Essay Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate: 1. There are no "natural" limitations to the development of a complete mathematical description of the visible universe. 2. The "impossibles" expressed by Gödel, Turing and Heisenberg are human impositions. 3. The impossibles and current limitations link back to false assumptions. 4. Elimination of the assumptions, impossibles and limitations enable the derivation of a complete mathematically-consistent model of a multiverse that contains "our" visible universe. Introduction of a complete mathematically-consistent model of "our" multiverse and the changes from current thinking that made it possible are the basis of this essay.

Author Bio

John Crowell is an independent scholar investigating creativity, Self Creation and how they relate to A Theory of Everything: was a New Business and New Product Development Director for the 3M Company, CEO of 3M Chile and Technical Director of the 3M Chemicals Division. Ph.D in Synthetic Organic Chemistry (Florida State University); B.S. in Chemistry and Mathematics (University of Kansas).

Download Essay PDF File

"The model can be used by physicists, cosmologists, - all physical disciplines - to explain the entire creation and functioning of our multiverse and its contents." The preceding statement describes the ultimate goal of reductionism -- however, let us recall the words of P. W. Anderson: "The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. ... The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted by the twin difficulties of scale and complexity."

"More is Different" by P. W. Anderson, August 4th 1972, Science

Thanks for the question. I believe a Toe is possible but to be considered viable it needs to satisfy 3. criteria: 1. It has to be complete 2. It has to be mathematically consistent. 3. When it is in the range of the visible universe, it needs to correspond to verified measurements. In my investigations the Successful Self Creation theory meets those criteria.

It is true that the theory goes beyond - both on the small and large sides- what we can currently measure. So it is a metaphysical theory. The good side is that it can be used to make predictions that can be tested in the future.

The theory needs to be authenticated by other scientists/mathematicians. I believe the only way to convince people is to have them use the theory in their work and, basically convince themselves. The goal of this essay is to trigger interest so they will try the model. The model has some real advantages. Once the concepts are understood, the mathematics is simpler. you get rid of infinities and zero and the mathematics works.

I am also interested in why you think a TOE is impossible so I can address that topic. John

David. Thanks for the warning. My working career was spent in the development of new products, new processes and new businesses based on the value of their improvements to the user. As you know the pathway to success includes the scale-up of the products, processes, user base, the logistical organizations and the financing "needed" to serve the successful growth. As you noted, as the success progresses, the situation gets progressively larger and more complex.

In my essay, I tried to reconstruct the process from the bottom up to show how the Successful Self Creation process produced its own mathematics and algorithms which I discovered and used to model the process. Perhaps that message did not come across in the essay.

The current situation with the Successful Self Creation theory is that it is a new product/process that in my "trials" worked. It does something no other product does. It needs to be "scaled up". Other people need to try the product to see if it is useful for them in their situations and, as the trials progress, It may need some adjustments to be more helpful to more people.

The Successful Self Creation theory goes beyond the norms of what is currently being explored in science. My purpose in entering the essay contest was to introduce the concept to the scientific "progressives" working at the edges of "consensus reality" and get their response.

As I mentioned in the essay, the theory goes beyond the physical world. It deals with "all ordered existence" which includes the complexities of chemistry, biology, psychology, social, consciousness, cognition etc.. However, those are not the subject matter in this contest.

Thanks again for your comments and warning. John

    David. I thought of something that may be useful to you in understanding the Successful Self Creation process. This is very different from current scientific beliefs, Currently science assumes that the laws and constants of physics have always existed and they are in effect everywhere, all of the time and they never change. In the Successful Self Creation progression, the system starts without any laws/rules, try's all of the possibilities and selects what works the best - Analogous to Feynman diagrams. The success then encapsulates/incorporates and uses everything that is needed to repeat the processing and self replicate. The laws are not separate from the processing. They are created and incorporated together in the successful processing.

    The TOE I mention is called the Scalar Theory of Everything. It corresponds to both General Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It has a Universal Equation which has been applied to many astronomical problems observations and to light interference experiments including those that reject wave models. For a list see:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489883_STOE_

    replaces_relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

    Faster than light experiments include quantum entanglement, quantum eraser, the measured speed of gravity (van Flandern and others), and the measured speed of the coulomb field.

    In your model, what observations that are problems (poorly explained) for current theory that your model explains? I saw no observation/experimental support for your model.

      John Thank you for your questions/comments. Since I received them, I read your essay more thoroughly, compared it to my essay and have some new thoughts. I really like your paper. I agree with your comments on the current state of physical models, human modeling, the need for more fundamental models, the approach of adjusting the postulates and the need for a paradigm shift in the fundamental models. I also believe in your approach of changing the postulates, generating an equation that, based on the postulates, correlates with physical phenomena and using that equation to expand our understanding of the physical world. The STOE universal equation that calculates the force at every point in the universe and its use in explaining physical phenomena accomplishes that purpose - congratulations.

      Now the "howevers": I believe that your arguments used to generate changes in the postulates were successful in generating the framework that allowed your success. However, they are not complete. At the end of your conclusion you state: "However, because the universe's source of initial conditions is unknowable, the universe is unpredictable except for limited space and time." This leaves the "quest" to develop a TOE open to finding a lower fundamental level that totally eliminates undecidability(incompleteness), uncomputability, unpredictability and allows the development of a complete, computable, predictable model of the physical world. That was my goal in developing the Successful Self Creation Theory and the basis of my essay. In the essay I introduced that lower level and its scale up to the multiverse. I also alluded to its usefulness in explaining the creation of humanity, human minding and human creativity. In my next posting, I will answer your questions about how my model explains previously unexplainable and/or "poorly explained" observations and problems related to the physical world. I invite your follow up comments on both postings. Talk to you later. John

      5 days later

      Correspond to verified measurements.

      In solid state physics it is common to apply a unitary transformation in order to obtain a mathematically simpler model. E.g. the Froehlich transformation of a hamiltonian with electron-phonon interaction is changed into a hamiltonian according to which two electrons attract each other, which is of course not true. So what does "correspond" mean? Models are "effective", in the sense that there may be a correspondente with reality, without being true.

      Dear John,

      Despite it is a bit speculative, I like your Essay. In particular, I agree with your Einsteinian vision of a deterministic Universe. I have a question: you wrote that also the "impossible" expressed by Heisenberg is a human imposition. But, in this case, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a consequence of a mathematical theorem of Fourier transforms. It is quite difficult to define as "impossible" a mathematical theorem. How do you explain this issue?

      In any case, I had fun in reading your Essay. Thus, I will give you a high score. Good luck in the Contest.

      Cheers, Ch.

        John To my knowledge this is the only theory that mathematically connects quantums (C*s) to very small "measurements" of Planck action and to the measurements to the very large universal variables of space, time, mass, etc. So the theory dos not explain the observations. It explains the processing that connects the observations. So the problems it solves are the problems of connecting and unification. My major claims are it overcomes entropy ( it converts chaos to order). it connects the very large to the very small. It unifies quantum mechanics and General Relativity. It generates the mathematics that can be used to explain it. I have attached a note that may help to explain what I am talking about.Attachment #1: C_to_SSCU_TRANSFORMATIONS.gdoc

        John I could not open the attachment. So I am trying to send it in a different way. John Crowell

        Martin In this case, I am simply trying to say that my theoretical measurements and the "verified or generally accepted as true" measurements of physics are very close to being the same. For example, my theoretical value of the Planck time is 5.3631702x10^-44 seconds and the generally accepted value is ~5.39x10^-44 thanks for the inquiry. John

        Ch. thanks for your comments. The "impossible" that I am talking about is the ability to get a complete accurate description of "natural" reality. If you have an assumption/axiom that is wrong it is impossible to be both complete and accurate. In the case of mathematical theorems, one has a beginning or an ending "statement" and you work forward or backward using (the rules of) logic and reason to prove the theorem. If those rules do not apply then it is "impossible" to get the complete accurate result you want. The fundamental assumption of philosophy is that the rules that govern reason and logic are present everywhere, all of the time and never change. The SSC theory disputes that assumption. If the SSC theory is correct, then it is "impossible" for theories-mathematical or scientific (based on that assumption)to develop a complete/accurate TOE. I will discuss the specific case of the uncertainty principle in my next post.

        Ch. The uncertainty principle is a specific case. In the SSC theory, when a SSC progression reaches a stable state, it is a repeating combination of 2sets of equivalent and opposite processes. One set is the self creating processing and the self dissipating processing. The other set is two conversion processes. One converts the end of the self creating process to the beginning of the self dissipating process and the other connects the end of the self dissipating process to the beginning of the self creating processing. The result is an everything is a repeating, equivalently and oppositely connected system. When a human imposes on (perturbs) the system by trying to measure it, the system interacts. If it changes the variable being measured, that change will have an equivalent and opposite affect on its conjugate variable. If one gets more precise the other gets less precise--and that is the observed result. Neither measurement accurately reflects the true state of the unperturbed system. If the system interacts, it is "impossible" to get a complete/accurate description of the unperturbed "natural state.

        Ch. The SSC theory does not present any new "observations". However, it shows the changes/conversions/connections necessary to get a complete/accurate description of the processing that connects those observations. In my essay, I mention that physicists can use the model as an aide in their work. The basis of this statement is: If you know the overall framework of what is happening, it is much easier to understand and rationalize what is happening in specific situations/conditions/problems. I would like to test that idea on the BH Information Paradox that you and several of your colleagues are addressing in this contest. I would like to post on this thread (in more detail) how my work describes the creation, functioning and role of black holes in the creation of the universe, galaxies/solar systems and how it differs in its basics from current theories. Let you think about how to incorporate it into your work and see if it helps to generate new observations/rationalizations that can solve the paradox. Would you like to try that? John

          Dear John,

          Thanks for the clarifications. Again, I wish you good luck in the Contest.

          Cheers, Ch.

          12 days later

          John Crowell re-uploaded the file Crowell_2272020.707am_Clari.pdf for the essay entitled "Clarification of Physics: A Derivation of a Complete, Computable, Predictive Model of "Our" Multiverse." on 2020-04-06 22:01:08 UTC.

          5 days later

          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.

          Dear John D Crowell,

          I certainly agree that many current problems of physics are based on false assumptions. It seems that a good approach is to try to identify these false assumptions and see what's left of science after they have been removed. My current essay deals with the false assumption of multiple time frames.

          I agree with certain aspects of your approach; it is finite, it is based on 'flexible' C* units that change while preserving their essence, and it is so structured as to be scalable. Also, as I think you agree, vortices are an essential concept.

          On the other hand, I do believe a big-bang-type creation event is reasonable, and I do not subscribe to a multiverse. In my mind the 'free lunch model' of a primordial field coming into creation implies that initially nothing else existed -- therefore any possible interaction must be self-interaction, as nothing else existed to interact with. This leads me to a self-interaction principle and equation that unfolds to evolve the universe in an essentially self-aware mode that gets us to where we are now. For example, to formulate it in physics form, if 'd' is a 'change operator' and f is the primordial field, then the basic equation is: df = f*f where * is the interaction operator. You'd be amazed how much falls out of this equation.

          One problem with FQXi, almost by definition is that most of the participants have their own models of reality, making it extremely difficult for everyone to agree. Therefore the best that can be expected is for us to converge to common principles and processes. Over the decade of contests this appears to me to be happening, as a number of us are coming to a neo-classical view that rejects the 'magic' of many current theories.

          I appreciate your reading my essay and agreeing with certain aspects of it. I wish you well in this contest and in the continued development of your theory of reality.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman