**A Theory of Everything.**

New Paradigms in Science and Philosophy

Problems which will be touched.

1. Objects as probability distributions.

2. Particles at different places until observed.

3. Entanglement independent of distance.

4. Influence of future on past?

5. The now as an interval intime.

6. The existing as well as the observed universe is discrete.

7. Organic causality in reality is not transitive, thus not a partial order.

8. Observed causality does not fit in reality!

9. Non-existing things influence existing things.

10. Influence not causality may come from future existing objects.

11. Identity of an object observed at different moments is problematic (manifestations!)

12. Organisms as co-creators of reality.

13. Inter-species interaction as planned cooperation?

14. Interaction of organisms and the biotope as pseudo-organism.

15. Human telecommunication?

16. The soul as an abstract process can “exist at” an interval reaching the end of time!

17. The abstract world constructed by humans makes them Time Hybrids!

18. Evolution of organisms as co-creation of the species as pseudo-organism.

19. Micro-learning process leading to understanding about the knowledge of the learning process.

20. A god outside time can pre-interact with the abstract and act in reality via that!

1. The beginning. The ‘word’ became flesh.

Since Adam did not have a job in his paradise he decided to walk around the garden and name all animals and plants he could find, a job which would keep him busy for some time. To do that, what did he need? Observing obviously but also thinking and mostly a memory because it would be useless if today’s Eve were tomorrow’s elephant, so he needed to recognize the objects he named, that meant to observe and recognize differences and have a notion of identity. The first primitive memory action was a yes-no thing, a binary code expressing whether a sensed action was the same as one sensed before and remembered.

For a multicellular being the first sensing had to be stemming from some interaction with an exterior object via the membrane, perhaps the first thing constructed and exactly separating the inner from the outer. This first interaction was a sensory impulse not an observation because that needs thinking. Millions of repetitions of similar (the same?) interactions could result in regular inner chemical reactions, for example the daily rhythm of day and night, warming and cooling could result in a regular movement of chemical substances inside the cell. So the exterior interactions triggered regular interior reactions and this was after a long time experienced and recognized as a first feeling.

*The exterior world is recognized as such, the interior representation it defines is observed and identified by the very primitive memory.

Giving names uses a coding system, a primitive language which developed from instinctive behavior, e.g. the shriek of a monkey after seeing a leopard. Recognizing in the memory uses time and experiences appear totally ordered ,always for two not simultaneous events one is before the other or conversely.

* We take time in reality to be just a totally ordered set T, I will not assume more in my Time-Space model, so I will not assume time can be measured by real numbers (there is no evidence for this!) and I will not assume any structure like a group, vector-space, number field!

Language when used is also ordered by time, the order of letters, words, sentences,…, is important for the meaning. Thus language is a non-commutative structure of symbols, a way of coding and decoding letters, words, sentences,…, into meaning. The naming introduces abstraction in our observed reality, the sensing is an effect of pattern recognition, chimpanzees are much better in pattern recognition than people, but ‘naming’ needs abstract thinking, the memory has to remember abstract concepts or codes ,not interactions with reality. Some abstract concepts are trying to explain some real phenomena or objects but in a next step of higher complexity concepts describing purely abstract earlier constructions will become part of ‘thinking’.

*Recognising the difference in abstract symbols is at the basis of language and it is an effect of using time, the aim is to give meaning to the electro-chemical activity of the neurons in the brain defining recognisable inner processes which are encoded by an “idea” which is given ‘meaning’ by some cognitive analysis, thus by more advanced thinking. The concepts and meanings we define abstractly are not in the existing reality, they form an ‘unreal’ abstract world.

It is easily verified that naming itself does not tell us anything about the structure or nature of the named object, for that we need a lot of extra cognitive activities, say a ‘learning process’ which is an abstract process of inventing properties, trying to check these on the object one studies, then studying the combinations and relations of those properties. This construction of an abstract model of an object or event also works for purely abstract concepts which do not result from observations of real events. Dropping the restriction that our concepts have to reflect existing objects is the creation of fantasy (and creativity), the most important discovery of the human species! We can sense things in reality but to observe them we can only do that via our abstract representation of reality, all our thinking, concepts and meanings, communication,…, is abstract. What we call concrete is always ‘seen’(analysed) through the abstractions.

*Our reconstruction of reality is always embedded in some space or geometric construction, for reasons becoming clear in the sequel. The construction of Space and some geometry of it is also non-existing and purely abstract, so is the use of Mathematics, however applied we call it, it is abstract and non-existing in reality! Pairs of objects exist, the number two does not!

2. A New Time -Space Model.

Let us start by viewing the universe as a totally ordered set of states, Time is the ordering set, e.g. it is like a stack of pages but numbered by moments in the set Time. For example, if the set is the natural numbers then each state has one nearest one before and after it, also time begins at zero, nothing before it. If the set is positive fractions then there is no next state and between every two states there are infinitely many other ones, also there is nothing before or at zero and there is no initial state, i.e. no beginning of the universe. In modern Physics we use the real numbers as the values for the time-parameter but there is not one valid argument for doing so! For now, I do not make extra assumptions on the totally ordered set, so everything said will be generic. A totally ordered set is a set with an ordering so that for each pair of different elements either the first is larger than the second or conversely. Such a set can be seen as a (possibly infinite) series of elements ordered from small to large, but it does not mean that the set is countable, for example the set of real numbers or the positive real numbers is a non-countable set and it is totally ordered by the normal (intuitive) ordering of real numbers. It also does not mean that Time is like a one-dimensional line, for example a vector-space over the real numbers of any dimension n can be totally ordered by taking the lexicographical order on the n-tuples (a(1),…..,a(n)), that means (a(1),…..,a(n))>(b(1)…..,b(n))if a(1)>b(1) or a(1)=b(1) and a(2)>b(2) or also a(2) =b(2) and a(3)>b(3) and so on. Clearly this is exactly the way words are ordered in a dictionary by looking first at the first letter, then at the second when the first are equal and so on.

*A state of the universe at a moment t is first a set with some geometry! What are minimal conditions we must put on the notion of time in reality? Apart from the total order I will assume nothing else, so this time may be seen as the page numbers on the book where each page of the book is a state in the moment indicated by the page. The geometry of a state is defined in that moment and that is possible because it is a purely abstract definition of mathematical nature, so there are places and inclusions in the state geometry plus some notions of Topology and Geometry which we will hint at later, let me refer to my book “Virtual Topology and Functor Geometry” published by M.Dekker, New York, for full detail.

*As a definition for ‘existing’ we use for the moment the intuitive definition of being present in some place and time period as in the classic understanding, therefore the state of the universe at any moment does not exist as it “is” in zero time, a moment, not a time period.

We cannot observe a state of the universe as observation will need time passing by as we experience it, and a moment has no duration hence does not exist in the universe. In different states everything in the universe has changed (but we do not care if it is observable or not), just being in a different state is already changing everything. Now the pages of the book are not loosely hanging around they are glued together, formally we obtain this gluing from transition maps between the states at moments and these maps will be supposed to have some suitable geometric properties of generalized continuity type (but we will not go into the full detail here).

*So we consider the geometrical dynamical universe as a set of states {U(t),t in T} equipped with transition geometric maps, for every t<t’ in T, f(t,t’): U(t)->U(t’) such that for every t<t’<t’’ in T composition f(t’,t’’)f(t,t’) of first f(t,t’) and then f(t’,t’’) equals the map f(t,t’’). Hence going from t to t’’ in the system of states is independent of the possible in between step via t’ between t and t’’. The system of states together with transition maps as defined above is called the dynamic geometric universe and will be denoted by just “U”.

We use the word geometric here in a rather undefined way, one may use classical Euclidean geometry or differential manifold geometry or non-commutative geometry, in fact it is enough to have a topological structure or even a non-commutative lattice structure as I used in my work on non-commutative topology with some weak topological properties of the transitions phrased completely in terms of the order and the topological elements. An interesting property of the latter non-commutative structures is that these are naturally pointless structures, one may introduce several notions of generalized points, for example by using maximal filters for the ordering. Another point of interest is that the pointless character of those constructions makes an approach via coordinates in real numbers impossible and stresses a definition of place intrinsically without looking at sets of points! For logical interpretations, the intrinsic formulation in terms of such general places is useful but of course not for practical calculations, unless one specialises to some hybrid concept of non-commutative manifolds with some strange “stretched” real manifold structure as I introduced in my work on non-commutative topology as an example.

*At this moment it is interesting to point out that the irreversibility of real time is inherent in the construction; indeed to reverse time would mean to go back to a state of the universe chronologically before the one starting from, but it is impossible to change all pre-things in one state to those in an earlier state, that would require so many pre-interactions and time periods for each pre-interaction to realize that it would take a very long time far past the time-neighborhood of the state of the start, moreover the sets of pre-things going to grow into existing things will at the end of the set-back process not be the same as in the aimed at state as all of those already continued to exist! So time travel controlled by people is completely impossible. But if controlled by the universe itself or some absolute powerful being, extremely unlikely but not provably impossible.

Our generic time in reality is not in the universe ,the universe U is an étale structure over the set T of Time as a set of abstract moments . To t in T we correspond the state U(t) with its chosen geometry of topology and to an interval I in T we will associate a geometric space U(I), see later for precise definition.

*In the next section we will extend this étale structure to pre-things, to the universe not only viewed as some geometric construction but as the underlying structure of momentary pre-things and existing and observable events in specific existing resp. observing time intervals.

This picture, already at the intuitive level we now address it in, immediately reminds of a sheaf theoretical construction, with the states as the geometric stalks with momentary pre-things over them and ‘sections’ over time intervals given by some strings (for connecting correspondences to be defined precisely in the next section) of pre-things at moments in the time intervals; existing objects will be given by specific strings and observed events by strings over larger time intervals but with ‘observer-existing event’ pre-interactions added over the enlarged string of correspondences.

3. A new Time-Space Model.

For every moment t we look at the state U(t) at moment t in T and we associate to this a new set S(t) of pre-things existing over the state. In S(t) we may specialize subsets I(t), pre-interactions, and O(t), pre-objects, where we write i(a(t),b(t)) for a pre-interaction between pre-objects a(t) and b(t). The essential things to consider will be the subsets of S(t), we write PS(t) for the set of subsets of S(t) and on PS(t) we have a partial order given by the inclusion of sets. We shall write A(t) for a subset consisting of some a(t) of S(t) in a similar way we define PO(t) consisting of A(t), and PI(t) the latter consisting of I (A(t),B(t)) which is a set of pre-interactions between a(t) from A(t) and b(t) from B(t).

*A correspondence between S(t) and S(t’) for t<t’ in T is a map from PS(t)to PS(t’), we denote these maps by s(t,t’): PS(t)->PS(t’) and write the same for the correspondence from S(t) to S(t’), that will not cause ambiguity. Like the geometric maps on the states, the correspondences satisfy the connecting condition that for t<t’<t’’ in T we have that the composition of s(t,t’) and s(t’,t’’) equals s(t,t’’). Let me point out that the s(t,t’) are not assumed to respect the inclusions, hence if B(t) is in A(t) then s(t,t’)B(t)=B(t’) need not be in A(t’), even if B(t)is for example a singleton {b(t)} then s(t,t’){b(t)} need not be a singleton and need not be in A(t’).

*Some elements in PS(t) are called pre-existing, those are sets A(t) leading to strings of A(t’) for t’ is some time interval such that the string over some interval I, called the existence interval, is an existing thing in reality! The set A(t) is also said to realize over the interval I. It is very interesting to note that if A(t’) is the image of A(t) under s(t,t’) for some t<t’ in T it does not imply that for every a(t’) in A(t’) there is some a(t) in A(t) such that a(t’)=s(t,t’)(a(t)), in fact the correspondence s(t,t’) need not have a map associated with it defined on any of the a(t) appearing in the A(t). That leads to the appearance of elements in A(t’) having no history at moment t, in fact all elements of A(t’) could be without history in A(t) and still the set A(t’) has the history A(t) in S(t).

* Having a history at moment t of some set of pre-things in S(t’) for correspondences ending in S(t’) implies nothing about history for the elements of that set, but if some element has a history at t for some t<t’ then it has a history at every t’’ between t and t’, that follows easily from the connecting condition on the correspondences s(t,t’).

The universe can be finite or infinite, we have no way of knowing but it is fair to say that most Physicists start from the assumption that there is a finite number of existing events in the universe and in the complete past of the universe at every given moment in time. In our model this does not imply there are only finitely many pre-things in a state, but there are only finitely many subsets of pre-things which will realize into an existing thing after a non-trivial time period. If for some subset A(t) in S(t) the existence interval is {t’,t<t’ for t’ in T} that means the thing is existing only after all time has passed. In case T is a finite set that means that the existing object only exists after the end of time and so cannot be observed by us anyway. In case T does not have a largest element then such object does not exist in any closed interval after t and such situation we would like to understand as non-existing. * In conclusion we thus change the definition of an existing thing by demanding that the existence interval is closed, so in particular existing intervals have a smallest and largest element for the total order of time.

Suppose we look at a realizable subset A(t) of S(t) at moment t which realizes to an object O(t(1)) existing in the interval (t,t(1)), then we can start an interval at t’ between t and t(1) and look at A(t’). We assumed the transition correspondences are defined by the pre-interactions in the starting state, so since the string between A(t) and A(t(1)) has the same tail after t’ as the string from A(t’) to A(t(1) and all pre-interactions in S(t’) between elements of A(t’) and other elements in S(t’) are the same in both situations we now consider, it is plausible that A(t’) realizes in the interval (t’,t(1)) and it realizes to the same object O(t(1)) as A(t) realizes to in (t,t(1)). Unless otherwise stated we will agree to assume this as it is harmless. On the other hand the situation for (t,t(1)) contains more information since you know for example that some element in A(t’) has a history in A(t) or not and you cannot retrieve that information from just knowing the string after t’. Thus it is equally possible to assume that the string starting at A(t’) will realize but perhaps later than the string starting at A(t) (earlier would be impossible because a realization in a shorter interval would also realize A(t) in that shorter interval).

*In the definition of an existence interval we thus assume that for a given A(t) the existence interval is the shortest beginning with t and there is a shortest one because we assume that existing takes some time period and is not existing in all intervals starting with t, e.g. not at (t,t). In the case of a finitary universe (that is one with at each moment a finite number of existing events in the whole past) there thus is a shortest time interval for any event to be existing in, we call it the existence time unit, for observing instead of existing and assuming that observing takes more time than existing of the observed object we will find the Planck time units as shortest time period for something to be observed. In Physics Planck units appear when measuring with real numbers but we have it in more generality by the finitary assumption plus the assumption that doing something takes nonzero time.

If we look at some string of subsets of pre-objects and two time intervals having a non-trivial intersection where the restriction of the string realizes to two existing objects then our assumptions so far allow to say that the first interval realizes to the same object as the tail starting at the begin point of the intersection and then the closed interval starting at the endpoint of the first and ending at the endpoint of the second is a closed tail of the second interval hence realizes to the same object as the second interval. Consequently, the realization of the two objects may be obtained in two intervals having only one point in common and the second object is the realization of the A(t’) where t’ is the end moment of the first interval.

*Thus, we are in a situation where the second object is obtained from the “continuation” of the first and that is what we call the continuation, or manifestation of the object or the next existence of the first object.

In the next section I will look at the identity problem for existing objects. Note that when I talk about the “first” interval that is correct because on the set of intervals in T we can define a partial order by defining that an interval starting and ending before another one is “before” the other. This relation is indeed reflexive, anti-symmetric, and transitive, hence a partial order. Since there are intervals containing another interval these two are not comparable for the partial order hence that order is not a total order like the one on moments of T! When looking at two disjoint existence intervals for one string of pre-things several possibilities arise, first at the endpoint of the first interval the subset of pre-things in the string at that moment does not realize, then the first object and the second one for the other interval are different objects; secondly that subset of pre-things does realize in an interval that stops before the second and then there is a second existence of the first object which is different of the second object and one may go on with finding next realizations of the first object until it stops before the second interval, or thirdly that goes on until after several next realizations the last existence interval of such next realization intersects the second interval given, what means that the second realization interval is one of a next realization of the initial object. * For two disjoint realization intervals with the same string of pre-things we either have that the second realization is a future existence of the same object realized in the first interval or the first object disappears after some next realizations before the start of the second interval and so the second object is not apparently related to the first even if it belongs to the same long string. We will say the second object is a rebirth in the same string.

Starting from A(t) in S(t) we obtain a first manifestation of the represented object a in the existence interval (t,t(1)), then starting with A(t(1)) we get a second manifestation of the string in (t(1),t(2)) and so on to obtain a string or manifestations with endpoints t(1)<t(2)<…<t(n) which goes on until A(t(n)) does not realize or disappears. The manifestations of A exist at the closed intervals and not at the endpoints ,in fact not at any moment in T.

*So even if we consider T being the real numbers the existence of things is not a continuous phenomenon in time, no it is even discrete, so in some mathematical formalism describing the reality the action of taking limits for t going to zero (see Big Bang) is not defined in reality. So in the model we may see a so-called singularity but in reality there is no singularity, the mathematical notion does not exist(!) in reality. Similarly black holes can be incredibly heavy but not infinitely heavy.

* Another conclusion is that rebirths of an object cannot be recognized as such by observations, they will be seen as new objects!

Now we can define a place for existing events in the dynamic universe and this in turn allows to make the intuitive definition of existing (being present in a non-empty place and non-zero time period) into a well-defined one! We assume there is given a map §(t): S(t) — ->U(t) associating to very a(t) in S(t) a place §(t)(a(t)) in U(t), where a place in U(t) is defined by the choice of the geometry on U(t), e.g. a 4-dimensional manifold or some non-commutative geometry. To A(t) we associate v§(t)(a(t)) where v denotes the join of the mentioned places in the topology of U(t) for all a(t) in A(t).

*Then for every t’>t we have a place §(t’)F(t,t’)(A(t)) in U(t’) but that needs not be the same as f(t,t’)(§(t)(A(t))); if it is the same then the pre-object is not ‘moving’. Over the existence interval for the manifestation of the event defined by the string starting with A(t) we may thus look at the string of §(t’)(F(t,t’)(A(t))) of momentary places, which is not a string for the f(t,t’) necessarily, and call that the dynamic place of the existing event. If this place coincides with the string f(t,t’)(§(t)(A(t))) we call the existing event pre-stable. If two existence intervals for different manifestations are compared and the string of places for the second is the image under the series of the f(t,t’) for t in the first interval and t’ in the second then the existing event is said to be immobile, if not then it is said to have moved.

Most events do not exist since the ‘beginning of time’, in fact probably no event existed from the beginning, so for some A(t) realizing in some existence interval there is a first t’’< t, such that there is an A(t’’) such that F(t’’, t)(A(t’’))= A(t), then A(t’’) has no history in the states before U(t’’). Even if A(t) has a history at t’’ it does not follow that a(t) in A(t) yields a {a(t)} having a history in A(t’’), in, fact it is possible that no {a(t)} has a history B(t’’) in U(t’’) for which F(t’’, t)(B(t’’))={a(t)}.

*Where do the A(t) without history come from; they are created exactly at moment t and activities in moments are forever non-existing and non-observable for us!

Now we have to elaborate somewhat on the notion of observing. It seems natural to assume that the observation interval is larger than the existing interval because we believe intuitively that what we observe exists.

*It is harmless to assume the observation time interval is larger than the existence interval but we will show that it does not follow that what we observe exists because the observation interval may contain the existence intervals of several consecutive manifestations and the set of exiting manifestations is not the same as the unique existing object we wanted to observe. What we observe will then be called a super-object or super-event, different from the existing event.

So we have to worry about three different structures!

The real universe — — > the existing universe — →the observed universe

No obs. interaction — — -no obs. interaction — — — obs. string interaction

Momentary cause— — caused by non-existing — cause:obs.-event interaction

(The latter observer-event interaction can be by pre-things and strings. as well as existing interaction)

An observation of an event given by a string of pre-things is also a string of pre-things containing the string of the event plus a lot of pre-interactions between pre-things in the string of the observer and the string of the event. These pre-interactions realize to an existing interaction (the observation) after the realization of the next manifestation of the observer and the event, so it takes longer than the realization of the event to its manifestation we thought we were observing!

* When we start observing some event then the realization of the observation is past the realization of the manifestation we began to pre-interact with, what we will observe is the next manifestation or even the n-th manifestation after the manifestation our observation process started with.

That means that ,depending on the length of the existence interval of an event and the observation interval of an observer the event ‘observed ‘ is a set of more than one existence manifestation of the event! Let us write e-object for an existing object at some interval and o-object for the observed object after a longer observation interval. Then the o-object represents n e-objects ‘seen’ as one! The e-objects have associated dynamic places in the existing universe places, we cannot observe these places because we can only observe to set of e-objects as one object.

*The observation of an event in the existing reality says nothing about the place of the e-objects in the o-object, and there may be two or a billion such e-object manifestations in the o-object. For example what we observe as an electron, thus an o-electron is really asset of existing objects e-electrons all being manifestations or re-births (!)of an initial e-electron realized in the observation interval. The places of the e-electrons in the dynamic geometry are not related to the observed place of an o-electron, it is indeed fair to say the o-electron is a cloud of e-electrons.

* We define a super-object to be a set of realizations of a single string into consecutive manifestations or rebirths (when some part of the string does not realize but starts again later, then the reborn realizations are not manifestations of the original starting set A(t), so may best be viewed as really different objects!).

If one starts another observation during the observation interval of a first observation then the first e-object in the second observation interval is one of the n e-objects in the first interval and the second observation process will end with the (n+m)-th e-object in the first string. Since we do not know the observation intervals at different moments in time are of the same ‘length’(now talking with a small extra assumption that time has a translation property and length is used in a weaker version without measurability or numbers, just being longer, detail not included here, it is only a matter of speaking), that m is at least the position of the e-object at the beginning of the second observation. Thus the second observation is not the same o-object, if rebirths happened to some e-object inside then it should not even be considered a ‘manifestation’ (on the super-object level) of the original o-object. Big problem for the identification strategy of observed objects…but on a very small scale ,so neglected in our actual physics.

*Since the e-objects have a definite place in the dynamic geometry viewing an electron as a cloud of probabilities indicating the position is wrong …but in view of the non-observability of the places of the e-objects inside the o-object it is an approximation sort of up to Planck units. The distribution of probabilities has to be seen as a function of time though to be more precise! Instead of Quantum Theory one has a perfectly well-defined use of dynamic places to reason about the properties of e-electrons. It may for example be important to talk about the number of electrons in an atom, that is now the number of o-electrons not of existing-electrons!

*Super-objects do not exist as realizations of strings over existence interval (definition of existence) but we observe them! In fact all observations are observations of super-objects not of existing objects, indeed the observation interval is longer than the existence interval of the thing to be observed.

When correctly describing interactions with an observed object we thus have to define these as strings of pre-interactions with the string of a super-object. This will lead to realized interactions with some e-objects after the start of the interaction, the observation of the first realized interaction with the first-object for which that happens starts a series of such observed sub-interactions. The first observed will likely be seen as ‘the’ interaction on the observed object, by then the sub-interactions on consequent e-objects have been realized and their observations follow the first one so will be seen as second and further observations of the interaction while it is still part of the ‘observation of the interaction’ ! The problem is that the time of starting an interaction by creating momentary pre-interactions is larger than a moment so really it starts several different pre-interactions at different moments, hence different strings develop, so even what we consider to be one interaction of observation is many interactions in reality and the result will be a kind of average over longer time intervals.

*On the micro-level, way beyond the Planck interval this yields a very chaotic relation between realty and observed reality, this also explains the non-intuitive nature of Quantum Theory viewed with a brain trained by observations!!

4. Observing as a learning process and its deformation to the micro-process.

Learning process →time order →uncertainty principle →knowledge.

|deformation |

Micro-process→structure of learning is an ingredient → understanding.

How does our analyzing make observations from sensory information? It is mainly done by creating abstract properties which are checked on the object under observation. This is done by neglecting all changes and uncertainties about the identity of the e-object mentioned before, moreover we have no proof whether the abstract properties defined correspond to real characteristics of the object, for example the properties may express characteristics of the observation interactions between observer and object. After observing the shape and form of the object we invent properties fitting the first observations but trying to describe ‘deeper’ properties with experiments or repeated observations from different viewpoints. In this observation process we use concepts already present in the memory which have been accepted as being valid or true in earlier observation processes.

*Layer after layer of abstract information is put on the object under observation until we reach an abstract image of the real object and this grows into our learning process about reality.

*Perhaps it was a typical human discovery that this abstract description process can also be applied to abstract objects; indeed abstract concepts are more known to us since we defined them, yet the definition has not been confronted with all existing knowledge we have in the memory, in other words a further analysis would enhance understanding of the concept at a deeper level in our conscience. The learning process about non-existing things will then use abstract tools like fantasy and creativity even more than in the description of reality where the analysis is in principle restricted to verifiable real events.

*We define a learning process as a series of ingredients-existing or abstract-connected by a relation (easily generalized to more than one relation), for example ‘causality’ or logical implication. If the abstract image is constructed in a ‘good’ way, the process leads to a version of ‘knowledge’ about the abstract image of the object which is then accepted-eventually after some testing process-as knowledge about the observed object. For example if the construction of the abstract model is performed by the ‘scientific method’ then one would obtain knowledge recognized as scientific knowledge.

But when is the abstract description finished? Never! We can always refine the existing process by adding new ingredients or by providing better ‘descriptions’ of these, or also by constructing more and better experiments regarding the observations at some level of development. There is an obvious method of deforming the learning process-I constructed this in my course on Didactic of Mathematics at UA-and the students tested it successfully in some secondary schools.

*The learning process is viewed as a network of ingredients with many pairs connected by arrows (representing the relation). In case of causality relations the relation defines a partial order and the process is drawn as the Hasse diagram of the partially ordered set of ingredients. The relations give the logical structure of the process and there is also the chronological structure by the ordering of the ingredients in time. Since we think about the ingredients (and communicate this,…) that chronological aspect cannot be avoided, it is the total ordering in time. One may see the chronological structure thus as a linear ordering but the logical structure of the process as the diagram of the relations. When some finished learning program is offered to you-say by a teacher in the from of a study program like a course-then it is always presented in the chronological order.

*The micro-process or aspect deformation of a learning process L with relation R is obtained by replacing every ingredient of the process by a set of so-called ‘aspects’ of the ingredient. These aspects are finer properties of the ingredient, these can be measurements or theoretical additions (in a scientific process, for example the pollution of a river), more situation details like for example in a detective investigation by a more clever detective, extra structural abstract discoveries like in the process of constructing a mathematical proof. Then the relation in the process L is lifted to an aspect relation on the aspects of the ingredients A(L) with relation r say. There are many ways to lift R to r, in [2] some useful ways of doing that inside a measurable model of the learning process is given, it can be done so that r-then called an aspect relation for r- induces R in some intuitive way, but we will not include the details here.

* The uncertainty principle of learning. For a causal process L,R (and also for the deformed A(L),r) there may be logical relation-structures like: A →B →D, E →B →C and A →E; in the chronological order as appearing in a text or lecture (thinking, language, words, communication,….all are ordered by time) you would find something like A →E →B →C and later B →D but any linear ordering of the ingredients can occur depending on the nature of the ingredients. In this simple example it is easy to understand the logical relation from the chronological description but you can imagine very complicated Hasse diagrams (for example in very complex proofs in Mathematics) where it is very difficult .

Understanding the true logical structure from the chronological communicate done by a course or teacher is helped considerably when the abstract logical diagram is included as an aspect of the process and thus give explicitly in the micro-process!

*The micro-process is thus constructed by refining the description so that the knowledge obtained from the micro-process is in fact the understanding of the learning process! The micro-process is avoiding the uncertainty principle of the learning process.

*The moment-base universe I defined in the first sections may be seen as an aspect deformation of the existing reality, thus as the micro-process ,which happens to be a very telling name! The set of aspects of some existing event is the string of pre-objects over the existence interval in time. If we look at causality as the relation on existing events then we have to lift it to a relation on the aspect strings. In the next short section I will introduce ‘organic causality’ in reality, the very interesting property of this generalized causality is that it is not a transitive relation, so does not define a partial order on strings of (seemingly) causally related existing events. This micro-process does not resolve the uncertainty in the learning about reality since in observing the time dependence (the chronological ordering of observations ( different from the one of real existing events) will always appear.

5. Organic causality.

The causality we think we observe in the observed reality is decided on from knowledge of a very finite number of parameters and interactions. As explained before an observed event is a super-object so a set of many, probably very many manifestations and rebirths of existing objects, observed interactions should be a series of existing interactions and we look at the first observed one as ‘the’ interaction. These are effects in intervals larger than Planck intervals of events in much smaller intervals, in fact even of pre-interactions at moments in the observation interval. For an object A existing at an interval I we consider the aspect set as the set {a, a in A(t), for all t in I}. There are several existing objects X(n) interacting with A and we aim to decide that some future behavior of A is cause d by the set of X(n). For convenience we may restrict to just one X, the encountered problems remain the same. Our limited observation capability will restrict the number of different X(n) to rather few, moreover if we have to observe the interaction of X and A that will only realize in a state much later than the existence of X and A, so the causality effect of the action of e-X on e-A cannot be concluded from the observed action of o-X on o-A (see super-object interaction!). All the uncertainty in the problem may be ignored by taking e-X=o-X and similar for A. Perhaps for macro-events that could be acceptable but for very small objects near Planck size it is a mistake comparable to the size of the object! In reality we have the set of all pre-interactions between A(t) and all X(t) in S(t); for some X(t) this realizes to a real interaction which may or may not be observed. Moreover some x(t’) in X(t’) may interact with some a(t’) and this interaction may ‘influence’ (not necessarily cause) later effects; a large set of x(t’) in X(t’) and t’ in I may pre-interact and actually cause the later effect or not!

* Organic causality is created by the set of all pre-interactions of x(t’() and a(t’).. This does not necessarily realize to an existing interaction yet it defined the behavior of A under all the pre-actions on it. Hence as observed above, the observed causality on an observed object need not be the cause on the existing object( for example if o-object contains rebirths of the original e-object one started to observe there may not be any relation, unless we impose more restrictive conditions which would be unnatural). There are always(!) organic causes as pre-interactions ,yet the universe is not deterministic because in every F(t,t’)A(t) there may be elements of S(t’) without history for the connections F(-,-)!

The not very stringent relation between causality in observed reality, organic causality in reality and the difference between the relation induced by organic causality and observed causality is explained somewhat more in [5].

Argumentation like the one above allows to explain how some future observed event can “cause” or influence some event in the past. The event in the past started in a state earlier than the one in the future but the string of the future existing thing pre-interacts with the string of the earlier event and influences or even (partially) causes an effect on it.

6. Some effects of the new paradigms.

I will follow the list given at the beginning.

1. Done before.

2. Since an observed particle is a set of different manifestations of an existing object plus eventually some rebirths not very linked to the existing manifestations, if one could observe the existing subparts then one could say the places these occupy are possible places for the object as observed later, yet when it is observed that means we have chosen some string starting with a fixed e-particle in the o-particle ,then we observe the o-particle resulting from that e-particle and its next manifestations, so we “observe” the particle as fixed in some orbit.

3. Entanglement and spooky actions on a distance.

The entangling starts at some moment t over the state U(t). Since nothing exists in U(t) and there is n time there so no speed there is no reason to introduce a distance (metric structure) because that would in no way be related to any distance we might introduce in the observed reality. In my minimal model I would not avoid a non-commutative topology on U(t) which allows the use of the concept ‘place’ . So all pre-interactions between elements of S(t) are completely independent of any notion of distance, similar for strings of such elements. Now for strings realizing to existing objects or events (interactions) they would only relate to distance when the nature of the existing things entail that. Gravity will be distance dependent in the observed reality, in reality the gravity field will be disconnected over the states. It is possible to think about an intensity of a pre-interaction, for example since the number of places in U(t) corresponding to elements of S(t) is finite the intensity could be related to some ‘geometric’ configuration, for example the smallest chain of places

of the s(t) intersecting two by two between the place of A(t) and B(t) where A and B are going to exist and interact. It is only an idea to introduce a numerical intensity based on the ‘geometry’ of U(t) and the S(t), which could be used to explain a distance dependency of the interaction between o-A and o-B, for example the lower the number of elements in a smallest chain the stronger the interaction. . The entwining pre-interactions obviously realize to a distant independent interaction, thus a spooky interaction on a distance, there may be many more such interactions but these are difficult to discover for us.!

4.Done in text.

5. How do we define the “now”. Of course it has to be a time interval not a moment if we want to be able to observe something as being now. Abstractly we can take a moment and consider everything before it as the past, the future is everything later and the now is then that moment. That is correct but not fitting the human experiences since there is nothing experienced in such momentary “now”. So now is a time interval linked to an observation going on, say the observation of some now-event, thus it is at least the Planck interval and the observation it is linked to will mark the ‘being now’. Thus experienced ‘now’ is an observation time interval containing a part of the past (defined by a moment contained in the interval!) and the future. The information we think we draw from the now is in fact all in the past of the realizing of the information, but theoretically is in the future of the moment when the observation of the now-event started. Now is depending completely on the observer. Inhuman thinking there is a notion of extrapolating events and experiences thereof. Thus one might view the construction of personal now as an extrapolation of an unfinished string of pre-interactions after the moment fixed as the now-moment theoretically. This extrapolation may lead to the wrong interpretation of ‘intuition’ about the immediate future! *We are always being in the future of what we observe but our abstract ‘being’ is in the past!

6, 7, 8. Done in the text.

9, 10. At a moment t in an existence string for some event A going to exist in reality there may be x(t) outside A(t) interacting with some a(t)-even all of these-in A(t) and these interactions influence the existing thing later. We can look at ‘complete events’ in the sense that the interactions of x(t) and a(t) are included in the A*(t) and if A*(t) realizes to A* call that the completed of A, hence containing the effects of all influences, and A is complete when A=A*. All the x(t) influencing A do not cause A to exist they only influence. Since in reality we do not know the x(t) interacting with some a(t), it is prompted on us to work with incomplete events and recognize the possibility of influencing pre-things not known to us. This makes th causality discussion so chaotic on the sub Planck level-that is the sub-observable level- and even uncontrollable on the sub-existence level where quantum theory(probability fails!) does not make sense. Now 10 follows from the foregoing by restriction to interactions of x(t) coming from string elements realizing to future events.

11. Done in the text.

12. Living organisms organize themselves some of the energy flows in their system, that is the main characteristic of being alive. Most biologists relate this to the existence of a metabolic system and then there is a discussion whether viruses are alive-the answer being no if you want a metabolic system. For me I propose another definition. The actions of living organisms in reality start at moments with pre-interactions. The transition correspondences and geometric maps determine the changes in states of universe, some of which lead to existing and even observable changes (those are what we wrongly call “changes in reality”). In interactions between dead matter the pre-interactions always have a history in past states of the universe, but the pre-interactions of living organisms can be ‘creative’ in the sense of not having such history for the transition connections!

*Life is ‘creative’.

That means that the momentary creativity characterizes living things but we cannot observe that, yet we can see in the evolution of species a certain seeming arbitrariness which is strong evidence for the creativity of Life; there are many more life-forms than elements in the Mendeleev periodic table! The appearance of creative pre-interactions also protects life from being deterministic, it is not determined by the past!

Since a virus uses its glycoprotein to attach to some epithelial receptor of the cell at some moment ‘chosen’ by it and enters by inducing endocytosis or a membrane fusion event to contaminate it, that ‘decision’ stems from a pre-interaction without history, that is evident from the fact that the use of the glycoprotein seems to be deliberate ,sometimes postponed sometimes direct. The virus and the cell cooperate to let the virus in and this interaction between cell and virus is started by the virus aiming to infect the cell as its way of procreation. Whereas the actual contact is not the effect of pre-interactions of the virus (as far as we know) but the beginning of the interaction to enter is, that pre-interaction starting the entering does not have a history in the string of the virus action before the unplanned contact. So I would view the virus as a living thing at the most primitive level. This agrees with the ‘virus first’ theory about the origin of life! That origin probably lies in the creation of many kinds of pre-cells with a soft but cohesive membrane of different chemical composition, exterior interactions ,e.g. with temperature started some internal movement and energy transferring in a purely mechanical-chemical way. Penetration by a virus or even some more primitive pre-virus could lead to a single ‘living’ cell but not just one many different ones and with different chemical composition depending on the place of creation, near some black smokers in the ocean from different volcano activity, hence different chemistry, or from different shallow water ponds in different climates. So life originated from very many different types of cells with very similar structure, but not identical (see the problem with identity anyway). So instead of Darwin’s tree of life I would suggest a wide fan of life, starting at a thick root-bulb of many different cells, not one. In life …one is negligible!

*Conclusion: living organisms are continuously starting pre-interactions without history, this may be seen as a primitive version of ‘choice’ without thinking! They are co-creating the ongoing universe from the part of Life. How deep is Life infiltrated in the reality of the cosmos? Nobody knows, but probably much further than we suspect!

13,14. Existing cases of inter-species interactions as cooperation may be found in many examples of symbiosis. The first case would be the symbiosis resulting from a bacterium invading a living cell without being ’eaten’ by it or by bacteriophage’s. This-according to the dominating theory among biologists-is the origin of eukaryotic cells-that is cells with a nucleus-which are the only ones developing into multicellular organisms and complex life. Symbiosis results from very intimate pre-interaction between living organisms somewhat contrary to the law of the strongest based on competition between species and individuals in them; it is probably the origin of the herd mentality which would later become very dominant inmost mammals. Same can be said about the interactions between organisms and the biotope they live in. Mutations ,supposed to be random by most biologists are of course caused by some momentary creative pre-interactions without history, but that makes the organically causal on the level of pre-things, never mind how we try to discuss this from observed causality! Nowadays discoveries about epigenes and horizontal gene-transfer (from example from food one digests!) have changed the original evolution ideas of Darwin somewhat (the essential things stay valid though). Epigenes manipulations allow more quick adaption of species to changing external situations, even if not all are inscribed permanently into the genome ,but some do after longer time. The epigenetic activity of organisms may really be seen as a short time planning of the system, it is not controlled on the level of the species but on local communities in it. That is not depending on natural selection over very long periods like in Darwin’s original theory! The construction of epigenes proves the evolution of species in a direction of planned interactions, not random.

* A human being is a multicellular being composed of a symbiosis of very many different bacteria, archaea, viruses, in fact babies are born with gut bacteria present and the mother’s placenta is not sterile a was believed for a long time! Thus species are multi-species! This evolution may go further, so it is not cyborgs which are the future but more multi-‘species-ed’ organisms . Advantages could be many, including for example more resistance to virus attacks, if you cannot destroy…merge?

15. Telecommunication between humans? Since ideas start to be constructed by brain activity at some moment t say, two people may start this with pre-interactions say: A(t) and B(t) resp.. In S(t) there may be a pre-interaction i(t)(A(t), B(t)) and that may be in- or out-side the sets A(t),B(t). Now that pre-interaction may realize to an existing connection between the ideas of A and B resulting from the strings of A(t) and B(t). As we explained before that pre-interaction would be in A*(t) and B*(t) so-if it realizes-it would belong to the completion of the ideas of both A and B and certainly influenced the idea of A and B. If i(t)(A(t),B(t)) would be in both A(t) or B(t) ,or in one of them, then there would be a very strong relation between those ideas crystallizing in A and B. All of this is not depending on distance. Of course this is not telecommunication being a planned communication of a whole message, but it would be a strange unplanned connection between ideas of two different people. This explains some premonitions, sudden thoughts about others in some dramatic situation, feelings of togetherness in some unexpected moment, etc… .

*We are more connected than we think perhaps but I doubt we will ever be able to control this to ‘send’ aimed messages, the chaotic non-existing area does not seem to allow aware- penetration from the observable realm.

16. What is soul? Every human has a Trinity Self. First there is the organism living in reality, it plays and observes and thinks and procreates. It does observe itself while playing in reality and like with everything observed it will start making an abstract image of itself, but only after identifying the living being as the abstract thinker. That means that the organism constructs an abstract entity ‘inside’ itself, where inside does not refer to a physical place in the material universe, it is the first construction in our abstract world which evolved from that. That is very probably a typical human endeavor, at least at this moment in the evolution of life…on earth. The image created by the “observer’ is what the organism thinks about himself, we can call it the abstract ‘ghost’ of him? So calling the observer the Father, the biological being the Son and the abstract image the Ghost, we get the Holy Trinity in every ego of a human as it’s Self. Both the Father and the Son are abstract ,only the Son is real (flesh!). When talking about learning processes we have seen that some abstract properties constructed had a reality behind it, some did not and were purely abstract (using creativity and fantasy even). The Ghost has a reality behind it ,in fact that is the Son. But the abstract Father ,does that have a reality behind it? The observer in us is invariant, I believe I am the same ‘person’ now as I was as a kid playing soccer on ‘den dam’ in Antwerp 65 years ago. The observer contains our identity and even when I do know I have changed completely when compared to 65 years ago I still believe my identity did not change!

*Even when I am not, I still believe I am who I was.

If the abstract Observer has a reality behind it then we can call that existing thing the soul, but if it would be invariant it does not really fit into the universe where everything changes already just by being in a different set of states! So my model does not agree with an existing invariant thing. So let us not assume there is an ’existing’ soul behind the Observer. But the abstract thing it represents did start at some moment with some pre-events and these may not realize at some specific interval within time but the existence interval may start at the initial moment and end at the end of time. I considered time to be a totally ordered set but did not say anything about the existence of a maximal element, one may call it ‘infinity’. To stay with the definition of an existence interval as being a closed one let us assume Time has such maximal element (if not we formally just add one, that is harmless)and we call it infinity (even it it may be tomorrow, haha) or the end of time. Thus the abstract soul then realizes at the end of time so exists in the total time which means it “is” out of time. It also means that the soul realizes after death.

*Conclusion the soul does not exist in an interval in time but it is possible it jumps into existence after all time is passed, so does not exist in the usual interpretation but “is” after the end of time. This could be fit in some religious idea if so desired.

17. Is essentially in the text. By constructing meanings of ideas, which are purely abstract constructions not exiting in a dynamic place and time period , we step (partially) out of time. *All our deeds in reality follow from cognitive abstract actions, thinking and using the memory, so our interactions with reality are not predestined ,they stem from abstract constructions ‘out of time’, and this also allows to co-create the ongoing universe. Thus we are Time Hybrids as acting in time guided by out of time abstractions.

18. See 12, 13 and 14.0.

19. Done in the text.

20.What about the notion “God”. There so many interpretations of the concept God and it is far from well-defined. From the viewpoint of my model it is immediately clear that one has to avoid using a definition of god as an observable thing. Let me start by retaining one property bestowed on God, that is the one phrased in “I am who I am”, thus invariance in time ,no changes apply to It. Then immediately the discussion I gave about soul also applies to such abstract notion of an invariant God. It does not ‘exist’ but it can ‘be’ out of time. If it were in reality and non-existing then it is a string of pre-objects in states of the universe running over all time, it is plausible then that it is a string of one pre-object running over all time. Then the pre-object could interact with all pre-objects in the universe but as in our theory such interactions would influence-not necessarily cause- both realizations. So being in reality as I modeled it would mean that God is influenced by all interactions It involves in, that is unacceptable. So it remains to accept that God is not in realty but outside time and outside reality as a transcendental being. Now that agrees with some statements in different religions so it is acceptable. We know there ‘are’ things outside reality, in fact we construct some all the time in our time hybrids activities of giving meaning to brain-processes resulting in ideas. The abstract world we created is outside reality and the concept ‘God’ is already in that. In some sense that is enough for some religion to build on, because as I said before all our deeds are coming from abstract thoughts so we can use an abstract concept, enhance it with abstract structure, relate it to the moral of the society so that the concept God is connected to higher values and common morality ,that is the species-moral valid for all humanity. Thus the aims of a religion can perfectly be reached by enhancing a concept according to their beliefs if these beliefs themselves put the common good and general benefit first! Yet that is not satisfactory to most believers I guess. So can we let a transcendental God act in the reality and interact with us and with everything. Well my model makes that possible because pre-interactions in no-time (moments)are abstract non-existing but define every existing event in the existing reality. It is plausible and non-contradictory to assume that an out of time, ”being” can pre-interact with all momentary pre-interactions it can also create pre-interactions without history at any moment t, even we can do that by having original ideas, but we cannot do that at any moment in the whole Time and pre-interact with all pre-objects! Is that the only difference between the actions of a transcendent being in realty and ours? I cannot think of anything else and it would indeed yield an infinite creative power plus the ability to influence every string leading to existing events. “Is” there such being? We can never answer that question because it is an out of time phenomenon, we can say it does not exist and then some atheists are happy but that is because they do not understand the non-existing defined the existing and the sole power of pre-acting in moments is the total creative power! So for me it is clear we have to strip the existing notions of God of all human properties which are part of making a false abstract image, an idol, when we objectify that concept. Objectified concepts, like Truth, Justice, Love,… are used as symbols and become fake flags when assumed they exist, and most of the violence in human history was done in the name of objectified concepts. So let us not make an objectified concept of images (an idol!) of God.

*Then you either believe there ”is” a being out of time, hence completely transcendent but able to interact in moments(and remember what was derived above about the meaning for the creative power that will entail in the model). Then honestly(!) act by that and ignore all religious leaders and evaluate political leaders on their real values.

*Or you believe there is not such transcendent being, but then it could be a good strategy to use the concept I just defined as such and let your actions be guided by that, evaluating leaders on their real values.

So either believing or not, your actions would at least be guided by the same concept and honest(!) motivation provided by that.

REFERENCES.

1. Ma Min, Fred Van Oystaeyen, A Measurable Mathematical Model for Processes, J. of Mathematical Sciences, vol.34, 2015.

2. Ma Min, Fred Van Oystaeyen, A Measurable Model for the Creative Process in the Context of a Learning Process, J. of Education and Training Studies,4(1), 2015.

3. Fred Van Oystaeyen, Virtual Topology and Functorial Geometry, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2009.

4. Fred Van Oystaeyen, Dequantization of Noncommutative Spaces and Dynamical Noncommutative Geometry, J. of Geometry and Physics,59, 2009,185–196.

5. Fred Van Oystaeyen ,monograph, Time Hybrids, submitted.