UNIVERSAL REALITY
UNIVERSAL REALITY
A legitimate question and one that would seem reasonable concerns the very manner in which the new explanation of our reality offered herein has been presented: what justifies foregoing its submission to a scientific journal and the scrutiny of peer review? Although there are numerous logistical justifications which are discussed further below, the fundamental reason stems from the circumstance in which this understanding of reality arose: (despite the scientific language and formalism of philosophy in which it has been cast-) not through the 'scientific method' and its caveat that objectivity in scientific methodology and its discourse is unsustainable.
A well known if disturbing Quantum Mechanical effect that defies classical science including Einstein's Relativity is the unexpected interdependence between an event and its observer denying the possibility for complete objectivity in scientific inquiry. Quantum Mechanics shows that the most hallowed principle of classical science, the independence of the observer from 'objective reality', is in principle disallowed in the realm of quantum physics. The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum theory resolved the enigma by positing that while reality is not objective but dependent on the observer, at least it is identical for all observers.
The understanding of reality presented herein exposes a simple but 'fatal' inconsistency in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: to an observer other observers are simply synonymous with other events. Hence, its assertion that the reality of an event is at least identical for all observers is incompatible with the validity of observer-event interaction: all observers are mutually subjective thus the events they witness are not necessarily identical. Accordingly, one cannot escape the conclusion that reality is ultimately and inevitably subjective- not just for all practical purposes of the human condition but in principle. In other words Quantum Mechanics did not merely reach a hidden and inaccessible aspect of reality but proves that it is the scientific method itself that is the fundamental limit and reason for science's inability to account for all of reality. For instance, subjectivity introduces an uncontrollable element in any experiment which modulates the outcome as self-fulfilling to each observer and so limits the validity of an experiment and that of its repeatability. Accordingly, while it may lead us to ever more complex descriptions of reality, the scientific method itself cannot achieve the goal of a complete account of reality. Hence, some advances in our understanding of nature and of science itself can in principle only be achieved by side-stepping its discipline until this barrier has been overcome, in a sense analogous to the resolution to Zeno's paradox.
The circumstances in which the body of knowledge presented here unfolded, precisely because the scientific method was suspended during a brief lapse in observance of its regimen, is described at the end of the 'non-scientific introduction' (return 'back' for its link which conveys the subject of this web site by examples that are expected to be more accessible to those whose interest or background rather than scientific tends toward its implication on human, societal or technological issues).
Advances that are not the result of the scientific method and in fact are proof of its limitations, in principle and as substantiated by the method's failing to produce these advances, should not be subjected to the very process they found wanting. Moreover, these advances in understanding include a consequence that the subjectivity mentioned above is carried into the macroscopic world and thus, ironically, their submission to a heretofore-unsuspected ambiguous process could have gratuitous effects. The conventional course for submitting a scientific finding thus becomes an unsuitable and unacceptable approach for the subject conveyed by this web site. This rejection is meant not as a criticism of the scientific method or scientists who abide by it but ensues from recognition of its limitations- i.e. science and its methods will be better for it- and acknowledges its entanglement with 'spooky' quantum effects at a large scale of action. Hence, it was decided instead that a web presentation would provide the best forum for dissemination to a broad audience and forestall any consequences that were out of context of the nature from which the advances had sprung. These concerns were reinforced by recognition of possible institutional resistance that would tend to protect an ostensibly successful framework for scientific advancement, once its deficiency would come to light: in spite of having had the world's finest intellects and extensive financial resources at its disposal since the advent of modern science, (this same deficiency conspired that) it had not delivered what had come freely and without foreknowledge
Other logistical impediments provide further reasons for opting in favour of a web presentation. Advances in science are typically in a specific branch and area of investigation, which often elaborate on an aspect of an existing theory or sometimes formulate a new theory. It would not be realistic to expect that the subject of this web site, what some have labeled the 'theory of everything', would follow such step by step approach: its premise rules out its gradual discovery- like a prime it has no factors, either it has or hasn't been found. Moreover, the label 'theory' is not really fitting as this conjures up a hypothesis supported by rationale but in need of a proof: analogous to a puzzle piece that has a good fit yet also might be placed elsewhere- you only know for sure whether it is actually correct when the puzzle is complete. In contrast the 'theory of everything' is the completed puzzle, you can see the whole picture and the placement of an individual piece loses its significance to other issues: how best to admire the puzzle's subject or whether it could have been cut into smaller or larger pieces, possibly with different topologies.
Another logistical problem concerns the treatment of in-and-oversights: a typical paper might expose one such scientific finding. In contrast this presentation uncovers and resolves not one but a significant number of inconsistencies, lapses and contradictions in current understanding and interpretation and does so in not one but in separate branches of science: Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Mathematics (again no criticism intended, just another indication that the scientific method precluded a more fortuitous development). Clearly independent papers on each of these deficiencies would not just be cumbersome but separate them from the singular source of their resolution and, hence, each would fail to convey the overall expanded reality from which it had sprung. Thus the challenge of reporting an integrated approach would have resulted in such a voluminous submission that it would have exceeded the typical limit on length imposed by major publications by more than an order of magnitude, not to mention that their insistence on strict adherence to a prescribed format leaves little room for the more narrative style adopted herein. Neither could these publications have accommodated its dynamics of (pop-up) comments, clarifications with animated figures and philosophical rationalization that were needed to promote clarity of a difficult subject. Indeed the volume is more that of a book- and this would be the closer comparison with this web site- which it was felt could be broadcast more equitably (widely and inexpensively) and expediently on the web than through more traditional publishing outlets.
Ultimately our subject despite the form of its expression is not about physics or mathematics but about our place in the structure of reality, not its appearance but its innate language and the message this conveys to us. Like linguists who are neither the custodian of language nor make the rules of its grammar but with everyone else are its practitioners, scientists merely infer and record the syntax of their subject. Wherefore prior peer review has not been part of the process of preparing the presentation at this web site- nature, the ultimate instructor has no peers; we are all its perennial students.