Dear John,
You have presented very interesting radical ideas in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt. It is very important that you reject the 芦Big Bang禄 hypothesis, which introduces maximum ontological uncertainty into cognition.
You wrote in one of the comments that your model is metaphysical. I don't understand only the initial ontological structure of your 芦Multiverse禄?
Also questions: 1) How is matter related to consciousness? How can consciousness be represented in the language of mathematics as the "language of Nature"?
2) You use the concept of 芦Multiverse". Why not Universe?
聽I looked at the etymological dictionary ... The concept of "Universe" comes from Latin Universum - "world whole, world, universe", the form of the middle gender from universus is "general, universal", further from unus - "one", further from the pre-Indo-European * oin- (* (w) ein-) "one", + versus "furrow; line; verse", from the verb vertere "rotate", from the pre-Indo-European * wer- "rotate"...
3) .In an interview with mathematician and mathematical physicist Ludwig Faddeev (in the journal "EXPERT" (2007), entitled "The equation of the evil spirit" it is written: "Academician Ludwig Faddeev believes that today mathematical rigor is more important than physical intuition and it is thanks to mathematics that a" unified theory of everything "will be built. The long-standing debate of scientists about what is more important - mathematical rigor or physical meaning, a correctly solved equation or an intuitive understanding of a natural phenomenon, continued throughout the 20th century, but at some time physicists seemed to win in it: Einstein as the creator of a special and general theory of relativity is better known to the average man than Poincare or Hilbert, Schr枚dinger is more popular than Weil, and Landau is more popular than Bogolyubov. But in recent decades, the situation began to change: it turned out that successful mathematical techniques have not just technical significance, but deep physical meaning. Mathematical intuition in solving increasingly complex physical problems may be more important than physical. And this caused a noticeable irritation of many great physicists. In the second half of the 20th century, a new generation of scientists appeared who could no longer be called pure physicists or mathematicians. Ludwig Faddeev is one of them. After graduating from the Physics Department of Leningrad University, he gained worldwide fame as a man who, together with his student Viktor Popov, solved the most complicated mathematical problems of the Yang - Mills theory, which later formed the basis of the theory of superstrings. The effects that were discovered were called "Faddeev-Popov spirits" and under this name entered all modern textbooks of theoretical physics. Faddeev is convinced that just as physics solved all the theoretical problems of chemistry, thereby "closing" chemistry, so mathematics will create a "unified theory of everything" and "close" physics. Faddeev is convinced that just as physics solved all the theoretical problems of chemistry, thereby "closing" chemistry, so mathematics will create a "unified theory of everything" and "close" physics".
Do you agree with Ludwig Faddeev?
Have you ever dealt with the problem of the "foundations of mathematics", which is already more than a hundred years old?
Since you strongly and categorically oppose the ontologically flawed hypothesis of the "Big Bang" and this is extremely important for overcoming the modern crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of science, and give your picture of the world. I give you a rating of 芦ten禄 for your new ideas. The problem of the ontological structure of the 芦Beginning禄 is problem No. 1 for mathematics and physics, and for cognition as a whole.
With kind regards, Vladimir.
