites, where one negates another. Above is real only in perspective from below; left is real only from right, black is real only in white contrast and right is real only in comparison with wrong.

        One equal opposite needs to stand in repetitive or fractal negation of another in Space/Time to give the illusion of Duality. Space and Time are positive/negative results of self-comparison, because only self-interference is real! Space negates passage of Time and passage of Time negates Space.

        Space/Time is double negation that creates singular affirmation, which is perceived as Inertia or Gravity. Double negation is affirmation...!Attachment #1: Figure_106_Particle_of_Time.jpgAttachment #2: Page_261.jpg

        Dear Madonna-Megara Morgan-Helen Holloway,

        Thanks for your reply.

        Your emphasis on the importance of opposites is essential. You can see mathematically determined important opposites in physics here: https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/6423

        Regards

        Branko

          Thank you Branko - I looked at your site and decided to not expand my field of sites. Right now, NOE Theory sits on ResearchGate and Academia plus a private think tank which I am an invited member.

          It is important to note as indicated in footnote 478 (see attached):

          478 "There is, of course, one final observation to be made: in terms of the present politics of publishing scientific papers, de Broglie's contribution could never have been published because it only essentially contains speculations. However, one can just as well say that this paper proves that speculations are an essential part of physics; without them, no new ideas and theories are born. Quantum mechanics has to be regarded as a true rupture in the history of physics, as a revolution in the philosophy of science -- a revolution that desperately needed speculations and deviations beyond well-accepted ways of thinking." P. Weinberger.

          As of today, NOE has received 10,000 downloads from these two sites but as with de Broglie, since the theory appears to be speculation, I cannot get it published. The complexity lies in the lack of understanding in the source material. You will note on the topic of the photon there is a quote on page 347 and again on page 349. The topic is complex and obtuse. The reason I am stressing de Broglie, the photon and Einstein is because it relates to the new TOE, the long-sought-after theory of Hawkins.

          Photons having matter means there is a density gradient centrifugation which creates a discontinuous gradient as the wave-particle descends to the 7th plane of the Cosmic Physical plane.

          With regards and respect, MMAttachment #1: Page_347_to_348.jpg

          2 months later

          Dear Madonna-Megara Morgan-Helen Holloway,

          A very interesting and important essay in the Cartesian spirit of doubt. You pose the right question: "What if there is just one "law" that defines reality absolutely, i.e., all additional theories are only its fractal or iterative projections?»

          What is this "Law" that governs the Universe? What is its onto-logical "construction"? ... Pavel Florensky left a good philosophical testament to physicists and mathematicians: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is a spaceunderstanding".

          What is the ontological structure of space that establishes this Law of Cosmos (Universe)? What is the connection between "matter" and "space" (material / ideal)?

          Planck and Einstein began more than a hundred years ago the Big Ontological coup in the foundations of science. But this coup was not completed. Any theory that claims to be fundamental must have an ontological justification (basification). Quantum theory and General relativity are parametric (phenomenological, operationalist) theories without an ontological basification. Therefore, it makes no sense to combine them, let each work on their own "field". Today, in order for science to overcome the crisis of understanding in a philosophical basis, the holistic paradigm -- the Universe as a whole -- must come to the aid of the mechanistic paradigm (atomic), the paradigm of the part.

          Please explain what is the ontological structure at the base of your philosophical system and which can be the basis of knowledge in general?

          Respectfully, Vladimir

            5 days later

            Sorry for the delay Vladimir. Strange times indeed. My interpretation of your question is you are seeking to understand how does NOE Theory define the fundamental concept of reality.

            Here is a short statement:

            The Question is not what's the Answer?

            The Question is what's the Question?

            Is it all an elaborate Magic Show?

            Is Reality an ephemeral Perception, an Illusion?

            What is the framework of this Synchronised Matrix machine?

            What triggers Darwin's Puzzle: Evolution via Natural Selection?

            Quantum Intelligence: Where does Space-Time come from?

            Quantum Entanglement: Why does distance not matter?

            Is there any answer save Unity Consciousness?

            What's Out There which Isn't Within?

            What we see, why it changes with Observation?

            Ah! so, the Phantasm is just a Magic Show?

            How then to decrypt it, why not harness it?

            So go, go with the Fractal flow...

            DK Matai, Holistic Quantum Relativity, "Quantum Coherence and Entanglement" Workshop, CERN, Geneva, 2008

            a month later

            beautiful essay. very inspiring questions.voted.i presume you were heading here anthropic bias. kindly read/rate my essay here-https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.your ideas are greatly appreciated.

            9 days later

            This paper is a delight!

            Of course; it is a bit over the top and somewhat derivative. But it was like a tour de force of fun ideas, all wrapped up in one document. I enjoyed what you have to say, and I find many points of agreement, and common threads. In fact; it is almost as though you harvested the fruit of seeds I planted 10-15 years ago. I was the original author of the Wikipedia entry on 'Fractal Cosmology' for example.

            However; I almost have to out myself to give you a proper review, so here goes. Would you believe I'm a little like my namesake in "Doctor Strange" who studied the Mystic Arts for years before stepping aside to use some of the wisdom acquired to lead a 'normal' life? I used it to help my study of Physics too. You might like my Octonion poetry just published in the Scientific God Journal.

            This paper is provocative and suggestive, but it lacks a certain definiteness that would make it a scientific analysis. You do address the questions raised by the organizers and think that the idea we need to examine the answers from what you call the etheric view, where life, mind, and consciousness are the driving power behind physical evolution is worthy of merit.

            You get high marks from me, but not full credit. I would need to see more of your unique glue holding the ideas together in a congruent way. This work raises interesting questions but it does not offer a definite answer to those issues. So it is in a way incomplete. Still a lot more on topic than some essays, and you strive to explicate your own unique answers.

            Best,

            Jonathan

            11 days later

            Madonna,

            Well time's nearly up and I didn't get to re-read it, to little time and to many to read! But I have come back to score it as promised. I hope to also pick up on the links you've posted at a later time. My score will higher than it's present undervalued rating. It's likely been hit by some 'tactical' 1 scores as mine has. I hope fqXi will finally act to discourage that.

            Very best

            Peter

            Write a Reply...