Hello All

[wallyn4bz]

Hello All
My name is Wallace Provost. I am a retired Philosophy instructor. My published works have been split between the Philosophy of Science and Sociology. They are all available on my web site http://www.n4bz.org My reason for joining this group is to find ways to connect my work in a theory of Complex organization developed in the article "Freedom and the Nurden of Responsibility" available at http://www.n4bz.org/freedom.htm to the wave theorys of matter. Since my work is historical it seems to fit well with the Big Bang theory but I am aware of its shortcomings I will be following this web site as close as I can and I will be extremely interested in feedback from others. I will answer all queries from any one both on this forum and directly.
Wally

[haselhurst]

Hi Wally,
I could not access your links - says it needs password to access.

I am not sure why a historical view supports a Big Bang theory rather than a finite spherical observable universe as part of infinite eternal space (see WSM cosmology).

Given your philosophy of Science background I would greatly appreciate if you could read a short page for me and give me your thoughts.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm

I have just re-written it - seems to me it deduces reality (no opinions).

And this forum is actually being locked for the next 6 months - so you will have to wait a while to discuss too much here (but we will be back! - just need to concentrate on finishing re-writing main www.spaceandmotion.com website first.)

Cosmos,
Geoff

[haselhurst]

Hi Wally,
I browsed your site.
I think you would be well served to understand the wave structure of matter.
It explains freedom (limited free will in a necessarily interconnected universe).
It explains non linear interactions and the evolution of complexity.
And it explains how our finite spherical observable universe exists as part of infinite eternal space and its wave motions.

Starting from a big bang foundation will prove to be very embarrassing - as it is clearly wrong and ruins the rest of your work - which is important.

I hope that you will study WSM - modify your work - then help us to develop ours with your knowledge of political philosophy and how we can organise our society so that it abides by truth and reality.

But you have to do the work. This is not a place to promote your own ideas - it is a place to learn about WSM - the most simple language for describing physical reality, which then deduces fundamentals of modern physics.

To begin your thoughts on this page would be appreciated.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm

Sorry to be absolute / abrupt - I mean well - just very busy.
Geoff

[wallyn4bz]

In this paper you refer to Aristotle and Leibniz in your discussion of substance and the oneness of the universe. However, you idea of substance is much closer to Spinoza. I think would enjoy reading my treatise on Spinoza http://www.n4bz.org/gsr6/gsr605.htm because it reflects your ideas so closely.

Geoff - I read your page on Spinoza, and I have also read Spinoza and have a page on him. I like your page layout of quotes followed by explanations - it is how I plan on proceeding myself in re-writing main pages on spaceandmotion site.
He was very close to the truth, because like Aristotle he realised the importance of motion. According to WSM his god is Space and its wave motions that form matter.

However, we do not experience the universe as a whole, we experience it as an organization of particulates.

Geoff - To be precise we must state the organisation of matter 'particles' in Space. It is wrong to talk of matter and ignore the Space it exists in. So we do experience the whole observable universe - WSM deduces that this exists within infinite space - see cosmology pages.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm
(Yes they need to be re-written simply - but the knowledge is there)


Are you saying the all of reality is one huge spherical wave? I don't think so. Don't you mean something more like an infinite number of spherical waves?

Geoff - Each electron 'particle' is formed by the wave center of a spherical standing wave that is the size of the observable universe within infinite space. Antimatter (positron) is opposite phase waves. Protons and Neutrons are more complex wave structures that I think are made from collections of electrons and positrons.
The spherical in wave is formed from the out waves of all other matter in our finite spherical observable universe within infinite space. Thus each wave center particle is at the center of is finite spherical observable universe within infinite space.
So there is a finite number of these in our observable universe - an infinite number within infinite space.

Leibniz was a follower of Spinoza and he had a problem with the idea of a single substance. He suggested that there could be more, perhaps an infinite number of substances as long as they did not communicate with each other. This led to his "Monadology."

Geoff I cannot agree with this interpretation of Leibniz' monadology.

The following is from the page;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Gottfried-Leibniz-Philosopher.htm

Monas is a Greek word which signifies unity or that which is one. As Leibniz writes;

I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)

Leibniz described Reality (the One thing which exists and connects the many things) as One Substance (which is active) and God;

.. the ultimate reason of things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the differentiation of the changes only exists eminently as in their source; and this is what we call God. .. God alone is the primary Unity, or original simple substance, from which all monads, created and derived, are produced. (Leibniz, 1670)
I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)

Gottfried Leibniz's Monadology is largely correct, matter and universe are One. But we can now better understand his Monad as a Spherical Wave Motion of Space that determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space, and thus interacts with ALL other matter within our universe.

It follows from what we have just said, that the natural changes of monads come from an internal principle, and that change is continual in each one. … Now this connection of all created things with each, and of each with all the rest, means that each simple substance has relations which express all the others, each created monad represents the whole universe. (Leibniz, 1670)

If you understand the WSM then it is easy to explain Leibniz.

------------------

There are two points that are important in our experience of the universe. The first is that it is historically developed and second that it has developed through expanding levels of organization.
Is it possible to see these spherical waves that seem to develop particulate natures as the fundamental building blocks of nature? I am a philosopher and not a physicist but my work has led me to think that all of the fundamental particles of physical science are actually organizations of smaller simpler particles. Could this simplest particles be the result of spherical waves? Could any of the vast number of subatomic particles we find actually just be different organizations of these spherical wavicles? Wouldn't that equally lead to a simple basis for the underlying structure of the universe?

Geoff - Correct - all matter particles are really wave centers of spherical standing waves in Space. All energy 'particles' are due to resonance (resonant coupling), which is why they are discrete.

You might look at http://www.n4bz.org/emergence.htm where I outline my concept of the emergence of the things we find in the universe. As I go back through the sequence leading to the event called the "Big Bang" it all fizzles out and it is my idea that I can bring it back into reality if I can just understand WSM.
Wally

Geoff - Big Bang is wrong. Redshift with distance is deduced by WSM as due to decreasing overlap of finite spherical waves with increasing distance which causes decreasing energy exchange / redshift with distance. Thus it is not a Doppler effect, so no expansion, so no big bang.
WSM cosmology describes an infinite eternal space - this is the most simple foundation - it works.

This is all the help I can give for a while - the rest is up to you - I am hiding away from world for 6 months to finish re-writing website.

Good questions - good luck with your work.
Geoff

[haselhurst]

Comments added above.
Cheers,
Geoff