1

Hypermetaphysic
s
Gabriel Vacariu

2023

2
Every transformation demands as its precondition “the ending of a world” -
the collapse of an old philosophy of life.
Carl Jung

3
Content
Introduction
I. EDWs, the Hypernothing (EW0) and Physics
Chapter 1 The principles of “epistemologically different worlds” perspective
1.1 The principles concerning existence and interactions of objects
1.2 Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs)
1.3 The chains of EDWs
Chapter 2 The “Big Bang” (from actual Physics) versus Hypermetaphysics: the EDWs
perspective regarding the accidental appearances of the first EDWs (the EW1a-n) in
hypercorrespondences to Hypernothing (the EW0)
2.1 The history of “Universe” in Cosmology today
2.2 Classification of (hyper)correspondences
2.3 The rejection of “antimatter”
2.4 More details about electromagnetic field (the field-EW)
2.5 More details about special theory of relativity
2.6 More details about general theory of relativity
Chapter 3 More details about Hypernothing and its hyperontology
3.1 Hypernothing (epistemologically different then “something” and “nothing”)
3.2 The principles of hyperontology of Hypernothing
3.3 More details about the accidental appearances of the EW1a-n in
hypercorrespondences to the EW0
Chapter 4 Friedman’s “relativized a priori” and “change of paradigms in science” versus
EDWs
4.1 Geometry and Physics: relativized a priori for Newton/Kant, Helmholtz, Poincare and
Einstein
4.2 The change of paradigm in scientific knowledge: Cassirer, Carnap versus Meyerson
and Kuhn
II. “Antireductionism” under the Umbrella of Epistemology/lLanguage
within the Unicorn World
Chapter 5 Few words about Gell-Mann’s “antireductionism”
Chapter 6 Dual aspect theory (Spinoza-Velmans) versus the EDWs perspective
6.1 Velmans’ Understanding consciousness (2000)
6.2 Velmans’ article 2008 (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15 (2), pp. 5-50)
6.3 My view consciousness in few words
Chapter 7 Heil’s “Real tables” or “linguistic disease” in the philosophy/sciences of the
20th century
III. Paradigms and Revolutions
Chapter 8 Kuhn’s “paradigms” and the EDWs hyper-paradigm
Conclusion The EDWs perspective and some truths
Bibliography

4
Introduction
I call this book Hypermetaphysics just because it is not about the metaphysics of
“world”/Universe, it is not even about the metaphysics of EDWs (“epistemologically
different worlds”), but mainly about the hypercorrespondences between the EW0
(Hypernothing) and the EW1a-n (these EDWs being the first EDWs which appeared in
hypercorrespondences to the EW0). This hypermetaphysics involves the main notion of this
book: the EW0 (or the “Hypernothing”) which does not have any ontology but a
hyperontology which hypercorresponded to the first EDWs that appeared in the
hypercorrespondences to the EW0.
In Part I, in Chapter 1, I will introduce the main ideas about the EDWs perspective.
(These ideas have been published in my previous works.) In Chapter 2, I will introduce
Hypermetaphysics: this chapter containes new ideas about the hypercorrespondences
between the EW0 and the first EDWs, the EW1a-n (which appeared in different “places”, in
different “periods”). However, I emphasize here that, in this work, I have changed some
major ideas from my previous works from my EDWs perspective: for instance, I rejected the
idea of “antimatter” (or “the EW-1” from my previous works). In Chapter 3, I introduce some
ideas that have been published in my previous works (2022, for instance) regarding the
hyperontology of EDWs (but including the major challenge: the rejection of “antimatter”). In
Chapter 4, I introduced the main ideas from Friedman’s articles (2009 and 2012) and I
applied his “scheme” regarding the “apriori relativized knowledge” for a scientific theory
and the change/revolution of paradigm in science to my EDWs perspective.
In Part II, I investigate some (more or less) anti-reductionist approaches: Gell-Mann,
Spinoza-Velmans, and Heil. I emphasize even here that all anti-reductionist approaches had
been created within the unicorn world until I published my article in 2005.
In Part III, related to Kuhn’s notion of “paradigm”, I indicate what kind of
“paradigmatic revolution” I have realized through discovering the EDWs within the scientific
and philosophical revolutions and changes. I emphasize that my EDWs perspective has been
the greatest change in the history of human thinking (including the main sciences, physics,
cognitive neuroscience and philosophy) and this is the reason I call it the first “hyper-
paradigm”.

5
I. EDWs, the Hypernothing (EW0) and Physics

6
Chapter 1

The principles of “epistemologically different worlds” perspective

In this chapter, I deal with general view about my EDWs perspective applied to the
entities like objects in the first section. I will only recall the principlies regarding self. All
main ideas of these sections are from my previous works.

1.1 The principles concerning existence and interactions of objects

In this section, I will present and analyze the principles referring to the existence of
objects and their interactions, answering questions such as: who determines their
existence, where they are, what traits they have and what the relationships between them
are, which objects exist and which objects I believe exist, etc. These principles are valid
for any set of non-living objects (natural and artificial or man-made). I will see that the
physical (non-living) objects (processes) do not exist, as it has been assumed so far, in the
same world (namely the unicorn world), but they exist in EDWs. Let us see how these
sets of objects and implicitly these EDWs appeared in the past. According to the actual
physical theories that explain the “universe” (the unicorn world) after the Big Bang, there
was the quantum plasma (made of quarks and gluons), which had an extremely high
temperature. As the plasma became less and less hot, the first microparticles (photons)
escaped from that plasma. Later, the planets appeared in this “universe” and much later,
life emerged on the surface of at least one planet, the Earth. This view is constructed
within the paradigm of the “Universe”; however, as I will see in the entire book, the
notion of Universe/world is completely wrong. Let us see how these sets of ED
(epistemologically different) objects and, therefore, these EDWs appeared. I will
introduce the ten principles concerning physical objects and their interactions:

1. Epistemologically different interactions constitute epistemologically different objects, and

epistemologically different objects determine epistemologically different interactions.
2. Any object exists only at “the surface”, due to the interactions that constitute it.
3. Any object exists in a single EW and interacts only with the objects from the same EW.
4. Any EW (a set of objects and their interactions) appears from and disappears into nothing.
5. Any EW is, therefore all EDWs share the same objective reality, even if one EW does not exist for any
other EDW.
6. The I/self/mind (life) corresponds to a body (organism/cell). The self does not exist for the body, the
body does not exist for the self.
7. The I is an EW. Therefore, the I/self has no “illusory spatio-temporal framework”, while the body exists
in a “illusory spatio-temporal framework”, i.e., “nothing”).
8. Having a certain set of components, from our point of view, the body corresponds to (but it is not
“composed” of) an amalgam of macro-objects (arms, legs etc.) (or cells) and their relationships. The body
and its corresponding parts (or cells) belong to the same macro-EW. Also, a body corresponds to a certain
set of microparticles (and the ED entities) belonging to the micro-EW (the EDWs)
9. Certain mental states and processes represent the knowledge which is the I.
10. As an entity, the I has unity as an indeterminate individuality (it does not have “spatial” dimensions, or
better, the I has no “nothing” as part of it).1

1
More details about these principles in my previous works.

7
The existence of a (physical) object would generally require a “spatio-temporal”
framework. However, in my book 2016b, I indicated that space and time (or spacetime)
could not even exist, i.e. space and time could not have any ontological status. The
existence of any ontological status for spacetime would produce strong ontological
contradictions in both paradigms: the EDWs framework or the wrong unicorn world (the
universe/world). Every object exists in one single epistemological world (EW), which
means that any object exists and interacts only with entities from the same EW. These
notions, “existence” and “interaction” (“perception”) are strongly interrelated. (See our
previous works)
The great English philosopher Berkeley said that “to exist means to be
perceived”. From my perspective, the “interaction” is a kind of “perception”, so these two
notions are quite equivalent in our discussion. So, the proposition (1) or Berkeley’s
slogan can be rephrased in the following way: “to exist means to interact”. The planets
existed and had existed long before man appeared on the Earth and the planets would
exist even if the human beings would disappear in the future. The planets (like all
macroscopic objects) exist one for the others in the macro-EW. This statement is valid for
the microparticles (and the electromagnetic waves) which exist in the micro-EW (the
field-EW), as well. Man is not the only entity who “perceives” or who “interacts” with
different objects/entities. If an object is constituted by certain interactions with other
objects, what does “constitution” mean? The interactions constitute the surface of an
object. When a person perceives an object with the help of her eyes, she actually sees
only the surface of the object. For example, a person looks at an apple on a table in front
of him. She simply sees the apple peel (a part of the apple, as a whole), but she does not
see anything “inside” the apple. In order to see what lies inside it, the apple needs to be
cut. If the man cuts the apple in two, that apple no longer exists as an object, but only two
parts of that apple exist now. However, the person cannot observe with her eyes the
microparticles, she would need an electronic microscope (which does not furnish a direct
image of the microparticles).
In this context, I will make a very important observation: the apple is perceived not
just by men, but also by other animals; also, the apple interacts with other objects. Let us
suppose that the apple is placed on a table. As I have written above, we know that the
person interacts with (perceives) the apple which, in its turn, interacts with the table. In
the EDWs perspective, since the apple and the table interact (they “perceive” each other),
these objects are in the same EW, the macro-EW. Of course, an apple does not interact
only with the table, but it can interact with other objects, as well (e.g., with other apples
placed in the same fruit basket). The essential thing is that these actions are precisely the
ones which “constitute” the apple and the table; in other words, these interactions furnish
the ontological status for these objects. Without these interactions (more exactly, with no
interactions), the apple (like all macro-objects) would simply not exist. The same
observation is available for the microparticles or the electromagnetic waves. I emphasize
that the apple (like any macro-object) does not exist for an electron (for any
microparticle/field) and vice-versa. If we send an electron toward an “apple”, the
microparticle will interact with an amalgam of microparticles which for us it is an apple.
That is, an EW does not exist for any EDW. We can use the same reasoning in the case of
“planets”. If there were a single planet in this universe, without anything else existing
outside of it, that planet would not exist because “it would not interact with anything”. A

8
planet exists only because it interacts with other planets, in other words, those
interactions “constitute” that planet. It is, therefore, quite absurd to claim that the planet
would exist “by itself” or it would exist because of the presence of “God”. Instead, what
it would exist, there would be the microparticles corresponding to the planet, since one
microparticle would interact with many other microparticles.
Another important question is: “How did natural objects, such as planets, appear?”
According to the current physical theories, after the “Big Bang”, the first things that
appeared in the “Universe” were a “fire” very hot in which all four forces were unified.
Tyson indicates the history of matter after Big Bang: 10 -43 seconds the Universe had the
diameter of 10-35 (these being Planks’ quantities); 10-35 seconds (the separation between
electroweak force and strong force; later it was a separation of electroweak force in
electromagnetic force and strong nuclear weak force); the interaction between matter and
energy continues and produces photons which transform spontaneously in particule pairs
matter-antimatter; the universe is a hot soup of quarks, leptons and their antimatter
particles, plus bosons (necessary for interactions of matter); after a million of seconds,
the hadrons appeared and produced protons and neutrons and other heavy particles; after
one second, the universe has grown to a few-years light across (and one billions degree),
the electrons appeared; the universe becomes colder (below a hundred billions degrades),
and the atoms are formed (protons and neutrons), 90% of these atoms being hydrogen,
10% being helium; two minutes have passed since the beginning; during 380,000 years
the electrons still run free among photons; suddenly, the temperature falls below 3000
grade Kelvin, all free electrons combine with nuclei; in the first billion of years the
universe continue to expand and cool, the galaxies (hundred of billions) appear; after nine
billions of years, the Sun is formed and the Earth with life appeared. (Tyson 2017, pp. 34-
38). “What happened before all this? What happened before the beginning?
Astrophysicists have no idea.”1 (p. 45) So, in this “scientific” picture, there were the
microparticles, the corresponding electromagnetic waves (which belong to the field/field-
EW), and the planets2 - formed later when, due to gravity, a huge amalgam of
microparticles became unified. Therefore, can we say that the microparticles “form” a
planet? The notions like “compose” and “form” do not have any ontological background.
Anyway, the planet does not exist for the microparticles and the microparticles do not
exist for the planet. Moreover, one of the elementary rules indicates that two objects (or
sets of objects) cannot exist in the same place, at the same time. The apple exists only for
other apples, for the plate, for the table, for the planet Earth. The microparticles “by
themselves” exist, too, but only for other microparticles, not for the planets or the tables.
So, there is no point in claiming that the microparticles “form” or “compose” a table or a
planet. “Composition”, “emergence”, “supervenience” and “identity” are all wrong
notions that created many other pseudo-notions in various branches of science (for
instance, cognitive (neuro)science, physics, biology) and philosophy. (See our previous
works) Such notions are simply inventions (“illusions”) of human mind. That is, why we
can say that a planet appeared spontaneously “out of nothing”. The planet Earth, for
instance (which belongs to the macro-EW), appeared out of nothing, but it corresponded
1
Tyson indicates that some people introduce “God” (obviously, a “non-scientific” hypothesis) in this
equation. As I indicated in my previsou works, “God” could not even exist.
2
Again, we have to be aware that any macro-entity (a planet, for instance) corresponds to (a) a huge
amalgam of microparticles within the micro-EW and (b) an amalgam of electromagnetic waves within the
wave-EW.

9
to the EW of microparticles, the micro-EW. Of course, without the existence of
microparticles, we would be unable to speak of the existence of planets, but I repeat this
does not mean that the microparticles exist for/compose the macroparticles. In this case,
the macro-EW does not exist for the micro-EW, the micro-EW does not exist for the
macro-EW, and only the human being, changing her observation conditions, can observe
(indirectly, through correspondence) one or another EW, but one EW does not exist for
any EDW. I recall that, because of its interactions, only the surface of an object exists,
therefore notions like “internal existence”, “internal determinations” or “essence” are
meaningless notions, when it comes to characterize a macro-object. An object exists only
as a whole, i.e. the “surface” has no “parts”. The components of that table (for example,
its legs) are not separate from its surface, so they do not exist independently of it. In other
words, the legs of a table do not exist as “objects”. They exist only as “parts” of the table
in the mind of a person who perceives the table from a certain viewpoint, but they do not
have any ontological status; only the table as a whole has an ontological status. If we take
the legs of a table away from the tabletop, the table would cease to exist, but the legs and
the top would exist in the same EW as the table, namely the macro-EW. (For more
details, see our work 2016) In other words, the whole does not exist for the parts, neither
vice-versa. Certain particular traits are an object and these “characteristics” (the object)
can be perceived by men, others cannot. Moreover, the human eyesight adds signs to the
objects, i.e., certain characteristics which do not actually exist (for instance, color).
Within the unicorn world, nobody could have explained the “color”. Everybody believed
that colors do not exist in objects themselves, it is the “perception of the light by the
human eyes”, the reflected electromagnetic wave has a certain frequency/wavelength by
the surface of an object. However, this explanation about color is quite wrong, from the
EDWs perspective. A physical entity (electromagnetic wave) has the main role in this
scene, it interacts with other electromagnetic waves which correspond to the eyes (but
inside the head, there is no color). From our view, the color is part of the human mind
(which corresponds to the entire brain/body). This is the reason, the human being does
not perceive the “thing-in-itself” (which does not even exist, from the EDWs
perspective), but, in this case, she has a “mental representation” (part of the mind) of
macro-objects (a table, stones, planets, etc.) which exist in the macro-EW. A planet can
“perceive” (i.e., interacts with) another planet even though we cannot say that a planet
“observes” the same “characteristics” which a human being perceive. Still, some traits
remain the same (what the English 17th century philosopher Locke called th “first-order”
traits), while other traits are “different” (the “second-order” traits). Moreover, a bat
perceives objects from the macro-EW as having very different traits from those we
perceive. For example, colors do not exist for the bats. And yet, the walls of a cave, for
instance, exist both for bats and for humans, even if the second-order traits greatly differ.
Because EDWs really exist or, more precisely, they are, the question “Which world truly
exists?” has no sense, because all EDWs share the same objective reality and the
world/universe does not exist, being in fact just a human mind creation, until the
discovery of EDWs.
As we saw in the introduction, one of the main problems in the history of human
thinking was the relationship between different “entities”. “Causality” is one of these
problematic relationships. Obviously, the notion of relationships is strongly related to the
notion of “levels”. Used under an ontological framework, the notion of “levels” entails

10
causalities which really exist. Used under an epistemological framework, “levels”
becomes an empty notion, since different “levels” cannot exist in the same place, at the
same time. For instance, throughout the last centuries, there have been strong debates
regarding different pairs of levels: the mental-neuronal, (i.e., the mind-brain problem),
the micro-level (with microparticles like electrons and protons) and the macro-level (with
macro-objects such as planets or tables). However, the standard view has been that of the
identity between these “levels”, therefore, it has been just “epistemological levels”. From
my viewpoint (from any viewpoint), it is not possible for a “table” and its
“microparticles” to exist in the same place, at the same time. The acceptance of different
types of levels has created incredible Ptolemaic epicycles (wrong notions and wrong
arguments) in the history of human thinking. For instance,
(1) The notion of “levels of analysis” used by many contemporary philosophers is just a
“linguistic game” which used to dominate the analytical philosophy;
(2) The notion of “levels of organization” used by some scientists and philosophers led to
contradictions regarding the identity of certain entities; and
(3) The notion of “ontological levels”, introduced by Descartes, still used today by some
people have produced ontological contradictions within the unicorn world.
Therefore, we have to replace “levels” with EDWs: both the micro-EW and the macro-
EW (for instance) exist/are, but one EW does not exist for any EDW. I will draw your
attention again upon the fact that, if we reject the EDWs perspective, strong
contradictions and anomalies will continue to dominate philosophy and sciences. In this
context, I introduce here a very important postulate, the postulate of correspondence:

Since an EW does not exist for any EDW, the “correspondences” between
entities/processes that belong to two EDWs cannot have any ontological status.
Therefore, the notion of “causality” between ED entities which belong to EDWs is a
completely wrong concept.

Working within the unicorn world, scientists and philosophers have produced many
wrong notions and ideas. Moreover, the notion of “correspondence” has produced many
illusions (pseudo-notions) in particular sciences and philosophy, in general. As I will see
in this book (as well as in our previous books), the causality between entities which
belong to EDWs has been often used in the past, but this causality is completely wrong
since one EW does not exist for any EDW. How can we attribute the causality (a law or
something similar) between entities which belong to EDWs and, therefore, these entities
do not exist one for another?
Let me investigate the notion of “correspondence” related to space and time
(spacetime), for instance. In my previous books, I showed that space and time (or
spacetime, as you wish) cannot even exist, simply these notions being just creations of
the human mind. The concept of “space” appeared in the mind of the human being just
because of the correspondence between brain (which has a “surface”) and mind (which
does not have any surface). The brain/body is an entity which belongs to the macro-EW,
while the mind is an EW. These two EDWs do not exist one for the other. Therefore,
there cannot be any causality between the brain/body and the mind. There are, for
instance, certain very approximate correspondences between (a) many surfaces which
interact with the light which interacts with the human eyes and produces certain neuronal
inputs in the brain and (b) certain perceptual mental images/representations. These

11
perceptual images produced the illusions of “space” as a feature of the external objects.
The verdict that mirrors the illusion of space in our mind is the following:

The Kantian spatial intuition in human mind is just the representation of “nothing” within the mind which
corresponds to certain neuronal areas (that have certain volumes) in the brain and its interactions with the
external environment. This “nothing” (which “belongs” to the macro-EW where the brain is placed)
corresponds to the wave of the brain (the field-EW) or to the Higgs particles (the micro-EW). Also, the
external “nothing” between two entities (two chairs, for instance) has no ontology, but it corresponds to ED
entities which belong to EDWs (for instance, to different certain electromagnetic waves which belong to
the field-EW).

Since Galileo, we know that “motion” is a relative notion. “Nothing happens until
something moves.” (Einstein) For instance, a stone placed on the surface of a planet does
not move in relation to other stones from the same planet, but it moves in relationship to a
stone from another planet. Moreover, that stone corresponds to the motion of certain
microparticles (electrons that move around the nucleus) and certain forces/interactions
involved in those movements. These entities (the microparticles) and their forces belong
to the micro-EW. I point out that “motion” does not exist in itself (i.e., it cannot have any
ontological status), but we can describe an object being “in motion” or “static” only in a
particular framework furnished by the relationship (no ontology) between a human
observer or other entities from the same EW. We know that, according to Galileo’s
framework and Einstein’s special relativity, depending on the observer (or a framework),
an object is in motion or not. The same idea is available for the “presence of nothing”
(which always it has to correspond to something).
A physicist would give you a formula of an object in motion (speed or acceleration)
using space and time (or Einstein’s spacetime). But neither motion, nor spacetime can
have any ontological status. “Extensions” and “duration” have been just certain human
mental inventions that helped us, somehow, to investigate the external or the internal
“realities”. (See our work 2016 in which we indicate that spacetime cannot have any
ontological status) The “correspondence” (which does not have any ontological status in
any case) is “responsible” for “nothing” (which also does not have any ontological status)
and creates, in our minds, the illusions of “space” and “time” (or “spacetime”). For
instance, the Higgs field corresponds to “nothing” in the macro-EW. I repeat, for the
planets, the Higgs field does not even exist; this field exists for other fields (each
field/wave from the field-EW only corresponds to a microparticle from the micro-EW).
However, the planets move not in “space” (“spacetime” which does not even exist), but in
“nothing” (which does not have any ontological status) which corresponds to the Higgs’
field (which belongs to the field-EW). Therefore, it is not “space” that is curved by
planets, but “nothing” (which does not have any ontological status!) which corresponds
to the certain electromagnetic field/waves. So, a microparticle is placed in “space” (more
correctly, in a “relational framework”), but neither “space”, nor the relational framework”
can have any any ontological status. For instance, where does the electromagnetic waves
move in? These waves move in nothing which correspond to something which belong to
(a) a pre-Big-Bangs-EW1 (probable, many pre-EDWs, not only one).
(b) the mega-EW2.
(c) the Hypernothing-EW (with its hyperontology).
1
I believe that there were “many Big Bangs” (not only one), more exactly, there were not the Big Bangs,
but just the appearances of different matter which corresponded to the matter from the pre-Big-Bangs-EW.

12
If one eliminates “space” (and “time”) from discussion, many other phenomena will be
situated exactly in the same “voodoo” position as “entanglement”. This is the “reality” of
the unicorn-world in which the human minds have placed all ED phenomena until our
discovery of EDWs.
By changing certain conditions of observation (difference between them being an
epistemological-ontological threshold), we observe EDWs. In other words, there is an
“epistemological-ontological threshold” between ED entities which belong to EDWs. We
think that we possess certain knowledge about the “world”, but many parts of this
knowledge have been counterfeits. These distortions do not stem from our knowledge
about certain entities (that really exist or are), but from the pseudo-relationships
(causalities or not) between them. As a dictator-observer, the human being enforced the
domination of the unicorn world. From a human being’s viewpoint, it seems that all
entities are within the same spatio-temporal framework. From another entity’s viewpoint,
an entity can “observe” only the entities that interact with it. The interactions between
certain its take place in a “spatio-temporal” framework. The framework of a non-living
entity (for instance, a microparticle) is not the same as the spatio-temporal framework of
a biological human organism, since a microparticle does not “observe” a macroparticle.
Therefore, the microparticles and the macroparticles are in epistemologically different
“spatio-temporal” frameworks. This is the main reason why we have to reject the idea
that all entities are within the same “spatio-temporal” framework, i.e. the unicorn world.
Obviously, assuming the same spatio-temporal framework can be helpful in our daily life.
However, in science the fundamental problems require the EDWs paradigm. An entity
needs to have unity, a concept that represents its identity (even for the indeterminate
individuality).
The ontological-epistemological threshold represents the threshold for
observational conditions which must be passed in order for the human observer to go
from observing an entity belonging to the EW1 to observing another entity (or a mixture
of entities) which belongs to the EW2. The entity in the EW1 corresponds to the mixture
of entities (and their interactions) which belong to the EW2. The organizational threshold
represents the threshold for observational conditions which must be passed in order for
the human observer to be able to move from observing, for example, an entity, to
observing a set of entities. For example, a forest represents a whole for a human observer
who is far away from it. For the same observer, who is at a very small distance from the
forest, the forest no longer exists, being replaced with the trees which “form” the forest.
Both the forest and the trees are in the same EW, but the forest does not exist for the
trees, while the trees do not exist for the forest.
At the end of this section, I introduce a very important principle referring to the
explanation of the ED phenomena which belong to EDWs: the “Epistemological
Principle of EDWs” (the EP of EDWs):

Certain phenomena from a particular EW can be explained only by appealing to

correspondences of those phenomena with the ED phenomena which belong to EDWs.

2
There are some EDWs (that we know about them) in certain order: Hypernothing, the field-EW, the
micro-EW, the macro-EW, life-EW (or mind-EW) and the mega-EW. For instance, the supercluster BOSS
Great Wall (clusters, voids and galaxy filaments) corresponds to certain mega-entities which belong to the
mega-EW.

13
In my research, the entanglement problem and the nonlocality from quantum mechanics
are exactly in this situation: only appealing to the EP of EDWs, we could explain these
processes. The same situation was for dark matter and dark energy or the mind-brain
problem. In reality, there are many problems in each main science (physics, CNS,
biology) and philosophy which could have been explained only using the EP of the
EDWs.1

1.2 Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs)

“Hyperverse” is an abstract notion, ontological-epistemological speaking, and it
represents the sum of all EDWs. Ontological, independently of our existence/observation,
the entities of a particular EW do not exist for those which belong to an EDW. What does
the expression “epistemologically different” actually mean? Obviously, it does not mean
the same thing as “ontologically different”, which refers to the ontologically different
substances or different types of matter. There is no ontological meaning for this
expression. The difference is neither ontological (as Descartes believed was the case for
the mind and the body/brain), nor linguistic (the way Carnap, a famous philosopher
belonging to Vienna circle, believed it to be). The notion of “epistemological difference”
imposes certain hyperontological limits related to the limits of each entity in any EW. “To
exist” or “to be” means to have certain limits which entail determinations. Even the living
being/the I as an indeterminate individuality has limits (the self is not infinite in anyway)
or, more precisely, it has certain epistemological-ontological limits. As mentioned in the
previous section, if someone were a planet (or an electron), it would interact with another
macroparticle (or with microparticles). If that individual were a cell, it would interact
with the environment specific to a cell. However, the living being (life) that corresponds
to a cell does not interact with anything else, since it is an EW. It has to be very clear that
the expression “epistemologically different” eliminates many of the speculations
(Ptolemaic epicycles) that philosophers and scientists have developed over centuries. It
eliminates the “ontological-epistemological” contradictions typically available within the
unicorn world. The human organism needs to change its conditions of observation in
order for a human being to observe (indirectly, through correspondences) certain
epistemologically different entities which belong to EDWs. Now, we can clearly
understand the expression “epistemological-ontological”. Changing certain conditions of
observation (the difference between them being an “epistemological-ontological
threshold”), the I observes EDWs (indirectly, through correspondence). In other words,
the threshold is an epistemological-ontological one between the ED entities which belong
to EDWs. I believe that the knowledge we have about the “world” is certain, but many
parts of our knowledge have been quite distorted or even false. These distortions, instead
of representing the truth about certain ED entities (objects or minds/lives that really exist
or are), present the pseudo-relationships (causalities or not) between them. In the position
of the dictator-observer, human being has imposed the tyranny of the unicorn world, and
therefore, the entire knowledge has been constructed inside this pseudo-paradigm of
thinking.
From the human point of view, it would seem that the number of EDWs is not too
large. If we extend the conditions of observation/interaction to all entities, however, the

1
About “the principles Concerning the Brain/Body and the Corresponding I (the Self/Mind)”, see my
previous works.

14
number of EDWs increases considerably. If we accept that “being is” and it corresponds
to an organism, we have to reject the notions of “levels, attributes, supervenience,
composition and elementary particles”. The “being” (or the life-EW) corresponds to an
organism, therefore we have to hyperontologize all classes of entities that do not interact
or emerge or are identical (those that have an epistemological difference). An entity needs
to have a unity that represents its identity, even in the case of an indeterminate
individuality such as the self/mind/life. In this context, I will introduce the next
proposition, the principle of hyperontologization:

(11) The I is, therefore EDWs are and Hypernothing hyperis.

The unity of the I/self/life and the unity of a planet have an ontological character: both
are/exist. If I were just decomposable organisms, or if the “I” lacked unity, I would be
unable to acknowledge the existence (being) of EDWs and the “I” would not be an entity.
Only the “I” (self with its unity) is able to discover the being (existence) of EDWs. The
relationships between the mind and the brain (between life and an organism, or between
the whole and its parts) such as “identity” or “emergence” (any kind), are all rejected.
Even if in 2008 book, I provided ample proof that the EDWs perspective is, in a way,
an extension of Kantian philosophy, I would continue to develop this analysis here. For
Kant, the representations of the external world are the self. The body/brain exists as an
entity in the macro-EW, while the mental representations of body are the I. Kant wanted
to construct the philosophical fundamentals of Newton’s theory in order to explain the
world. Today, under Einstein’s influence, Friedman felt the need to relativize Kant’s
theory. (Friedman 2001, see Vacariu 2008) One fundamental element in Einstein’s special
relativity theory is the postulate regarding the constancy of the speed of light in
relationship with any point of reference that, according to Friedman, acquires the status
of “coordinating or a priori constitutive principle”. To extrapolate Kant’s idea, principles
of this sort define the “fundamental spatio-temporal framework of empirical natural
science”. (Friedman 2001, p. 43) Each scientific theory has certain a priori constitutive
principles that define its proper space of the empirical possibilities (Friedman 2001, p.
84) or the conceptual frameworks that “define the fundamental spatio-temporal
framework within which alone the rigorous formulation and empirical testing of the first
or base level principles is then possible”. (Friedman 2001, pp. 45–6) (for more details,
see Vacariu 2008) For Einstein, the coordinating principles constitute a new framework
for space, time and motion (Friedman 2001, p. 107) and therefore all empirical laws have
constitutive meaning only in the framework created by a priori constitutive principles.
Even the individuation of entities requires such conceptual frameworks. This is necessary
not only because the entities in motion belong to a certain “spatio-temporal framework”,
but also because the “knowledge of physical rigidity presupposes the knowledge of forces
acting on the material constitutions of bodies”. (Friedman 2001, p. 110) From the EDWs
perspective, the interactions individualize (constitute) entities within a “spatio-temporal
framework” (more exactly, nothing) and rigidity of a physical object is just its surface.
What does “practically rigid bodies” mean for Kant? In order to describe the forces,
Einstein used geometry. Essential for the EDWs perspective is Friedman’s footnote on
page 55 about Einstein, who adopted a perspective on the relationship between a
necessary geometry and entities as “practically rigid bodies” which ignores the

15
microphysical forces. (Friedman 2001, p. 114) We simply need strong reasons to ignore
the essential forces within the “world”. The only solution to ignore such forces is the
introduction of EDWs. Obviously, analyzing the phenomena which belong to the macro-
EW, we can ignore the microphysical forces (which belong to the micro-EW), since the
micro-objects and their forces (electromagnetism, weak and strong forces) do not exist
for the macro-objects and their force (gravity) and vice-versa. Without the EDWs
perspective, we appeal to a postulate (which by definition is not proved) that brings us to
the realm of so-called “empty notions”.
In the context of the EDWs perspective, it is important to answer the following
question: “What was there before the Big Bangs?” Most physicists would tell us that this
question is meaningless for the only reason that they do not have any plausible
(scientific) answer. From my point of view, this question has a plausible (philosophical)
answer. I believe that there was an EDW (or maybe that EW still exists), which I will call
the “pre-Big-Bangs-EW”. (See also Vacariu 2012) In my previous work, I wrote that
many Big Bangs happened in many places not in an infinitesimal point; also, the Big
Bangs did not happen in one point but in many points simultaneously (or in a very short
period of time). In this way, we can reject Alan Guth’s empty notion of “inflation”. (For
more details, see Vacariu 2014) Also, it is possible that many other “universes” except for
our “universe” appeared at the same time or even earlier or later (“multiverse” 1).
However, the micro-EW (or the macro-EW) did not appear from the “pre-Big-Bangs-
EW”. There are no causalities between any two EDWs. We know that any kind of
“causality” between ED entities which belong to EDWs is meaningless. Obviously, there
are some correspondences, but we cannot speak of “causalities”. Any EW appears from
and disappears into nothing. Then what is the role of that “pre-Big-Bangs-EW”? There
were some correspondences between the ED entities and processes which belong to the
pre-Big-Bangs-EW and the plasma-EW (this is allegedly the EW that first appeared after
the Big Bangs). Again, “what was there before the pre-Big-Bangs-EW?” Was there an
EDW? Then there could be an infinite chain of EDWs. How can we stop the expansion of
this infinite chain? Moreover, how could we avoid having a theoretically small or big
infinity? In the case of the “small infinity”, imagine dividing a table in infinite parts,
while in the case of the “big infinity”, we can imagine traveling in infinite space and
time. Within the unicorn world, nothing could stop us from thinking of such infinities. We
can only rule them out by using the EDWs framework.2 Before the pre-Big-Bangs-EW,
there might have been an EDW, and before this EW there could have been an EDW and
so on, but we do not have an infinite chain of EDWs. We can stop this infinite chain of
EDWs by assuming that, in this chain of EDWs, there was the first EW, (the EW0 or the
Hypernothing). It is possible for this EW0 “to be” because there is an EDW that lacks
“spatial dimensions” (the mind-EW) and some entities exist without a “temporal
coordinate” (e.g. photons) which belong to a particular EW (the micro-EW). Therefore, if
we have an EW without even the illusion of “space-and-time”, the question “Why was
there the EW0 in the chain of EDWs?” is rendered meaningless. If we talk about the
EW0, the questions referring to a pragmatic “spatio-temporal framework” of the entities
belonging to this EW are meaningless. Therefore, we cannot divide a table in “infinite”
parts, neither can we theoretically travel in infinite “space and time” because, at “a

1
“Multiverse” is an old idea but it has nothing to do with my EDWs.
2
See my previous works in which I reject the existen fo infinity (regression ad infinitum) and God.

16
certain moment”, we move into the EW0 that has not even such pragmatic “spatio-
temporal framework” (i.e. the “nothing”). What is it important to remember from this
example is that, within the EDWs perspective, we rule out any kind of “infinity” (see
Vacariu and Vacariu 2017). Notions such as the world, infinity, God and many others
have been created by the human mind within the unicorn world. It is now time to
renounce to these invented notions which have always created great problems for the
human understanding.
Around 380.000 years after the Big Bangs, it is know that the first entities that
escaped from that “fire” (“quantum field fluctuations”) were the photons and the
corresponding electromagnetic waves. Then, can we reduce everything to the
electromagnetic waves? No. First of all, from the interactions between the waves, parts of
these electromagnetic waves became curved. These curves from the field-EW corresponded
to photons that belong to the micro-EW. Microparticles cannot be reduced to waves. There
are completely different set of properties that cannot be reduced one set to another just
because there are EDWs. Moreover, the accumulations of microparticles corresponds to
macroparticles. Again, one set of properties is different than the other set of properties. For
instance, at quantum “level” there is no “gravity”. These correspondences are more important
regarding the mind-brain problem. A mind cannot correspond to an amalgam of
microparticles; a mind always has to corresponds to a macro-entity (the brain/body place
within a macro-environment). The amalgam of microparticles does not have essential
properties necessary for the correspondences between mind and brain. The beings only from
the micro-EW would exclude the mind from their existence. Moreover, we cannot reduce
macro-entities to waves-entities. For instance, we cannot claim that the person who is writing
these sentences on the computer now “is an amalgam of electromagnetic waves”. It is quite
impossible for any amalgam of electromagnetic waves to write something on a computer,
isn’t it? Can a reductionist claim that these sentences have been written by an amalgam of
electromagnetic waves? Such reductionist would be a quite crazy person. From the EDWs
perspective, we cannot reduce the process of writing on computer not even to the brain/body
itself. In reality, the mind is writing on the mental image of the computer with the mental
hands that correspond to the real computer and the hands of the body.
“Hypernothing hyperis”, that means, it is beyond the following dualities:
(a) “To be or not to be”: all EDWs are.
(b) To exist or non-exists: all ED entities exist.
(c) Material-spiritual (material-immaterial): mind is (not material), brain/body (material)
exists in the macro-EW.
(d) Observable-unobservable: we can observe certain material entities (planets, tables),
we cannot observe a mind.
(e) Interactions-no interactions: it is meaningless to talk about the interactions between
the EW0 and EDWs or inside it; there are no “entities” inside it. These interactions are
available for ED entities which belong to EDWs (except the mind-EW and
Hypernothing).
(f) Unity-disunity or parts-whole: the EW0 is beyond unity or a whole, the mind has a
unity (whole) and its mental states are parts of it; also a table is composed of certain parts
(the parts do not exist for the table as a whole, anyway).
(g) “Beginning-end”: it is meaningless to talk about beginning or end of Hypernothing.
Time does not exist, anyway, but the EW0 has no processes/entities which can be

17
associated with the “beginning of its time”. When we ask “Where is the EW0?” or
“When did the EW0 appear?”, we can assert that these questions are meaningless just
because of the hyper-relationships: direct hypercorrespondence between the EW0 and the
EW1a-n and indirect hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and all other EDWs
(except the EW1a-n). More clearly, “the EW0 hyperis”, while “all the EDWs are”.

1.3 The chains of EDWs

Obviously, I have to add that there have to be other such relationships, for instance,
between the EW0 and the EWa (possible followed by the EWb, the EWc, etc.), between
the EW0 and the EW1a, (followed by the EW1b, the EW1c, etc.) and so on. In the past
(when I think the Earth is flat), all the human beings believed, until I discovered the
EDWs, in the existence of one world, the “Universe” (obviously, the “multiverse” idea
has constructed within the same wrong idea, the “world”/“Universe”/same spatiotemporal
framework). However, I don’t want to follow the same mistake to believe in the existence
of only one kind of EDWs. More exactly, now, I can empirically illustrate different kinds
of EDWs: the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW, the life (mind)-EW. This “chain
of EDWs” is “based” on the field-EW, therefore I call this chain the “chain of field-EW”.
Nothing can stop us to think that this is the only chain of EDWs. Therefore, there has to
be other chains of EDWs. The rule is the following: since “spacetime” cannot exist within
EDWs (see Vacariu 2016), there is no reason to believe in the existence of only one
relationship between the EW0 and a single chain of EDWs. Therefore, I postulate the
existence of many different chains of EDWs. Nothing can force me to think that only the
“chain of the field-EW” really exist. After you die, your mind will disappear; however,
you body will be disintegrated in the macro (bones) and the micro-entities and much
later, your bones will be disintegrated also in the microparticles. But all the
microparticles correspond to the electromagnetic waves (which belong to the field-EW).
All these elements correspond to the ED entities from the previous EDWs and so on in
the line of chain of “matter” produced after the “Big Bangs”. If there was “matter” after
the Big Bangs, then we know that this matter corresponded to “plasma” or
electromagnetic fields (also a kind of matter). Therefore, according to our physical laws,
after the Big Bangs, there were the electromagnetic waves which belong to the field-EW.
How many chains of EDWs are? I have no idea. What are the rules of formation for these
chains of EDWs? These rules are “accidental rules”, therefore, the number of these chains
is also accidental. Within the EDWs perspective, thinking of only one chain of EDWs is
like thinking the Earth is flat. Exactly as I indicated that the “world”/“Universe” did not
exist, I would like to emphasize that not only one chain of EDWs really are, but many
chains of EDWs are. Obviously, I have no idea how many, but not infinite EDWs since
“infinity” cannot even exist (see Vacariu and Vacariu 2019).
The main question that automatically will appear is this one: we accepted EDWs,
we can accept also the “chains of EDWs”, but why do we need to stop here? Why don’t I
introduces “chains of chains” of EDWs. Obviously, we can go further... What can stop us
for these further steps? I believe that we cannot go further and further just because our
argument would fall into regress ad infinitum argument, and in our book 2019, we
showed that the “infinity” cannot even exist. If we accepted the existence of “infinity”,
for instance the “infinite” spacetime cannot even exist, then nothing can stop of thinking
at the beings of many kinds of such spacetime”, for instance, it would be meaningless to

18
talk about our existence “now and here”. Therefore, because of our living “now and
here”, we have to exclude the ontological existence of “infinite” (of spacetime).
In this context, can we talk about chains of chains of chains of EDWs? Yes, we
can. The main idea that arises from “chains of chains” of EDWs is that there is no rule to
stop somewhere. Everything has happened accidentally: the apparition of EDWs, the
laws that govern them, and any other characteristic/determination is accidentally,
somehow. That means, these laws are not “pre-establish” by “something” or “somebody”.
Obviously, there are just correspondences between the appearance of these laws in one
particular EW and EDWs (with their ED laws and entities). Anyway, the laws of a
particular EW are determined by the entities from that EW. For instance, the
“entanglement” between two microparticles (which belong to the micro-EW) corresponds
to a particular wave (which belongs to the field-EW). Working on the mind-brain
problem, I discovered the first chain of EDWs in 2002, but we can imagine that with the
discovery of this first chain of EDWs, we are in the situation of Magellan (discovering
America). There are other continents, but all these continents (including the oceans) are
the same Earth. Is a lake surrounded by the “continents”? Of course, no. If we judge the
oceans as being large lakes, we notice that all the continents are the same continent. The
same situation is regarding the chains of EDWs in relationships with the EW0. Putting
together all chains of EDWs, I will be able to understand what the EW0 “hyperis”, why
the EW0 hyperis, and why “before” the EW0, nothing could existed. The main reason the
EW0 hyperis is that, following Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”, we have to stop the
“motion” (or other characteristics) somewhere, otherwise we, the humans, would not
even exist here and now.
We can notice that even if one EW does not exist for any EDW, there are some
(indirect) “dependence” (correspondence) between one EW and at least the next one in
this chain of EDWs. For instance, the macro-EW indirectly “depends” on (corresponds
to) the being of micro-EW (even if one EW is not for any EDW). It is clear that, without
the appearance of the micro-EW, the macro-EW would not appear. The same assertion is
available for the relationship between the field-EW (field-EW) and the micro-EW, for
instance. Let us call this dependence the “chain-dependence”. We can notice without any
problem that there are some dependence (correspondences) in EDWs. I believe we cannot
reduce all EDWs only to these particular kinds of dependence, therefore, I believe there
are other chains of EDWs. Where? In the “same place” (since “spacetime” does not
exist). I mention here that it was very possible some EDWs disappeared in the past; it
would not be only a mind-EW (many has disappeared until now), but a “natural” EW
(like the micro-EW or the macro-EW).
Within the first chain of EDWs, we cannot explain everything. For instance,
eliminating spacetime, God, infinity, and many other pseudo-notions from sciences
(mainly physics), people have not been able to explain, scientifically or at least with
certain rigorously arguments, the “beginning” of the EW0. I repeat, I believe that, since I
eliminated the “infinity” (my book 2019), nothing can stop me to introduce more chains
of EDWs. In the future, with more chains of EDWs, it will be much easier for us to
explain the Beginning. In other chains of EDWs, there are other phenomena that
combined with EDWs that we know, will eliminate certain unsolved problems like the
“Big Bangs”.

19
We know that each particle corresponds to a wave. However, we can presuppose a
single field which is correlated with the entire matter that we know and unknown (like
dark matter or antimatter). As I indicated in my previous works, dark matter belong to the
EDWs than those that we have already known. (Anyway, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2020)
According to my EDWs perspective, it is already known that all EDWs hypercorrespond
to the EW0. What is the EW0? It hyperis Hypernothing, but it is not “nothing” (which
does not have any ontological background). Obviously, we can know nothing about the
EW0, at least in our days. However, we are sure that Hypernothing “hyperis”, but not
“is”. Moreover, Hypernothing cannot have the same mysteries that we have associated
with the “Big Bang” or “God”: Hypernothing cannot have any traits that we can find to
other entities or the EDWs that produces paradoxes and unsolved problems (Big Bang,
infinity, etc.) Therefore, for picturing Hypernothing, we have to eliminate all possible
characteristics/features that are common to all ED entities that belong to EDWs.
Otherwise, there would be the same problems (Big Bang, infinity, etc.) or others (that we
have no idea about) and these new problems will force us to extend the chains of EDWs
and to fall into regress ad infinitum. The main idea is that there has to be certain traits
which avoid the infinity.
“What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics.” (Nikola Tesla)
Translating Tesla’s statement in our language, I can write: “What one man calls God, I
call an EW, Hypernothing or EW0.” The main difference between “God” and the EW0 is
that the EW0 is just an EW, that is, it is something natural and, therefore, it does not have
any features related to “God”. Moreover, the main difference between Hypernothing and
God is that the EW0 does not even exist for us (it does not exist for any EDW), therefore,
we cannot consider the Hypernothing as being a new “God”. Hypernothing is something
natural, not something supernatural, even if the EW0 hyperis. I talk here about natural
entities, not about “Gods”…
The first chain of EDWs (the only one that we know) is based on matter (field,
only from which, by a chain of correspondences, other EDWs spontaneously appeared
from “nothing”), but there are other chains of EDWs based on matter that we have not
discovered yet (or I will not be able to discover in the future) or something different - I
have no idea what, yet, but we are sure it has to be something different than matter-
spiritual distinction. It has to be an “ED ontology” than all epistemological-ontologies
that we know today. We are sure, in few hundreds year or maybe more, the humans will
discover other kinds of substances - different than all ED ontologies that we know today.
Moreover, I am pretty sure there has to be other hyperontologies than the chain of
ontologies that we already know, let me call it, the “first chain of matter”: wave-particle-
macroparticle-mind. Why am I so sure? Because I am neither materialist, nor idealist, not
a combination of these matter (these cannot be even combined because such combination
send us directly to Cartesian dualism, which is quite a wrong dichotomy, see Vacariu
2008). In fact, there cannot be any dualism or duality ontology distinction within a
particular EW. Such ontological duality cannot exist within the same EW, since there
cannot be any possible interaction between these two substance (we have learned this
lesson from Descartes’ mistake, see Vacariu 2008), therefore, those two substances
belong to EDWs. My argument is the following: nothing can stop us thinking there are
different chains of matter. Within EDWs, it would be quite absurd to think that all that

20
exist are ED entities which belong to the “first chain of matter”. Since there are EDWs,
there are “different chains” of matter.
We know that after the Big Bangs, there was 380,000 years of an huge
temperatures. Then, this temperature started to decrease and first waves (and the
corresponding microparticles) were able to escape from that “fire”. Even if the main rule
is that one EW does not exist for any EDW, there are some dependences (i.e.,
correspondences) between some or even all EDWs. For instance, in the first chain of
EDWs there is the electromagnetic wave that created this dependence. The appearance of
the microparticle needed (trough correspondence) the existence of the wave (vice-versa is
not true), the macroparticle needed (trough correspondence) many microparticles and the
life needed (trough correspondence) the macroparticles. There have been EDWs created
based not through correspondences to the “wave”, but on other entity (I have no idea
what element is or can be). However, in the future, I will be able to discover not only new
EDWs within EDWs (1), but also other chains of EDWs.
Again, how many EDWs are? How many chains of EDWs are? These numbers
are totally aleatory numbers. Otherwise, if not aleatory, we have to introduce “God” or
“infinite”, but as I indicate in my previous works, these concepts are “empty words”. You
were born just because of certain aleatory “games” between your relatives (mother-father,
grandmother-grandfather, etc.), you were not been planned. We have not to forget that
even “spacetime” has no ontological status. What did it produce the click for the
appearance of an electromagnetic wave? There is no such “absolute click”, everything
was accidentally, even the appearance of this click. In fact, for the EW0, there has been
no such click, since within this EW, nothing could have changed. There has been such
accidental “clicks” only for the appearance of certain EDWs. Parmenides was quite
wrong to consider that everything is “static” and Heraclitus was also wrong believing
everything is in “motion”. For characterizing the EW0, we have to go beyond “static-in
motion” distinction, beyond “One-Multiple” distinction or “existing-nonexisting”
distinction. Motion exists only relative to a particular frame of reference (see the special
theory of relativity), but regarding Hypernothing, there is no such frames. The motion of
a microparticle does not exist for the electromagnetic wave; it is just a particular
activation of electromagnetic wave along its length. We can talk about the “beginning” of
certain EDWs, but not of all. However, every EW is only in itself, not for any EDW. The
physicists give us the definition of mass but, within my perspective, there is the definition
of entity, i.e., its ontological status. Without any kind of interactions, not only an entity
has no mass but also it does not exist.

The main ontological principle of the EDWs perspective:

In general, an entity exists (= its properties, like the property of having mass) only
because of its interactions with other entities from the same EW. Mind is an entity, but
also an EW, therefore, it does not interact with other entities. Mind exists as entity
because of its correspondence to the brain/body (an entity in an EDW), but it is also as
an EW with no boundaries.

Any fundamental particle interacts with the Higgs bosons to get mass. However, a planet
has a mass even if it does not interact with Higgs bosons, since these bosons do not exist
for the planet. The Higgs particles exist only for other microparticles and all the
microparticles belong to the micro-EW. It has to be very clear that the planets belong to

21
the macro-EW. In order to avoid any ontological contradictions, we have to reject the
idea that the planet and Higgs bosons are within the same EW. We have to apply exactly
the same rule for the mass of a planet as we apply for its existence. I can consider that a
planet has a mass by means of the correspondences between its mass and the masses of a
huge number of microparticle. (Vacariu and Vacariu 2017, p. 75)
Within EDWs, the “breaking symmetry” principle has to be rethought. Maybe, in
the micro-EW, the particle received mass just because, indeed something was “broken” in
the wave/field-EW, and the electromagnetic wave becomes more concentrated in a point
which corresponded to the particle in the micro-EW. According to the EDWs perspective,
the particle corresponds to a particular peak of the wave and the “empty space”
corresponds to the rest of the wave. Without those entities which belong to the EW1, we
could not even talk about this “empty space” (which belongs to the EW2): anyway, the
Higgs bosons are present everywhere in the micro-EW, but also the Higgs field is
everywhere in the field-EW. Any particles and any planets have masses (more exactly, “a
particle is the mass”) and each of them corresponds to the “curved” electromagnetic wave
(the energy of the entire field/wave) which belongs to an EDW. The curvatures appeared
because of the interactions between various electromagnetic waves. The “false” vacuum
is nothing more than the field which belongs to the field-EW. Hypernothing (the EW0)
corresponded to the EW1 which corresponded to the EW2 and so on, until the pre-Big-
Bangs-EW corresponded to the plasma-EW (after the Big Bangs) which corresponded to
the field-EW which corresponded to the micro-EW which corresponded to the macro-EW
which corresponded to the mind-EW. Anyway, any EW finally hypercorresponds to the
Hypernothing.
The “curvature of spacetime” (gravity for Einstein’s general relativity) is a wrong
notion, since “spacetime” has no ontology. However, in order Einstein’s general relativity
to be correct, I needed to replace “spacetime” with something else: “nothing” which
corresponds to something which belongs to an EDW. For instance, a planet curves this
“nothing” (no ontology!) which corresponds to the electromagnetic field (the field-EW)
which it is really curved. Space (or spacetime) does not exist, therefore, it is the
electromagnetic field which is curved by a “planet”. In reality, this “planet” (from them
macro-EW) corresponds to a concentrated amalgam of electromagnetic waves (from the
field-EW) which curves the electromagnetic field which surrounds this concentrated
amalgam of electromagnetic waves. The light of a star which passes near a “planet” is not
curved by the curved “space” (which it does not exist) which surrounds the planet. In
fact, the light follows the curvature of the electromagnetic field through which it moves.
Space does not exist, it cannot have any ontological background (see our work 2016),
therefore, it is quite absurd to consider that a light follows a curved “space” which it is
“curved by a planet”, according to Einstein’s general relativity. Again, not space (which
does not exist), but just the electromagnetic field (which “surrounds” the “planet”) is
curved by the concentrated electromagnetic field in the field-EW (which it corresponds to
the planet in the macro-EW). It has to be clear that the microparticle does not exist for the
electromagnetic field, and vice-versa. It is not “space” which “expands”, since it does not
exist, but it is the electromagnetic field which expands and it represents, from my
viewpoint, the “dark energy”. Anyway, I explain “gravity” completely different than
Newton and Einstein. So, there is an order of the appearances of EDWs, even if one EW
does not exist for any EDW, that is, there is no causality between them. Between the

22
EW0 and the EW1, there is a hypercorrespondence. We return to the relation between
Hypernothing and EDWs. There is no passing from Hypernothing to the EW1a or the
EW2 (for instance).
Obviously, without the EW0, the EW1a-n would had not appeared, but there was
only the correspondence between any two EDWs. All the EDWs are just indirectly
“manifestations” of the EW0 (which does not exist for any EDW), that is, the
hypercorrespondence between the EW0 and the EW1a-n. Because of such
(hyper)correspondences, we do not need an external force to produce the “appearance” of
any EW. However, inside the EW0, “nothing happened” in order the EW1 to appear. The
“beginning” of a particular EW is inside of that EW, there is no the “external” Big Bang
to any EW. Between the EW0 and the EW1a-n there was no causality, but only the
correspondence, just because there is no “inside” or “outside” the EW0. In the
Hypernothing, nothing could happen. There was no broken law of energy conservation.
Each EW has its origin inside of itself, but there has been a correspondence to the
previous EW, other previous EDWs and finally to the EW0. Essentially, the EW0 is not
even for the EW1a-n, but “hyperis”. The EW0 (with its hyperontology) is beyond the
distinction “nothing-something”. “Outside”, there is that “thing-in-itself” (Hypernothing)
which corresponds to ED entities which belong to EDWs. It has to be very clear that
Aristotle’s “Prime motor” cannot even exist. The Hypernothing is not this “Prime
Motor”, even if this “motor” was “unmoved”. For me, the Hypernothing is not even
“unmoved”, it is something beyond “moved-unmoved” distinction (beyond any
distinction available for the entities and the processes which belong to EDWs).
Something can happen only within an EDW, but not in the EW0. Each “prime motor”
takes place in each EW, not in the EW0. A “Prime motor” cannot exist for the EW0,
otherwise, “today” would have already been in the past. Within the “Hypernothing
framework”, let us construct the argument for the relationship between “Hyperverse” (all
EDWs, except the EW0) and Hypernothing. I introduce three premises and the conclusion:

Hypernothing is the EW0, or better, Hypernothing hyperis, while all EDWs are.
All EDWs hypercorrespond (EW1a-n direct hypercorrespondences) to Hypernothing.
One EW is not for any EDW, so ontological speaking, the Hyperverse is not.
Conclusion: The Hyperverse hyperis Hypernothing.

It would be quite wrong to consider all EDWs as a “hologram”, since one EW does not exist
for any EDW. One EW is for itself, but not for any EDW. Hypernothing “is” not for itself,
but hyperis.1 It has to be very clear the difference between the “ontology” of any EDW, and
the “hyperontology” of Hypernothing. Hypernothing is nothing (it does not exist) in
relationship with EDWs, it is nothing in itself, but it is hypernothing (through
correspondence, no ontological status) with all EDWs. In this way, we have an “Unmoved
motor”, but we avoid any ontological contradiction. It is absolute necessary Hypernothing
has no “evolution”, it did not produce anything, otherwise, there would be strong ontological
contradictions. We can describe certain phenomena/processes using our abstract notion of
1
I use “hyperis” in order to avoid other three old alternatives: the regression ad infinitum, nothing and God.
Parmenides was right: from nothing, nothing could appear. This was the reason, I needed to replace “nothing”
with “Hypernothing”. It did not mean the EW1 appeared from the EW0 since there is only correspondence
between any two EDWs, and moreover, each EW accidentally appears in itself but in (hyper)correspondence to
an EDW; one EW does not exist for any EDW.

23
“time”, but we cannot use it for describing the EW0. Hypernothing hyperhas certain
hyperfeatures which eliminate the regress add infinitum. All its hyperfeatures have to be
totally different than any feature of all EDWs, just in order to eliminate the regress ad
infinitum, nothing, God and the illusory “spacetime”. The EW0 is “nothing”, but a kind of
nothing which hypercorresponded to the EW1, for instance.
I need to elaborate a new principle which furnish the relationship between the
corresponding ED laws: the relativization of qualities, phenomena or EDWs through the
correspondences between ED entities/laws (of motion, etc.):

Even if one EW does not exist for an EDW, the correspondences between ED entities/laws
impose certain new “qualities” or “features” to some of ED entities which can be explained
only based on these correspondences. In some cases, there are some new ED phenomena or
new EDWs.

With this principle of the relativization of EDWs, I strongly relativize the number of EDWs.
From those several EDWs (the field-EW, the microparticles-EW, the macro-EW, the self-
EW) elaborated until now, the number of EDWs increases quite a lot. For instance, each
phenomena belongs to a particular EW, but the motion of the entities from each phenomenon
is relativized to the corresponding ED entities. The laws of motion of greater entities are
more “powerful” than the laws of motion of smaller entities. The laws of motion of macro-
entities are “more powerful” than the laws of motion of microparticles. The motion of a
greater entity is “imposed”, indirectly, to the motion of smaller ED entities. The motion of
microparticles which correspond to a planet is different than the motion of microparticles
which do not correspond to a planet. The motion of a planet is “more powerful” than the
motion of corresponding microparticles in relationship to the surrounding microparticles.
Therefore, in order to explain the motion of microparticles which correspond to a planet
in relationship with the surrounding microparticles, I need to relativize the framework of
thinking. The planet “imposes” its motion to the corresponding microparticles (even if the
planet does not exist for those microparticles). The same principle of relativization is
applied to “entanglement” problem. However, in this case it is not the “size” which is
involved but the “length” of an electromagnetic wave. If we posted two microparticles
close to each other, a corresponding electromagnetic wave is established between “them”.
The same principle is applied to the motion of “my” right hand. “I want to move my right
hand.” (This sentence is wrong since the I does not exist for the hands, and vice-versa).
How do I move “my” right hand? In the mind-EW, the self “commands” to the “image of
the right hand” (which is part of the self) to move. At the same time, in the macro-EW,
the brain sends order to the physical right hand to move. Who did impose the motion of
my right hand, the self or the brain? Meaningless question, since the brain does not exist
for the self, therefore, the hand does not exist for the mind. The same principle is applied
to ED phenomena or even to EDWs. For instance, between two planets there is “nothing”
which correspond, for instance, to the electromagnetic field. The planets correspond to
two very large concentrations of electromagnetic waves/fields. The motion of a planet
corresponds but also it is imposes to the motion of a concentration of waves. Some of
these microparticles (which correspond to the planet) are in motion, some are static in
relationship among them, but these particles are in motion in relationship with the
microparticles outside the conglomerates of microparticles (which corresponds to a
planet).

24
My conclusion is the following: for describing the features of a particular entity,
we need to take into account not only its real features (given by the interactions between
that entity and other entities form the same EW), but also certain features that can be
grasped only in correspondences with ED entities from EDWs. I emphasize that there are
some indirect interactions between entities which belong to EDWs. For instance, the
movement of the Earth around the Sun influences, indirectly, the movements of all
microparticles which correspond to the planet Earth. There are many such indirect
interactions among the many sets of ED entities. These interactions are indirect
interactions just because one set of particles do not exist for any ED set of particles.

25
Chapter 2

The “Big Bang” (from actual Physics) versus Hypermetaphysics: the

EDWs perspective regarding the accidental appearances of the first
EDWs (the EW1a-n) in hypercorrespondences to Hypernothing (the
EW0)

In this chapter, I will introduce Hypermetaphysics: for the first time, I furnish a complete
explanation regarding the hypercorrespodences between the EW0 (Hypernothing) and the
first EDWs (the EW1a-n, as I called). It is not about certain causal relationships between
“nothing” and “somethings” (such causal relations are totally wrong, from my viewpoint
within the EDWs perspective), but it is about the “hypercorrespondences” (not even
“correspondences”) between the EW0 and some EDWs (the EW1a-n). In this sens, this
book is about the “hypermetaphysics” and not even “metaphysics” (an empty notion,
anyway). The Hypermetaphysics is about Hypernothing, the EW1a-n and all EDWs, and
the chains of EDWs (like field-EW, micro-EW, macro-EW, life/mind-EW).

2.1 The history of “Universe” in Cosmology today

The “origin of the Universe” is one of the most important question in our days in Physics
(Cosmology) and Philosophy (Philosophy of science 1?.2 Following several books
(Devereux 2021, Singh 2005, etc.) I would like to introduce a very short summary of the
“history of the Universe” from “Big Bang” until the formation of galaxies. Everybody
agrees that Big Bang happened 13.82 billions years ago. In my previous works, I
indicated that there was not a “Big Bang” (it does not matter what it is would be the
interpretation of this notion), but there were many Big Bangs that happened 13.82
billions years ago. In this way, I wanted to avoid Guth’s notion of “inflation” which
would contradict the limit of the speed of light, c. (See my previous works) Obviously,
there have been many “universes” (“multiverses”, as it is know in the Physics), not only
our “universe”, but these multiple universes are within the same framework: it is our
“universe”, there are other universes in other places. This is all, I also agree with this
idea: I am convinced there was not only our “universe” which appeared 13.82 billions
years ago. There are other “universes” in other places which appeared earlier or later. We
cannot reduce everything to our “universe”. So, there have been not only many

1
Feynman: “Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.” “Philosophy of science is about as useful to
scientists as ornithology is to birds.” (Feynman in Singh 2005, p. 398) Better: “System of philosophy” is to
“philosophy of language” what sex is to masturbation; “system of philosophy” is to “ethics” what sex is to
impotence. In front of great theoretical development in physics, philosophers started to “inquire language”
(at toilet) (i.e. “philosopy of language”). Later, because of great debates in quantum mechanics (physics, in
general) and the apparition of cognitive (neuro)science, philosophers deal with total abstract notions in
“Ethics” since they were being unable even to understand essential notions from particular sciences. Instead
of dealing with what it really exist, the philosophers from Ethics have been able to deal only with impotent
notions like “good” and “bad”.
2
“‘Okay, you surely receive this question endlessly, but I shall ask nonetheless: How did something (the
universe/big bang) come from nothing?’ This is maybe one of the biggest questions of all, because it’s
basically asking not only where did everything come from, but how did all of it arise in the first place.
Here’s as far as science has gotten us, at least, so far.” (Siegal 2022)

26
“universes” (multiverse3, i.e., many “Big Bangs”) in different “parts” of “spacetime”
(which could not have any ontology - see our previous works), there were many EDWs,
not only after the Big Bangs, but also before the Big Bangs (13.82 billion years ago).
Essentially, we have to accept there have been different “universes” in different places
(classical “multiverse”) in different periods, but also EDWs.
In my book 2022, I developed my approach about the first EW, that is about the
Hypernothing (or the EW0). In this section, I will not repeat many details about this EW,
but I would like to introduce new ideas (some of them contradicting my previous
ideas…). The main is that I am convinced there were “many” EDWs before the
appearance of our “universe”. The new idea is that, in hypercorrespondences to the EW0
3
“Whenever and wherever inflation ends, you get a hot Big Bang. If inflation and quantum field theory are
both correct, a Multiverse is a must.” (Siegal 2021) No: “inflation” is not correct, and even if quantum field
theory is ok, all “interpretations” of quantum mechanics are - according to my EDWs perspective - quite
wrong (constructed within the unicorn world)! In this chapter, I furnish an alternative to the multiverse and
EDWs. “But what initial conditions did the Big Bang need to have at its beginning to give us the Universe
we have? It’s a bit of a surprise, but what we find is that: there had to be a maximum temperature that’s
significantly (about a factor of ~1000, at least) lower than the Planck scale, which is where the laws of
physics break down, the Universe had to have been born with density fluctuations of approximately the
same magnitude of all scales, the expansion rate and the total matter-and-energy density must have
balanced almost perfectly: to at least ~30 significant digits, it must have been born with the same initial
conditions — same temperature, density, and spectrum of fluctuations — at all locations, even causally
disconnected ones, and its entropy must have been much, much lower than it is today, by a factor of
trillions upon trillions.” (Siegal 2021) We have to pay attention to the fact that “matter-and-energy density
must have balanced almost perfectly… it must have been born with the same initial conditions — same
temperature, density, and spectrum of fluctuations — at all locations, even causally disconnected ones”:
how was this fact possible to happen? The explanation is not through “inflation” (a contradictory notion
since it presupposes processes with the speed higher than c the speed of light, c); it is through the many
correspondences between the pre-Big-Bang-EW and the plasma-EW, for instance: it happened many Big
Bangs, not only one in an infinitezimal “singularity” (a pseudo-notion!). In fact, Siegal correctly writes that
“it has to explain what the Big Bang cannot: the initial conditions the Universe started off with. These
problems that remain unexplained within the Big Bang alone must be explained by whatever novel idea
comes along.” (Siegal 2021), but he adopts Guth’s “inflation”. Indeed, the Big Bang did not explain these
essential problems! It was possible to be the “same initial conditions” at “all locations, even causally
disconnected just because Big Bangs happened in many places in the same period of time (a very short
one!). “During inflation, the Universe gets stretched to enormous sizes.” (Siegal 2021) However, with the
EDWs perspective, I rejected Guth’s inflation approach which, as a physical phenomena did surpassed the
speed of light, c… However, such “exceeded” as a physical event is not possible, according to Einstein’s
postulate related to his special relativity. “Only, unlike today’s dark energy, which has a very small energy
density (the equivalent of about one proton per cubic meter of space), the energy density during inflation
was tremendous: some 1025 times greater than dark energy is today!” (Siegal 2021) Such “energy density
during inflation” is a SF story, no more! As I indicated in my book 2022, this entire energy was not placed
within that “singularity”, but it has been revealed during the expansion of light in all directions after the Big
Bangs. “Put simply, if each hot Big Bang occurs in a ‘bubble’ Universe, then the bubbles simply don’t
collide. What we wind up with is a larger and larger number of disconnected bubbles as time goes on, all
separated by an eternally inflating space. That’s what the multiverse is, and why scientists accept its
existence as the default position. We have overwhelming evidence for the hot Big Bang, and also that the
Big Bang began with a set of conditions that don’t come with a de facto explanation. If we add in an
explanation for it — cosmic inflation — then that inflating spacetime that set up and gave rise to the Big
Bang makes its own set of novel predictions. Many of those predictions are borne out by observation, but
other predictions also arise as consequences of inflation. One of them is the existence of a myriad of
Universes, of disconnected regions each with their own hot Big Bang, that comprise what we know as a
multiverse when you take them all together… But if the theory of inflation is a good one, and the data says
it is, a multiverse is all but inevitable.” (Siegal 2021) We don’t need “inflation” to predict the existence of

27
(Hypernothing), many EDWs (the EW1a-n) have appeared in different places/periods. In
this way, I reject the idea which claims that from “nothing” appeared “matter” and
“antimatter” (or the EW1 and respectively the EW-1, as I wrote in my book 2022). Since
in correspondences to the EW0, there appeared many EDWs (the EW1a-n), we do not
need to introduce “the EW-1” (or “antimatter”).
We preserve the principle of “conservation of energy” since one EW does not
exist for any EDW: the EW1a-n do not exist for the EW0 so, in this way, we do not
contradict the principle of conservation energy. Maybe, there are “places” where EDWs
have appeared just now in certain hypecorrespondences to the EW0 (not only with
correspondences to EDWs than the EW0). Obviously, there have been other “universes”
that appeared in other places (the “multiverses”). 1 It would be completely wrong to
consider there was only one “Big Bang” and only one “universe” appeared (13.82 billion
years ago). I am convinced (no prove) there were many Big Bangs 13.82 billion years
ago (at the same time in order to avoid Guth’s inflation - see my previous works), but also
many Big Bangs happened “earlier” and “later” in EDWs. Therefore, the line of EDWs
and different “universes” is somehow like this one:
- EW0 (Hypernothing) HC (hypercorrespond) to EW1a-n.
- These EDWs corresponded to (C) EW2b-m … (C) pre-Big Bangs-EW (C) many BBs
(in the same area to avoid Guth’s inflation, 13.82 billions years ago) (C) plasma-EW2 (C)
field-EW (C) micro-EW (C) macro-EW (C) life/mind-EW.3
- “Big Bangs” (ED Big Bangs or Big Bangs corresponding to the same EW) happened in
different places, in different periods. Different “universes” (like our “universe”) have
appeared in different places, in different periods; all these “universes” are in the same
“spatiotemporal” framework.4 In this way, the appearance of our “universe” is something

the multiverse. With many Big Bangs happening in different places, not only for our “universe”, but for
many different universes placed at very great distances, i.e., the multiverses, we reject Guth’s inflation
furnishing a much better explanation (this explanation requires or not the existence of the pre-Big-Bangs-
EW, i.e., we can admit many Big rejecting the existence of the pre-Big-Bangs-EW…)
1
We have to make an analogy between our galaxies and the discovery of thousands of billions of other
galaxies: at the beginning of Cosmology, many scientists were convinced that only our galaxy, Milky Way,
exists. Many decades later, there have been discovered thousands of billions of other galaxies. Obviously,
other many galaxies would be discovered in the future.
2
“Although it was now too cool for fusion, the universe still had a temperature of roughly a million
degrees, which resulted in all matter existing in a state known as plasma. The first and coolest state of
matter is solid, in which the atoms and molecules are tightly locked together, as in ice. The second and
warmer state is liquid, in which the atoms or molecules are only loosely linked, allowing them to flow, as in
water. The third and even hotter state is gas, in which the atoms or molecules have virtually no bonds
between them, allowing them to move independently, as in steam. In the fourth state of matter, plasma, the
temperature is so hot that atomic nuclei cannot hold on to their electrons, so that matter is a mixture of
unattached nuclei and electrons… So, an hour after its creation the universe was still a plasma soup of
simple nuclei and free electrons.” (Singh 2005, p. 270)
3
There has been discovered the existence of dark matter and dark energy. In our book 2016 and article
2020, we developed a new idea about dark matter and dark energy. I will not write too much about dark
matter/energy in this work. Anyway, in my book 2022, I introduced a new alternative for dark energy: the
electromagnetic waves/fields (the field-EW) have the speed c, therefore, the speeds of the corresponding
microparticles (the micro-EW) have been continuously increasing and the speeds of the corresponding
planets (the macro-EW) have continously increasing. Obviously, having masses, the microparticles (except
the photons) and the planets (all macroscopic entities) could not reach the speed of light.
4
This idea is called “multiverse”. These “universes” being within the same “spatiotemporal framework”,
one universe can interact with another universe. Our “universe” can interact with other “universe” in the

28
accidental1 but quite normal. Nothing special with the appearance of our “universe”.2
There have been many “universes” and many EDWs which have appeared after many
Big Bangs (within the same “universe”) or after many ED Big Bangs in EDWs.
According to the EDWs perspective, we already know that 13.82 billion years ago, many
Big Bangs happened in the same area, at that moment and later.3 This information (based
on empirical results like the CMB radiation) informs us about our “Universe”. The
“Standard Model of Cosmology” is the “Lambda Cold Dark Matter” model (ΛCDM),
where Λ is for dark energy and CMD is for cold dark matter. It is well recognized that our
“universe” has expanded after Big Bangs and the speed of this expansion is accelerating
(because of the dark energy). What happened after the Big Bangs? The “universe” started
to expand and its huge temperature started to decrease continuously.
The Big Bang was extremely hot, it contained all the energy of the universe. In the first millionth of a
second after the Big Bang the basic elements and forces that we now see in the universe were formed,
producing the sub-atomic particles of electrons, neutrons and protons, along with the strong and weak
nuclear forces, gravity, electromagnetism and light. The universe at this stage was a very hot, dense soup of
particles and light. (Devereux 2021, p. 3)4

I believe, it would be totally wrong to consider the “entire energy” was contained in the
Big Bangs. As I indicated in my work 2022, the “energy” of the “universe” has been
revealed (not “produced” from an “infinitezimal point”- obviously the most absurd notion
in Cosmology) since the Big Bangs until our days. For instance, the entire “energy” of the
electromagnetic field was not contained within the Big Bangs 5: this “energy” has been
future. Therefore, the “multiverse” is a completely different notion than EDWs (one EW does not exist for
any EDW, so it is meaningless to consider that “one EW can interact with an EDW”).
1
The appearance of our “universe” is like appearance of your self/organism: accidental process among
billions of other selves/organisms…
2
Obviously, I excluded “God” from this equation since “God could not even exist”. (See my article about
this topic FREE at my webpage)
3
In my previous works, in order to avoid Guth’s notion of “inflation”, I introduced many Big Bangs
happened in the same area. “These three things together, the Big Bang, dark matter and dark energy, form
the ‘Standard Model of Cosmology’. There are three main problems with this model: one, we don’t know
what caused the Big Bang; two, we don’t know what dark matter is; and three, we don’t know what dark
energy is.” (Devereux 2021, p. 1) Obviously, there were many Big Bangs (13,82 billion years ago). What
did produced these Big Bangs? According to my EDWs perspective, there was at least one EW before these
Big Bangs. (About dark matter/energy see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016 and 2020).
4
“The ΛCDM model starts with a hot Big Bang but we don’t know what the Big Bang could be. This is the
Big Bang Problem. In an expanding universe space is getting bigger and that means when we go back in
time space was smaller. Going back even further, all of space, time, matter and energy will become just a
single point. This point is called a singularity.” (Devereux, p. 100) According to Deveneux, this is the
“Singularity Problem”.
5
We can relate these Big Bangs with the notion of “multiverse” or Vilekin’s “quantum creation”.
(Devereux, pp. 100-1) “According to the extreme version of the anthropic principle, the finetuning of the
universe which has allowed life to evolve is indicative of a tuner. In other words, the anthropic principle
can be interpreted as evidence for the existence of a God. However, an alternative view is that our universe
is part of a multiverse. The dictionary definition of the universe is that it encompasses everything, but
cosmologists tend to define the universe as the collection of only those things that we can perceive or that
can influence us. By this definition, there could be many other separate and isolated universes, each defined
by its own set of six numbers. The multiverse would thus consist of numerous diverse universes, perhaps an
infinity of universes.” (Singh 2005, p. 391) God could not even exist (see my article at my webpage
FREE), but I sustained in the past that there were many EDWs (not only those produced by Big Bangs
13,82 billion years ago. I agree that there were many multiverse, but I add, there were many EDWs.

29
revealed since the Big Bangs until today. It did not mean that the electromagnetic field
existed before the Big Bangs or the entire field existed immediately after the Big Bang in
an “infinitezimal point”. In relationship to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW (for instance), the
field-EW did not exist. There was only the “potentiality” of the field-EW (no ontological
status) which became “actual” field-EW 380,000 years after Big Bangs.
- Between the first 10 seconds and 20 minutes after Big Bangs, the protons and neutrons
combined and formed the nuclei of helium.1
After 380,000 years, the electrons and the nuclei formed the atoms. (Devereux, p.

Probably, even today, there are many EDWs which have appeared in the last 100 years (let suppose 100
years)… “Hence, quantum cosmology offers various hypotheses that allow for the universe to have started
from nothing for no reason. For example, a baby universe could have spontaneously emerged from nothing,
possibly alongside a multitude of other universes, making it part of a multiverse… Unfortunately, the
scientific community has to admit that all these possible answers, from rebounding universes to
spontaneous quantum creation, are highly speculative and do not yet properly address the ultimate question
of where the universe came from.” (Singh 2005, p. 395)
1
“The next Cosmological Clue also comes from even smaller variations in the CMB temperature, changes
in temperature of ten millionth of a degree, that is 1 part in 100,000. These fluctuations were predicted by
theory [29] and finding them was yet more evidence for the Big Bang. The theory is that the fluctuations
are the small changes in the density of matter in the very early universe and the denser areas became the
seeds for galaxies forming in the future.” (Devereux, p. 57) These small variations are the “primordial
fluctuations that seeded the cosmic web”, the “Density Fluctuation Problem”. (Devereux, p. 108): “The
seeds of structure must have formed in the very early universe because there is no mechanism within
physics that could have caused them after the universe was one second old. The denser regions had to be
there before the ΛCDM model starts and they had to be large enough by then to provide enough gravity to
pull matter into oscillating clumps. ΛCDM does not explain where they came from; they are assumed to
have been there. This is the Cosmic Web Problem. A possibility is that the denser regions could have been
created by quantum fluctuations in the hot early universe. This is an attractive idea, and is within the laws
of physics, but ΛCDM does not have enough expansion to turn quantum fluctuations into the size of
galaxies today nor into the size of the temperature fluctuations of the CMB by the time the universe was
380,000 years old.” (pp. 108-9) “The fourth Cosmological Clue looks at how the chemical elements formed
in the universe. The development of the physics that showed that hydrogen, helium and a small amount of
lithium and beryllium, the first four elements of the periodic table, must have formed within minutes of the
Big Bang explosion is a vital piece of evidence that the Big Bang happened and it comes from a totally
different source than looking at galaxies in the sky. It comes from our understanding of nuclear physics; the
study of how protons and neutrons bind together to form the nuclei of atoms. The formation of these light
chemical elements following the Big Bang is called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).” (Devereux, p. 58)
“After 1 second the universe had cooled enough that the protons and neutrons started to bind together to
form small nuclei.” (Devereux, p. 59)

30
3)1 The matter was cold enough, the first photons and the electromagnetic waves (the
CMB radiation2) to evade from the “quark-gluon plasma”-EW.3
- An important consequence of stars appearing in the universe was that they gave out
ultra-violet (UV) light and the massive first stars would have given out a lot of strong UV
light. The UV light affected the atoms surrounding the stars by stripping off electrons in
what is called ‘ionisation’. The atoms became charged. Now the high energy light was no
longer absorbed and all wavelengths of light could travel through space unimpeded. The
universe became visible as we see it today. This process is called ‘reionisation’.
(Devereux, p. 74)4

1
“The universe continued to cool but it was another 380,000 years before our next interesting event
happened when the universe was at 3,000 degrees. This was when electrons combined with the nuclei of
the elements to form atoms, a process called recombination. Atoms have no charge, the negatively charged
electrons cancel out the charge of the positively charged protons.” (Devereux, p. 73) “The transition from
plasma to atoms happens at roughly 3,000°C for hydrogen and helium, and the duo estimated that it would
take 300,000 years or so for the universe to cool to this temperature. This event is generally known as
recombination (which is a little confusing because it implies that the electrons and nuclei had previously
been combined, which was not the case). After recombination, the universe became full of gaseous neutral
particles, because the negatively charged electrons had combined with the positively charged nuclei. This
dramatically changed the behaviour of the light that filled the universe. Light interacts easily with charged
particles in a plasma, but not with neutral particles in a gas, as shown in Figure 82. Hence, according to the
Big Bang model, the moment of recombination was the first time in the history of the universe that rays of
light could start to sail through space unhindered.” (Singh 2005, p. 272)
2
“The next clue became the piece of evidence that confirmed the Big Bang must have happened and led to
it’s general acceptance – the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) in 1964 by Penzias
and Wilson...” (Devereux, p. 40) “In 1948, George Gamow, Herman Bethe and Ralph Alpherin [25] were
studying how the first particles could form just after the Big Bang. The nuclear reactions that had to have
taken place required an extremely hot environment and would also have created light at extremely small
wavelengths. This light would travel through the universe and eventually be seen by us. The expansion of
the universe means that the light would also expand as it travelled, making the wavelength longer (called
the cosmological redshift). Gamow had calculated that as this light hits the Earth today it would be the
wavelength of microwaves. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is light that was created from
nuclear reactions in the hot soup of the early universe, it is a relic of the Big Bang. It is hard to explain the
CMB without the Big Bang.” (Devereux, p. 54) “The other place that the pattern is seen is in the light that
escaped from the regions. This light continued unimpeded throughout the rest of the life of the universe and
we can see it today. This is the light of the Cosmic Microwave Background. The pattern of the oscillating
regions is embedded in the CMB light in small fluctuations in the temperature of the CMB called the CMB
anisotropies.” (Devereux, p. 77) “Physicists such as Gamow, Alpher and Herman performed detailed
calculations, estimated the conditions of the early universe and made predictions about how the early
universe would leave its mark on the current universe, namely in terms of the ratio of hydrogen to helium
and the CMB radiation. These predictions have turned out to be uncannily accurate” (Singh 2005, p. 382)
3
“Today, the accepted theory for how the chemical elements formed in the universe is a mixture of both the
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and stellar synthesis. The Big Bang produced 24.67% helium and 75.32%
hydrogen with tiny traces of deuterium, lithium and beryllium. Stellar synthesis produces all the other
elements by nuclear fusion in the stars and in supernovae explosions of dying stars. Today, all the elements,
other than hydrogen and helium, make up less than 2% of the elements in the universe.” (Devereux, p. 60)
“It is at one second old that one of our Cosmological Clues becomes relevant; Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.
This is when protons and neutrons started to combine to form the nuclei of simple chemical elements:
helium, deuterium, lithium and beryllium. By 3 minutes old, the universe had cooled to 1 billion degrees
and had grown to a few hundred light-years across. The positrons had virtually all been annihilated leaving
mainly electrons, and the nuclei had finished forming since all the neutrons had combined with the protons.
There were more protons than neutrons so the universe was left with 75% protons (which is hydrogen),
25% helium (two protons and two neutrons) and traces of the remaining elements.” (Devereux, p. 73)

31
- Less than one billion year after the Big Bangs, some galaxies were formed. 1 Researches
like Shapley, Leavitt (“Leavitt’s law” on Cepheid variables as “standard candles”), Curtis
and Hubble (Hubble’s law2 referring to the expansion of the galaxies 3) indicated the
existence of many galaxies.4
- Earth, Sun5 and other planets in our solar system have been formed 4,5 billion years
ago. However, Milky Way galaxy has been formed around 100 billion years ago.
- Milky Way, Andromeda and other 30 galaxies form the Local Group. This Local Group
with other groups of galaxies (around 100 galaxy groups) represent the Virgo
Supercluster.6

4
“Going further back in time we come to the cosmic dawn, this is the name given to when stars first started
to form at about 150–400 million years from the Big Bang. When the first stars formed they were massive
stars that gave off a lot of strong UV light. This light was absorbed by the neutral hydrogen atoms,
releasing electrons and creating ionised hydrogen. A bubble of ionised hydrogen formed around the stars
and over a period of about a billion years these bubbles grew and merged until the universe was fully
ionised and became transparent to light, which is why we can see the stars and galaxies today. This process
is called reionisation and the time it took from the first ionised bubbles to all the universe being ionised is
called the ‘Epoch of Reionisation’ (EoR).” (Devereux, p. 142)
1
“Further expansion and cooling allowed gravity to pull the atoms together until they were dense enough
for nuclear reactions to take place and stars were born giving off heat and light. Over time the stars have
been pulled together by gravity to form galaxies (large groupings of stars).” (Devereux, p. 3)
2
“In 1931 Hubble published another paper containing a new plot, shown in Figure 62. This time the points
stood obediently to attention along Hubble’s line. There was no escaping the implications of the data. The
universe really was expanding, and in a systematic way. The proportional relationship between a galaxy’s
velocity and distance became known as Hubble’s law. It is not an exact law, like the law of gravity, which
gives an exact value for the gravitational force of attraction between two objects; rather it is a broad
descriptive rule which generally holds true, but which also tolerates exceptions.” (Singh 2005, p. 211)
“Hubble’s observations and his expansion law meant that the whole universe was dynamic and evolving,
with distances increasing and the universe’s overall density decreasing with time.” (Singh 2005, p. 214)
3
“The first clue came in 1929 when Edwin Hubble observed that most galaxies were moving away from us
(Clue 1). This led to the theory that the universe is expanding. If we extrapolate backwards in time the
universe must have started from an extremely small state, called the Big Bang.” (Devereux, p. 39)
“Although Hubble is credited with discovering the expansion of the universe, there were two other
scientists who published the idea of an expanding universe before Hubble’s publication [10, 11]: George
Lemaître in 1927 and Howard Robertson in 1928.” (Devereux, p. 45) “So everything in the universe
apparently emerged from a single dense region during a moment of creation. And if the clock is run
forward from the zero hour, then the consequence is an evolving and expanding universe. This is exactly
what Lemaître and Friedmann had theorised. This was the Big Bang.” (Singh 2005, p. 210) I believe there
was not a real “Big Bang”, but many “Big Bangs”, i.e., the revealing of some matter in correspondence to
the matter from the pre-Big-Bangs-EW. As I indicated in my work 2022, the entire “energy” of the
electromagnetic field was not contained within that an “infinitesimal point” (singularity), but this field has
been revealed during billions of years of the extension of the “Universe”. (see Vacariu 2022)
4
“As the stars were forming, gravity continued to pull them together to form galaxies. The earliest galaxies
formed at about a billion years and were irregular shaped and small. As they merged, they grew until they
became the smooth, large galaxies of today.” (Devereux, p. 74) More details on this topics and other related
topics, see Singh (2005).
5
“The Sun exists within a group of at least 250 billion other stars making up the Milky Way galaxy. The
Milky Way is a small spiral galaxy with four main spiral arms… The Milky Way is rotating about it’s centre
and the Solar System with it. It takes the Sun about 230 million years to make one rotation of the Milky
Way.” (Devereux, p. 21)
6
“There are estimated to be about 10 million superclusters in the universe. At the edge of the Local Group
is a vast region of relatively empty space, a void of galaxies where there are less galaxies than the average
in the universe, this is called the Local Hole (or Local Void). It was discovered by Brent Tully and Rick

32
- Cosmic web7
- There are “filaments of cosmic web”2 in relationship with dark matter/energy:

So where do the filaments of the cosmic web come from? This is where dark matter comes in. We find that
there is not enough atomic matter for gravity to overcome the expansion of the universe and form stars.
Much more matter is needed; 85% more. This is the dark matter. It provides enough gravity for dark matter
clumps to form. The atomic matter is attracted to these dark matter clumps, allowing stars and galaxies to
form. Where the stars and galaxies form is determined by where the dark matter is; it is the scaffold for the
stars to form in. The picture of the cosmic web is the picture of where dark matter is in the universe today

Fisher in 1987 [6]. This hole is on a gigantic scale, possibly being as long as 1,000 million light-years and
150 million light-years wide. This may seem surprisingly big, but 90% of the universe consists of voids like
this. Although some galaxies do live in voids, 90% of galaxies live in the remaining 10% of the space in the
universe in a structure called the cosmic web.” (Devereux, p. 22) Astronomers “discovered that our Milky
Way galaxy is part of a massive system that holds thousands of other galaxies together in what is known as
a supercluster of Galaxies. Researchers have revealed that the Milky Way is part of a gigantic cosmic
structure named Laniakea, which spans 500 million light-years and has 100,000,000,000,000,000 Stars
spread among 100,000 150,000 galaxies.” (https://blog.yameestudio.com/scientists-mapped-8000-galaxies-
out-of-billions-made-an-amazing-discovery/?fbclid=IwAR28A5oAxdT-
qajf4OzJ6dvicN80BgDQ1qdl_kFjSPE93wX2ZKRrFRdnE5Q)
7
“What we see in the cosmic web picture is galaxies clumping together into clusters with filaments that
connect the clusters into superclusters. About 90% of galaxies live in the filaments and clusters. These
structures are on a massive scale – millions of light-years. The long, large sheet-like structures of the
densest regions of galaxies are called walls, the smaller walls are called sheets. The largest walls are called
great walls, we have only seen about five or six of these in the whole universe.” (Devereux, p. 61)
2
“According to research co-author Noam Libeskind, a senior cosmologist at Germany's Leibniz Institute
for Astrophysics Potsdam, large clusters of galaxies generally rotate very slowly, if at all. Many
cosmologists consider that this was the limit of spinning on cosmic scales… The scientists subject to an
experiment over 17,000 filaments using information from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, examining the rate
at which the galaxies that make up these massive tubes move within each tendril. The researchers
discovered that the way these galaxies moved indicated that they were spinning around the central axis of
each filament… One possible clarification for this rotation is that as the powerful gravitational fields of
these filaments pulled gas, dust and other material within them to fall in together, the resulting shearing
forces might have revolved this material. Still, right now, ‘we’re not actually sure what can cause a torque
on this scale,’ Libeskind said.” (Admin 2022) “New research by scientists from the Potsdam Astrophysical
Institute has shown that rotation occurs on the largest cosmological scales, involving cosmic filaments
stretched between galaxies over distances of hundreds of millions of light-years. he galactic filaments of
the large-scale structure of the Universe stretch for hundreds of millions of light-years – and, as it turned
out, rotate, dragging all their galaxies into motion.” (Marie 2022) In our days, the explanation for the
motion of these filaments involves dark matter. “According to modern concepts, the large-scale structure of
the Universe is formed by a colossal network of dark matter, on which ordinary matter is concentrated.
Passing between voids, they connect large clusters of galaxies and collect galaxies and gas around
themselves… 8. Curiously, the higher the masses of the galactic clusters that connect such threads, the
more pronounced the rotation. 9. And now, a new cosmic mystery was born. Why are these cosmic
filaments spinning? According to researchers, this movement could not have originated from the Big Bang
but originated much later when these massive structures had already formed.” (Marie 2022) The last
sentence mirrors exactly my alternative to dark matter! As we indicated in 2016, 2020, etc., dark
matter/energy did not exist as something physically within the macro-EW; it is something within the mega-
EW, and this is the reason, the galaxies have been spinning around the axis of each filament. However, the
“Universe” can be “observed” in a totally new way: “This X-Ray View of The Night Sky Reveals a Whole
New Way of Seeing The Universe” (Admin August 2022) In reality, it is about the field-EW which
corresponds to the macro-EW or mega-EW, no more. “Other gigantic large-scale structures been discovered
since — sheets, filaments, and knots, with bubble-like voids intersperse among them. They appear to be

33
and it also shows us how the peaks and troughs of dark matter was distributed in the early universe.
(Devereux, p. 63)1

I notice that these superclusters and large voids have not been predicted by the “standard
theory” (ΛCDM).2 The universe started as a single point. The cosmologists claim that the
entire energy that exists in the “universe” today existed in this point. We do not know
how this can happen, our laws of physics break down for such a point, but conceptually
that is how we think of it. In physics we call such a point a singularity: a point that has an
infinite amount of energy and is infinitely small. As scientists we do not like singularities,
and normally avoid them, but we do not know how else to describe the start of the

connected by clouds and filaments of hydrogen gas and dark matter. Though the bodies that comprise the
structures are not gravitationally bound to each other — the distances between them are too great —
evidence is piling up that they are linked by something. Recent observations indicate that galaxies far, far
apart are somehow synchronously moving. Something appears to be binding large-scale structures, many
light years apart, together after all. Is the currently accepted view of the universe as various clumps of
material simply expanding outward from the Big Bang and gravitationally pulling on each other wrong?…
Certainly, imagining a vast arrangement of utterly gigantic structures in which galaxies are embedded
paints a very different picture of the universe, and one that makes one wonder if these structures are
themselves embedded in something even larger. In this mid-boggling case, we are indeed small enough to
see only the space between objects — in this case galaxies. We’ve been no more aware of them than
whatever it is that may be living between our own atoms.” (Berman 2022) In Berman’s paragraps, we can
find many similar words/ideas to our ideas: in fact, there is only one explanation of these filaments: there
are the ED entities which belong to the mega-EW, nothing else. “For the first time, astronomers have
spotted enormous, galaxy-scale shock waves rattling the ‘cosmic web’ that connects nearly all known
galaxies. These cosmic waves could reveal clues about how the largest objects in the universe were
sculpted… These shock waves have been spotted around some of the universe's largest galaxy clusters, but
until now they were never observed around the web itself.” (Turner 2023) Maybe such phenomana confirm
the existence of mega-entities which belong to the mega-EW, but anyway, they confirm the correspondence
between the galaxies (huge groups of planets) and the field-EW. “‘Magnetic fields pervade the universe —
from planets and stars to the largest spaces in-between galaxies,’ lead author Tessa Vernstrom(opens in new
tab), an astronomer at the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research in Crawley, Australia, said in
a statement(opens in new tab). ‘However, many aspects of cosmic magnetism are not yet fully understood,
especially at the scales seen in the cosmic web.’” (Turner 2023, https://www.livescience.com/galaxy-size-
shock-waves-found-rattling-the-cosmic-web-the-largest-structure-in-the-universe) It is clear, in Cosmology
(in Physics in general, but also in Cognitive Neuroscience and Biology), the only alternative framework
accepable is the EDWs perspective.
1
“So what was left was a structure of matter that formed from a combination of the denser regions and the
rings left over from the oscillations. The structure is mostly dark matter, which is why we say that dark
matter is the scaffold of the cosmic web, and over time the atomic matter and dark matter gravitated
towards each other to eventually form the universe as we see it today.” (Devereux, p. 77) “One of the
outcomes of the ΛCDM model is that the amount of atomic matter, the matter we know and can see, is only
15% of all the matter in the universe. The rest is dark matter. When we add up all the atomic matter in the
stars of galaxies it comes to only 10% of the total atomic matter required by ΛCDM. If we add the gas and
dust that we can see then that takes it to about 50% of the total. So where is the rest of the atomic matter?
This is the Missing Baryon Problem.” (Devereux, p. 110) We explained dark matter and dark energy in our
previous works (Vacariu and Vacariu 2016, 2020).
2
In our book 2016 and our chapter 2020, we introduced a new perspective for dark matter and dark energy,
therefore, in this work, I avoid writing about these topics. I also avoid writing about the notion of
“inflation” (Guth) since in our previous works, we rejected it, and replaced it with many Big Bangs that
happened in different places at the same moments. “Cosmic inflation was proposed by American physicist,
Alan Guth, in 1981 [62], in order to solve the Horizon and Flatness Problems that arise out of ΛCDM.
From measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background we can see that the universe is at the same
uniform temperature everywhere. This should not be the case, in the ΛCDM model there are parts of space

34
universe so we put up with it until we find something better. “About fourteen billion
years ago, the singularity changed and created spacetime. The energy released was so
massive that it made space and time expand and it continues to expand today.”
(Devereux, p. 73)
- The “expansion of Universe”: Friedmann, Lemaître1… It has been considered that the
expansion of “Universe” (all matter/energy) refers to the expansion not only of
matter/energy but even at space itself.2
Again, my opinion is the idea that the “universe” started as a single point, an
“infinitezimal point”, all energy/matter being concentrated in a “singularity” is totally
wrong. As I indicated in my work 2022 (and other works), matter (for instance, the

that have never have been in contact with each other so they should be at different temperatures. This is the
Horizon Problem. The Flatness Problem is that our cosmological evidence tells us that the universe is flat
rather than any other shape. This is a very specific, unique shape and there is no reason why the universe
should be exactly flat.” (Devereux, p. 86) About (super)string theory, see our works 2010, for instance.
Within the EDWs perspective, the Flatness Problem is quite easy to be solved: space (or spacetime) could
not have any ontological status; there are only correspondences between EDWs. Therefore, the “universe”
is “flat”. The same answer is for the Horizon Problem (section 5.7 in Devereux 2021): “The Cosmological
Clues tell us that the universe is very uniform and looks the same in all places, we see this in the CMB
temperature and when we look at the cosmic web on a large scale. The ΛCDM model does not give us a
uniform universe, it gives us a universe that should have differences on a large scale. So there is a problem.
This is called the Horizon Problem.” (Devereux, p. 99) “There are two ways the universe must look the
same. It must give the same observational evidence at all locations; this is homogeneity. It must also look
the same in all directions; this is isotropy. These are not the same.” (Devereux, p. 112) “If we treat the sky
as the surface of an imaginary sphere around the Earth and divide it into regions that could not have been in
contact at the time of the CMB, then there are over 40,000 regions where their observable horizons were
not big enough to meet. Yet, they are all at exactly the same temperature.” (Devereux, p. 115) “Einstein’s
assumption is known as the cosmological principle, which states that the universe is more or less the same
everywhere. More specifically, the principle assumes that the universe is isotropic, which means that it
looks the same in every direction—which certainly seems to be the case when astronomers stare into deep
space. The cosmological principle also assumes that the universe is homogeneous, which means that the
universe looks the same wherever you happen to be, which is another way of saying that the Earth does not
occupy a special place in the universe.” (Singh 2005, p. 121) The “universe” (EDWs) is quite uniform and
“looks the same in all places” just because there are EDWs which just correspond to the pre-Big-Bang-EW,
but we have to be aware that this particular EW does not exist for any EDW. Each EW exists only in itself
and it has no relationship with EDWs, but just correspondences.
1
“Lemaître had argued that general relativity (in its purest form) implied that the universe is expanding. If
the universe is expanding today, then in the past it must have been more compact. Logically, the universe
must have started from a highly compact state, the so-called primeval atom of small but finite size.
Lemaître thought that the primeval atom might have existed for eternity before there was some ‘rupture of
the equilibrium’, whereupon the atom decayed and ejected all its fragments. He defined the beginning of
this decay process as the start of our universe’s history. This was effectively the moment of creation—in
Lemaître’s words, ‘a day without a yesterday’. Friedmann’s view of the moment of creation had been
slightly different from Lemaître’s. Instead of picturing the universe as emerging from a primeval atom,
Friedmann’s Big Bang model had argued that everything emerged from a point. In other words, the entire
universe had been squeezed into nothing.” (Singh 2005, p. 221)
2
“Earth, just as predicted by the Big Bang model, but Big Bang theorists unanimously believed that the
galaxies were not actually moving through space, but were moving along with space. Eddington explained
this subtle point by comparing space to the surface of a balloon, simplifying the three spatial dimensions of
the universe onto a two-dimensional closed rubber sheet, as shown in Figure 64. The balloon’s surface is
covered with dots, which represent the galaxies. If the balloon is inflated to twice its original diameter, then
the distance between the dots will double in size, so the dots are effectively moving away from one another.
The crucial point is that the dots are not moving across the surface of the balloon—instead, it is the surface
itself that is expanding, thereby increasing the distance between the dots. Similarly, the galaxies are not

35
electromagnetic field) has not been created from an “infinitesimal point” (a
“singularity”1), but this “field” had been revealed 380,000 years after the Big Bangs until
today. Moreover, as we indicated in 2016, space and time (spacetime) could not have any
ontological status: any kind of ontological status of spacetime would produce strong
ontological contradictions.2
In this context, I introduce new EDWs. We can say that these mega-filaments
belong to the filament-EW. The mega-filaments are “nothing” in the macro-EW which
correspond to the electromagnetic field presents everywhere in the field-EW. Exactly as
the macro-entities (the macro-EW) do not exist for the electromagnetic field (the field-
EW), in the same way, the mega-filaments exist in the filament-EW but they correspond
to the electromagnetic field (field-EW). Also, the mega-entities (or mega-discs from the
the mega-EW) correspond to the galaxies/planets (the macro-EW). Exactly as the macro-
entities like planets do no exist in the field-EW, the mega-entities (mega-EW) and the
mega-filaments (the filament-EW) do not exist for the macro-entities or for the
electromagnetic waves. However, without the correspondences between
mega-entities/megadiscs (mega-EW) and mega-filaments (the filament-EW) and (a)
macro-entities (planets) and (b) electromagnetic field, the mega-entities and mega-
filaments would not exist in the mega-EW and filament-EW, respectively. Filaments exist
because of their correspondence to the electromagnetic field (field-EW); mega-discs exist
because of their correspondence to the galaxies/planets (macro-EW). Mega-filaments

moving through space, rather it is the space between the galaxies that is expanding.” (Singh 2055, p. 221)
Nevertheless, the space does not exist (spacetime could not have any ontological status - see Vacariu and
Vacariu 2016), therefore, there is indeed the extension of matter, but not of “space”. Within the EDWs
perspective, I introduced a new solution in 2021, 2022: the macro-matter (the macro-EW) corresponds to
the micro-matter (the micro-EW) which corresponds to the electromagnetic field (the field-EW). This field
has the speed c which corresponds to the speed of the microparticles (except the photons, all microparticles
have less than c) which corresponds to the speed of planets/galaxies. Because of these correspondences, the
speed of galaxies/planets have been continuously increasing. “ By retaining the cosmological constant and
varying its value, they could tweak their theoretical models of the Big Bang and modify the universe’s
expansion. The cosmological constant represented an anti-gravity effect, so it made the universe expand
faster.” (Singh 2005, p. 224) In this way, we eliminate the “dark energy” in explaining the expansion of
galaxies. In this way, we can eliminate both Einstein’s cosmological constant and dark energy.
1
Today, we know that there are two trillion galaxies in the “Universe”. (https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-
bang/how-many-galaxies/?
utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1uAevlupic8IpiujwVM
S9VG5sJPZtMzH02lWFPFQ2F1_xCByXxQ6TGCf4#Echobox=1663535566) I do not believe that the
matter of these two trillion galaxies and other kinds of matter existed in an infinitesimal point! It mirrors a
very strong ontological contradiction…
2
“For example, we know that today’s galaxies were seeded by variations in density that existed in the
universe roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang, but what was responsible for these density variations?
Also, according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, space can be either flat, or curved inwards, or
curved outwards. In a flat universe a ray of light can keep on travelling in a straight line for ever, just like a
ball rolling along a flat, frictionless surface, but in a curved universe the ray could follow a circular path
and return to where it started, just like an aeroplane flying around the equator of the curved Earth. Our
universe seems to be flat according to astronomical observations, so the question is this: why is our
universe flat, when it could have been curved? One possible explanation for both the origin of the
variations and the apparent flatness of the universe is provided by the theory of inflation, which was
developed towards the end of 1979 by Alan Guth.” (Singh 2005, p. 383) As I indicated in my previous
works, space and time (spacetime) could not have any ontological status; moreover, Guth’s inflation (which
requires a phenomena to pass the speed of light c!) is not a correct supposition: I replaced it with the
appearances of many Big Bangs in many places at the same moments (13.82 billions years ago).

36
(filament-EW) are “nothing” in the macro-EW or field-EW. One mega-disc exists for
other mega-discs that exist in the same mega-EW. It seems that the filaments belong to
the filament-EW. Between the mega-discs there has to be a kind of “gravity”, but this
gravity is neither a “force”, nor a curved spacetime; it is “nothing” which corresponds to
interactions between the galaxies/plantes (macro-EW) and the curved electromagnetic
field (field-EW). The mega-discs (mega-EW0) interacts through “nothing” which
corresponds to the curved electromagnetic field exactly as the the planets interacts
(macro-EW). The planets (macro-EW) and the mega-discs (mega-EW) correspond to
these filaments (filament-EW) exactly as the microparticles corresponds to the
electromagnetic waves. The mega-discs (mega-EW) correspond to the galaxies/planets
and to the electromagnetic field (field-EW), while the filaments (filament-EW)
correspond to concentrated electromagnetic field (field-EW), galaxies (macro-EW) and
mega-entities (mega-EW). It seems that the mega-discs and the filaments would not
belong to the same EW: the mega-discs belong to the mega-EW, while the mega-
filaments belong to the filament-EW. The mega-entities (mega-EW) would explain dark
matter (see our previous works 2019, 2020); the mega-filaments (filament-EW) would
explain dark energy: this energy is “nothing” which corresponds to the electromangnetic
field. The galaxies/planets accelerate because they corresponds to the electromagnetic
field which has the speed c in all directions.
We have different “chains of EDWs”; one of these chains is the “standard chain
of EDWs”:

EW0 hyperC EW1a C EW2 C EDWs… C pre-Big-Bangs-EW C field-EW C micro-EW C macro-EW C

(a) life/mind-EW. (C means “corresponded”)
(b) mega-EW
(c) filament-EW.

Any body corresponds to an amalgam of microparticles. These microparticles have the

same features, they do not differ in these features. A body differs than another body
because of the arrangements of those microparticles (that have some features). (The same
thing is available for microparticles-electromagnetic waves). Something macro-material
corresponds to an amalgam of microparticles (for instance, protons and neutrons) and
their “space” among them (that is, their positions). Therefore, “position” is more
important than “content”/matter (since matter has the same properties). If two bodies
correspond to two amalgams of microparticles in the same positions, then those bodies
should look identical; the corresponding minds would be have the same immaterial
contents. When some parameters of microparticles pass an epistemological-ontological
threshold, a new EDW appeared. For instance, when a huge amalgam of microparticles
become closer and closer, at one moment, when the distances between microparticles
passes a threshold (the distances between microparticles have become smaller and
smaller), then a macro-entity has appeared (in the macro-EW, an EW which does not
have any ontological status, only the macro-entities really exist, not the macro-EW). The
life-EW could not exist without the existence of corresponding macro-entities (the macro-
EW). Life has to correspond to certain macro-entities (which correspond to an amalgam
of microparticles which correspond to an electromagnetic field). The microparticles
would not exist without the existence of the electromagnetic field. So, the

37
electromagnetic field is a corresponding condition for the existences of microparticles.
(The same statement is also available for the micro-macro relationship).

2.2 Classification of (hyper)correspondences

There are differrent hypercorrespondences and correspondences:
(1) Hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and the EW1a-n
(2) Correspondences between all EDWs except the EW0.
The correspondences are
(a) Direct Correspondences, for instance, between
- electromagnetic waves and microparticles
- microparticles and macroparticles
- macroparticles and life.
(b) Indirect Correspondences, for instance, between
- electromagnetic waves and macroparticles
- microparticles and life.
There are hypercorrespondences betweent the EW0 and the EW1a-n just because
the EW0 is nothing (hyperontology) which hypercorresponds to the ontologies of the
EW1a-n. The EW0 directly hypercorresponds to the EW1a-n, and indirectly corresponds
to the EW2 or the macro-EW or the life/mind-EW. We can claim that the field-EW
(electromagnetic field always having speed c) is the absolute framework of thinking for
microparticles and macroparticles. Again, the electromagnetic field did not appear from
an infinitezimal point. That point corresponded to nothing; therefore, the electromagnetic
field did not appear (in its EW), but it has been revealed from that point (any point today)
in all directions. Since the Big Bangs, there have been revealed an electromagnetic field
with a diameter of 26.4 billion years. This electromagnetic field has been there in state of
potentiality and has become actual since the Big Bangs until now. However, because this
field has the speed c, there is no “time” for it (i.e., there are no processes for it since the
electromagnetic waves spread in all directions with speed c). This electromagnetic field is
the same as 12.82 billion years ago (it is not “older” not because “time” did not exist for
it, but processes did not exist for it due to the speed c). The electromagnetic field has no
“istory”, it is the same as 13 billion years ago.1
Why do I need to use “hypercorrespondences”? Because the EW0
hypercorresponded to the EW1a-n. What does “hypercorresponded” exactly mean? When
only the EW hyperexisted, any of the EW among the EW1a-n did exist. The
hyperexistence means that the EW0 did not exist, it did not have any ontology but a
hyperontology. This “hyperontology” is given by the fact that all EW1a-n “represented”
the EW0, i.e., “nothing” since none of these EDWs existed and the EW0 is “nothing”. So,
only the EW0 hyper-existed… the EW0 has always hyper-existed, even now this EW
hyper-exists but we cannot detect at all the “nothing” since our “universe” is full of
electromagnetic field. Can we say that these EDWs were “pre-existing inside” the EW0?
Clearly, this statement would be a pseudo-judgment. Why? Before each of these EDWs
appeared (these EDWs did not exist), all EW1a-n “represented” (hyper-corresponded to)
the EW0.

1
“Thus light does not get old; a photon that emerged from the big bang is the same age today as it was then.
There is no passage of time at light speed.” (Greene 2008, p. 68) More details about special and general
theories of relativity without “spacetime”, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016.

38
In this context, we can make an analogy between EW0-EW1a-n and white color-
ROYGBIV. Exactly as together, all colors are “white color”, a kind of “no color” (i.e.,
“nothing”). For these united colors, there were just an epistemological status, without any
kind of ontological status: no color existed within this unification. “At the beginning”,
when there was only the EW0, each EW did not exist in itself; “together”, all EW1a-n
represented nothing which hypercorresponded to (represented) the EW0. Later, each of
these EDWs appeared only in itself (probable not all at the same “time”, in the same
“place”) in hypercorrespondence to the EW0. So, we could talk about the
“hyperontology” because before their appearances, all EW1a-n “hyper-represented” the
EW0. It would mean that all these EDWs did not exist; together1, all these EDWs do not
exist even today since together these EDWs represent nothing, i.e., the EW0. When each
of these EDWs (the EW1a-n) became, accidentally, only in itself and for itself. Each EW
among these EW1a-n appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW0. These EDWs, like
all EDWs, have appeared (and some of them probable disappeared) in the same place
and/or different places, in the same “time” and/or different periods of “time”. Any EW
(among the EW1a-n) just revealed itself (for itself) accidentally but in
hypercorrespondence to the EW0.2 Any EW (among all EW1a-n) did not exist before
being revealed. All these EDWs represented the EW0, but none of these EDWs existed
before the EW0 (at the beginning when there was only the EW0 which hyper-was).
An epistemological entity belongs to a particular EW. Each particular EW exists
only in itself, it does not exist for any EDW. It does not exist for the EW0 (which does
not have any ontology!). An electromagnetic wave (which represents, for exists, the color
green) is a part of the electromagnetic field (the field-EW). An EW hypercorresponds
(directly or indirectly) to the EW0 and it corresponds directly to an EDW and indirectly
to many EDWs. Exactly as the mind-EW appeared “from” nothing (but in
correspondence to the macro-EW: any brain/body being an entity within this EW), the
EW1a-n appeared in hypercorrespondence to the EW0. The EW1a appeared in
hypercorrespondence to the EW0, but the EW1a existed in itself, it did not exist in
relationship to the EW0. Therefore, the “principle of conservation” (matter, energy,
nothing) is preserved.
Within this new framework, we can indicate how many EDWs has appeared
through direct or indirect hypercorrespondences to the EW0 (Hypernothing). In this way,
we exclude any other alternative (like “God” (any God) or the “regress ad infinitum”). All
the EW1a-n appeared accidentally through hypercorrespondences to the EW0.3 The
question, why the EW1a did not appear “earlier” is a meaningless question, since
“spacetime” could not have ontology and, mainly, the EW1a (and each EW among
EW1b-n) existed (was) in itself, not in relationship with the EW0. It is like asking why
“my self” (self as an EW) did not appear earlier. My self appeared in a certain
correspondence (no ontological status for any correspondence) to my body (the macro-

1
“Together” means none of these EDWs existed in itself: each EW existed only in (hyper)correspondences
to all EDWs.
2
It is quite clear the macro-EW could not appear after the Big Bangs… The same idea is available for the
EW1a-n.
3
Kuhn mentions the problems encontered by Darwin’s evolution theory: there were not only theological
opponents (in 19th century, in Great Britain, the priests belonging to “mafia-religion” did not exist for
scientists!); there were opponents against the idea that the evolution of species had no goal, it happened
accidentally! (p. 172) I applied the same principle for the appearances of EDWs 9and multiverse).

39
EW), but my self does not exist for my brain/body, exactly as the EW1a did not exist for
the EW0. My self corresponds to my body, the self of my twin brother corresponds to his
body. My self (an EW) does not exist for my body, it does not exist for the self of my
twin brother. Why my self corresponds to my body and not to body of my twin brother?
Meaningless question, since my self always corresponds to my body and not other body.
Other meaningless questions: “Why did you born in that day and not other day?” “Why
did you born in that country and not other country?”, etc.
Each EW has appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW0 and correspondences
to EDWs. Obviously, there are many other “universes” and many EDWs (from EW1a-n,
EW2b-m,… and the only chain of correspondence that we know, field-EW, micro-EW,
macro-EW, life/mind-EW). In this context, essentially, it is the notion “accidental”. What
does it mean, more exactly, that “an EW appeared accidentally”? For instance, the life-
EW appeared accidentally in correspondences to certain macro-entities which belonged
to the macro-EW. It means that different macro-entities were arranged in different ways,
more or less accidentally. There were some macro-laws which determined these
arrangements, but we cannot claim there was a plan for the arrangement which
corresponded to “life”. Such arrangements happened accidentally 3.5 billions years ago
(or so)... In different periods, there happened accidentally arrangements of certain macro-
entities and “lives” appeared as EDWs but in correspondences to these arrangements of
macroentities. There was no plan for the appearances of lives - this has to be the meaning
of “accidental”. There were many accidental arrangements, in general many of them
being within an organizational framework (without producing life). When these
arrangements passed an epistemological-ontological threshold, life (as an EDW)
appeared in correspondences to those macro-arrangements (the macro-EW). The passing
from an organizational threshold to an epistemological-ontological threshold happens
accidentally.1
Let me now investigate the “hypercorrespondences” between the EW0 and the
EW1a-n. We cannot claim a kind of passing a threshold (any threshold) since EW0 is
nothing. Nothing happened within the EW0 since it is nothing. I recall that the EW0
hypercorresponded to the EW1a-n, that is, together these EDWs represented the EW0.
None of these EDWs did exist when only the EW0 “hyperwas”. These EDWs appeared
accidentally in different places, in different “periods”. Neither “places”, nor “moments”
existed before their appearances2. Maybe among these EDWs, some of them were
immaterial (no places, no periods - “spacetime” does not exist), we don’t know. All these
represented the EW0 exactly as ROYGBIV represents white light (see below). Each EW
among these EW1a-n appeared accidentally in itself for itself, each EW did not exist for
the EW0. Everything which exist in EDWs does not exist for the EW0. From the
viewpoint of the EW0, nothing exists. (From this reason, “infinite” could not even exist.)
Could we talk about the “pre-existences” of EW1a-n? No: before these EDWs
appeared, there was nothing (the EW0) and nothing else. There EDWs appeared totally
accidentally; we need to believe in this “absolute accidentally”, otherwise we need to
introduce, for instance, “God” in equation or the “pre-existence status” of EDWs, but I
totally rejected the existence of “God” and of any kind of “pre-existences”. The
appearance of any EW happened accidentally, no more. The EW1a-n did not exist,

1
About these thresholds, see my previous works.
2
Anyway, “spacetime” could not have any onological status: see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016.

40
somehow, before the first Big Bangs; they did not have any “pre-existences” status.
Always, the EW0 has been nothing and nothing else. Any EW among the EW1a-n
appeared totally accidentally and nothing else. Any human mind is an EW, her body is
placed within the macro-EW (which corresponds to the field-EW), therefore, she will
never been able to observe, directly, “nothing”, i.e., the EW0. Why? From the viewpoint
of “nothing” (the EW0), we do not exist at all, the micro-entities and the macro-entities
do not exist at all; nothing exists at all, nothing (the EW0) do not have any ontology.
However, each EW (the field-EW or each mind-EW 1, for instance) exists in itself, but not
for “nothing”. Each EW is in itself, nothing exists for “nothing” (the EW0)… In this way,
the principle of conservation of “nothing” remained valid: the EW1a-n appeared in
hypercorrespondences to the EW0; the “causalities”/laws between the EW0 and any EW
among the EW1a-n are totally rejected…

2.3 The rejection of “antimatter”2

Within the EDWs perspective, we have to reject the idea that from “nothing” appeared
“matter” and “antimatter”3 (equal “quantities”). In reality, according to my new idea
within the EDWs perspective, antimatter did not exist at all exactly because there were
many EDWs (the EW1a-n and not one, “our universe”) in hypercorrespondences to the
EW0. These EW1a-n did not exist for the EW0, so we did not have any rejection of
conservation principle of something (energy/matter) and nothing: nothing (the EW0)
remained nothing, the EW1a (for instance) did not exist for the EW0, so there was no
ontological contradiction at all. I emphasize that my idea from my previous work (2022)
that the EW0 hypercorresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1 is quite wrong: we do not
need the EW-1 (antimatter) anymore. So, “antimatter” is quite a wrong notion within the
EDWs perspective. It is an acceptable presupposition within the unicorn world, since
within this framework, there has to be a conservation principle between “nothing” before
the “Big Bang” and the matter/energy that appeared after the Big Bang. Within the EDWs
perspective, since one EW does not exist for any EDW, we do not need antimatter.
An important problem for the “Standard Model of Cosmology” is the “anti-mater
problem”: the physicists have no idea where is the “antimatter” and what it has to be
exactly this “matter”.4 Working within the unicorn world, the physicists needed to
1
We already know, the micro-EW and the macro-EW do not exist in themselves. The microparticles and the
macro-objects really exist and each set of these ED entities represents the micro-EW and respectively the
macro-EW.
2
I introduced the rejection of antimatter as a very short subchapter to indicate the importance of this idea.
The main ideas of this sub-chapter have been published in my article 2022b (Timpul journal). I write
nothing about CPT symmetry; I believe, this symmetry (and others) are just human mind creations within
an abstract mathematical background. More exactly, the theoretical physicists created such symmetries
only because they have been working within the unicorn world.
3
I do not consider positron as being anti-matter of electrons (it is considered by physicists in the last
decades). For me, positron is another particle with opposite charge than the electron, no more. When these
two particles interact, the particles disappear BUT “pure energy” is released. It means that the positron is
not an antimatter of electron; a particle to be the antimatter of another particle would mean when these two
particles interact, both disappear but nothing is released. I believe that the antimatter has not been
discovered yet just because it does not exist. (see below)
4
“The universe is made of matter. This seems an obvious statement but from our known laws of physics
there should be no matter. In the early universe matter was created. When matter is created, it is always
created in pairs of matter and antimatter and very quickly it is destroyed in pairs of matter and antimatter.
So if the same amount of matter and antimatter was produced and then destroyed why is there any matter in

41
introduce “antimatter” for preserving the “principle of conservation energy”: it was
believed that from “nothing”, matter was separated from antimatter (even if nobody could
explained how and why this separation took place!). Through the EDWs perspective,
because of the correspondence between any two EDWs, I strongly indicate that
“antimatter” did not exist. In my previous work (2022), I introduced the correspondences
between the EW0 and the EW1 and the EW-1 (the last EW being a kind of “antimatter”).
Because there was only a hypercorrespondence (no ontology) between the EW0 and the
EW1, I did not need to introduce the EW-1 (or the “antimatter”). In this way, I do not
need the “existence of antimatter” at all (within the EDWs perspective, I completely
reject the existence of the EW-1).1
If the EW0 hypercorresponded only to “one EDW” (for instance, the EW1),
maybe we would need to introduce the EW-1 (as “antimatter” for the EW1). In reality,
the EW0 corresponded to many EDWs (the EW1a-n). So, in this work (as in my work
2022b), I indicate that we have to reject “antimatter” (or the EW-1 from my perspective
published in my work 2022) and, consequently, the “separation of matter from
antimatter”. This kind of separation would require an “external click”! Who did produce
such “click”, “God” or it did happen accidentally? “God” (any God) could not exist (see
my previous work), therefore we could claim it happened accidentally. Why? Having
only one such event (the appearance of only one “universe”, “our universe”) which did
happen accidentally, this accidental event become quite suspicious. If we extend the
number of such accidental events (from “our universe” to the EW1a-n), it seems that
these accidental events are not “absolute accidentally”, but become inevitable. Like the
appearances of “lives” on Earth: lives appeared in different places, in different periods…
If we accept antimatter, we need to introduce many antimatter-EDWs, and this
would be quite absurd. Because there were the EW1a-n and because the EW1a did not
exist for any EDW, I do not need to introduce antimatter” (the EW-1, for instance). Let us
suppose the first Big Bangs happened 13.82 years ago. Then the plasma-EW appeared
and 380,000 years later, the field-EW appeared. However, the “electromagnetic field”

the universe? This is the Anti-matter Problem.” (Devereux, p. 119)

1
“But the Universe we had, despite beginning in an incredibly hot and dense state where matter and
antimatter could both be created in abundant, copious amounts, must have had some way to create a
matter/antimatter asymmetry where none existed initially… The Standard Model has all of these
ingredients, but not enough. If you consider a matter/antimatter symmetric Universe as ‘a Universe with
nothing,’ then it’s almost guaranteed that the Universe generated something from nothing, even though we
aren’t quite certain exactly how it happened.” (Siegal 2022) With my new idea within the EDWs
perspective, the “antimatter” is not necessary at all. In fact, because of my new ideas within the EDWs
perspective, we are forced to reject the existence of the antimatter and the “symmetry” between matter and
antimatter. In this article, Siegal indicates Guth’s inflation as one of the best alternatives, but the author is
aware that this answer could not be available for the real question: “How did everything arise form
nothing?”: “Without as physical theory to describe what happens outside of the Universe and beyond the
realm physical laws, the concept of true nothingness is physically ill-defined. In the context of physics, it’s
impossible to make sense of an idea of absolute nothingness. What does it mean to be outside of space and
time, and how can space and time sensibly, predictably emerge from a state of non-existence? How can
spacetime emerge at a particular location or time, when there’s no definition of location or time without it?
Where do the rules governing quanta — the fields and particles both — arise from?” (Siegal 2022) With the
EDWs perspective, we furnish a new answer to this question… “No matter how logically sound any other
consideration may be, including a notion of absolute nothingness, it’s merely a construct of our minds.”
(Siegal 2022) Indeed, within the unicorn world, the notion of “nothingness” is indeed a “construct of our
minds”! Within the EDWs perspective, “nothing” is the EW0 or Hypernothing, and nothing else…

42
was not created by something, it was not “produced” by something: the electromagnetic
field has been revealed, not produced! It does not mean the electromagnetic field already
existed there; it was nothing there, but this nothing hypercorresponds to some EDWs
which did not exist yet because, together, all these EDWs represented the EW0 (like
ROYGBIV…).
As a conclusion of this section: the antimatter could not even exist just because
there have been many EDWs which appeared accidentally in hypercorrespondence to the
EW0 and in correspondence to EDWs. It would be quite impossible many anti-EDWs
(with ED antimatter) to appear in relationships to so many EDWs. Antimatter is a
meaningless notion in physics.

2.4 More details about electromagnetic field (the field-EW)

All micro-entities and macro-objects correspond to the electromagnetic field (having
always speed c). Also, all micro-entities and macro-objects have the speed c, but the
speed is shared in space and time: according to Einstein (in Greene 1999), all macro-
objects travel with the speed c, but for micro and macroentities the speeds are shared
much more in time than in space. According to my EDWs perspective, since space and
time (spacetime) could not have any ontology, all micro-entities (except photons, all have
the speed less than c) and macro-objects (all have the speed much less than c) correspond
to the electromagnetic field (speed c). Gaining masses, the speed of microparticles and
mainly macro-objects shared more in time than in space, that is, the distances travelled by
microparticles and mainly by macro-objects become shorter and shorter in “distances”,
but longer in “processes”.
Microparticles (the micro-EW) and macro-objects (the macro-EW) (except
photons with speed c, because they do not have mass) correspond to an electromagnetic
waves/fields (the field-EW) which always have the speed c. This is the reason, because
they correspond to the electromagnetic field, all ED entities travel with speed c in
“spacetime” (in fact, longer processes (for “time dilation”) and shorter distances (for
“space contraction”). Independent of “spatiotemporal framework”, the speed of light (the
speed of the electromagnetic field) is always c. Therefore, all ED entities which
correspond to the electromagnetic field have the speeds c (but their speed is shared more
in “time”/longer processes than in “space”/shorter distances).
- Electromagnetic field has the speed c.
- Corresponding photons (no masses) have speed c (there is no “time” for photons, i.e.,
the photon do not interact with the down-mirror if the mirrors have the speed c).
- Microparticles (except photons) have the speed c, but these speed is shared more in
“time” and less in “space”. (Mass increases with speed: if an entity having mass reaches
the speed c, its mass becomes infinite). If the speed of a microparticle increases, its
motion is distributed more in space (the microparticle travels a longer distance) than in
time (its internal processes are slower).
- Macroparticles have the speed c, but most of their speed is shared in time, much less in
space. The distances travelled by macro-entities are much shorter and their times have
much more frequencies (time moves faster).

43
Indeed, all ED entities moves with speed c in “spacetime” (no ontological status
for me) just because all ED entities correspond to the electromagnetic field.1 This idea is
constructed within a new framework of thinking, the EDWs perspective. I recall: the
electromagnetic field has the sped c (there is no “time” for it, i.e., there are no
“interactions” with other entities - see Greene’s example of clock with photon between
two parallel mirrors…) So, when something has the maximum speed, the speed of light,
c, there are no “interactions”. Without interactions, there are no other entities, neither in
the same EW, nor ED entities (belonging to EDWs). However, the Big Bangs did not
produce all matter and energy: I recall, since the Big Bangs, the electromagnetic field has
been revealed not “produced” in correspondence to the EW0 (see Vacariu 2022). In this
way, the matter-antimatter distinction is totally rejected. Obviously, there are other ED
entities (which belong to EDWs) which have been reveled in correspondence to the
nothing (the EW0). The ED entities like micro- macro and life-entities are in the “chain
of correspondence” to the field-EW: without the existence of field-EW, other ED entities
would not have appeared through correspondence of this field).2
We can extrapolate these correspondences: the EW0 corresponds directly to the
EW1a-n, and indirectly to the EW2b-m, etc. All ED entities (belonging to many EDWs,
but not infinite EDWs - since infinite could not have any ontological status) correspond
to Hypernothing: it means, all ED entities do not exist for Hypernothing, they are nothing
for Hypernothing. In this way, the property (nothing, with no ontological status) is
preserved: exactly as all ED entities moves with the speed of light (shared in different
quantities in “space” and “time”), all ED do not exist for the EW0, they are nothing for
the EW0. In the same way, it did appear only the EW1a-n and we do not need to
introduce “antimatter” (or “the EW-1a-n”). Being more EDWs that appeared in the
hypercorrespondences to the EW0, we do not need antimatter…
I introduced the “revealing” of electromagnetic field (against the classical view of
its appearance from that supposed “infinitezimal point” (after the Big Bangs) just because
it is quite impossible an “infinitezimal point” to exist (to have an ontological status) and
to contains the “entire” energy/matter of “universe”.3 Moreover, physicists presupposes
that “matter” was separated from “antimatter”, but nobody has found any “antimatter”

1
As I wrote in other works, there is a “chain of correspondences” between the field-EW, the micro-EW, the
macro-EW and the life/mind-EW. It means that, without the field-EW, the micro-EW would not have
appeared; the macro-EW would not have appeared without correspondence to the micro-EW; the life/mind-
EW corresponds directly to the macro-EW and indirectly to the micro-EW or the field-EW.
2
Because of this “chain of correspondence”, we can consider the electromagnetic field (with constant speed
independent of the framework of observation/measurement) as being, through correspondences, the
“absolute framework” of ED entities like micro-entities and macro-entities; this is the reason, Einstein was
right: all entities have the speed of light, c. But, as we know, light (the electromagnetic wave and also the
photon, so two EDWs) has no “time”/processes; also, because of “revealing”, light has no “space”, it does
not “move in space”, it is just “revealing” itself in correspondence to Hypernothing (but not in “space”
because we would have a strong ontological contradiction: there can be either space or electromagnetic
field, both entities could not exist in the same “place”, in the same “moment”). (see Vacariu and Vacariu
2016)
3
Obviously, after 380,000 years after Big Bangs, macro-entitites could not have appeared; the
electromagnetic field appeared (it has been revealed) and the macroparticles appeared much later through
correspondence to the microparticles and the electromagnetic field.

44
yet.1 I believe, antimatter could not even exist; within the latest alternative of the EDWs
perspective, I reject the existence of antimatter (see Vacariu 2022b2 and below).
The light of a lantern, for instance, consists in “producing” of an amalgam of
photons which corresponds to some electromagnetic waves (part of the entire
electromagnetic field revealed after the Big Bangs). In sending the photons, the
electromagnetic field is activated. Otherwise, there would be strong ontological
contradictions: the lantern could not emits a new electromagnetic wave since there there
has already been an electromagnetic field (the “universe” is full of electromagnetic field
after the Big Bangs) which can have different frequencies and wavelenghts. The photons
of that lantern have certain frequency and wavelenght. How this light is not an
1
For instance, electron and positron are not “matter” and, respectively, antimatter: if one electron interacts
with an positron, the microparticles do not disappear, they are both transformed in energy. So, these
microparticles do not represent “matter” and “antimatter”.
2
In the article 2022b, I rejected the Big Bang, antimater: “My new idea is the following: in correspondence
to the EW0, there appeared many EDWs (the EW1a-n), therefore, we do not need to introduce any EW-1
(or antimatter); on the contrary, in this article, I reject completely the existence of antimatter (any kind of
antimatter)… It would be completely WRONG to consider there was only ‘one Big Bang’ and only ‘one
universe which appeared (13.82 billions years ago). I was also convinced (no proof) that there were many
Big Bangs at the same time (13.82 billions years ago, for avoiding Guth’s “inflation”), but also many Big
Bangs which appeared ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ in EDWs. Therefore, the line of EDWs and different ‘universes’
is somehow like this one:
- EW0 (Hypernothing) HC (hypercorrespond) to the EW1a-n.
- These EDWs corresponded to (C) EW2b-m … (C) pre-Big Bangs-EW (C) many BBs (in the same area to
avoid Guth’s inflation, 13.82 billion years ago) (C) plasma-EW (C) field-EW (C) micro-EW (C) macro-EW
(C) life/mind-EW.
- ‘Big Bangs’ (ED Big Bangs or Big Bangs corresponding to the same EW) happened in different places, in
different times. Different ‘universes’ (like our ‘universe’) have appeared in different places, in different
periods; all these ‘universes’ are in the same ‘spatiotemporal framework’… also believe, it would be
totally wrong to consider that the entire “energy/matter” was contained in the ‘Big Bang’. As I indicated in
my work 2022, the ‘energy’ of the ‘universe’ has been revealed (and not “produced”) since the Big Bangs
(13.82 billion years ago) until our days. For instance, the entire ‘energy’ of electromagnetic field was not
contained within Big Bangs: this ‘energy’ has been revealed (not produced) 380,000 years after Big Bangs
until today… Within this new framework, we can indicate how many EDWs has accidentally appeared
through direct or indirect hypercorrespondences to EW0 (the Hypernothing). In this way, we exclude any
other alternative (like “God” or the “regress ad infinitum”). Essentially, it is this notion of ‘accidentally’…
In this new context, but also within the EDWs perspective, we have to reject the idea that from
“nothing” appeared “matter” and “antimatter” (equal quantities). In reality, the “antimatter” did not exist at
all. There were the EW0 and direct hypercorrespodences to the EW1a-n, but these EDWs did not exist for
the EW0, so we do not have any rejection of the conservation principle of something (energy/matter) and
nothing: nothing (the EW0) remained nothing, the EW1a (for instance) did not exist for the EW0, so there
is no ontological contradiction at all. I emphasize that my old idea from my previous work (2022) that ‘the
EW0 hypercorresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1’ is totally wrong: in the new context (the
hypercorrespondences to many EW1a-n), I do not need the postulate the existence of the ‘EW-1’; in fact, I
have to reject completely the existence of any kind of ‘anti-matter’. So, ‘antimatter’ is quite a wrong notion
within the EDWs perspective… Conclusion: In this work, I indicate that we have to reject ‘antimatter’ (or
the EW-1 from my perspective published in my work 2022) and its ‘separation from matter’. This kind of
separation would require an ‘external click’. Who did produce such ‘click’, God or it did accidentally
happen? God could not exist (see my work), therefore we could claim it happened accidentally. Why?
Having only one such event (the appearance of one ‘universe’) which did happen accidentally, such
‘accidentally event’ become quite suspicious. If we extend to a much larger number these ‘accidental
events’ (the appearances of EW1a-n), it result that these accidentally events are not ‘absolute accidentally’
(it would require ‘God’ or a ‘special click’), but become something inevitable. Moreover, if we accept the
‘anti-matter’, we need to introduce many anti-matter-EDWs, and this would be quite absurd. Because there

45
ontological contradiction with the existence of the previous electromagnetic field which
appeared after the Big Bangs? The light of that lantern is the emission of certain photons
but, in the same time, it is the activation of the pre-existing electromagnetic field (with
certain frequency and wavelength). Photons are not in contradiction with electromagnetic
field since photons and electromagnetic field belong to EDWs. When someone turn on
the lantern, new photons are emitted indirectly by the fire of light of that lantern, but the
electromagnetic field is activated since an electromagnetic field has already been there
380.000 after the Big Bangs. Otherwise, we have to accept the existence of both
electromagnetic fields, the one after Big Bangs and the one emitted by our lantern with
different features (different frequencies and wavelenghts). The question is if there are two
electromagnetic fields, how do they exist within the same place, at the same time?
Different features of these two fields are enough? It means, one field does not exist for
the other field.1
Let me refer again to the analogy between EW0-EW1a-n and white light-
ROYGBIV2: different wavelenghts in the same place, at the same time produces “white
light”. I turn on the lantern during night and I see its light hitting a wall: the
microparticles could not pass through the microparticles that correspond to the wall, but
the electromagnetic wave (radiation) passes through the wall. 3 With the Big Bangs, the
pre-existing electromagnetic field has been activated.

Newton conducted many experiments with light, which are summarized in his 1704 book Opticks, and
discovered that when clear white light passes through a prism, it refracts into different colors in a particular
order, or what we know as a rainbow. This means that white light is not actually white but is composed of a
humongous spectrum of colors! These colors make up the visible (light) spectrum; it's the part of the
electromagnetic spectrum that human eyes can see. All colors in the visible light spectrum travel at
different wavelengths, with red having the longest wavelength at around 700 nanometers and violet having
the shortest at around 380 nanometers. These wavelengths bend at different angles when passing through a
prism, and this is what causes the rainbow color order to look the way it does. Newton is the one who
decided to interpret the rainbow order in terms of seven unique colors—ROYGBIV—but the truth is that
rainbows consist of more than a million colors, many of which are invisible to the human eye!... Newton
chose to define the rainbow as consisting of seven colors because he believed the number of colors in a
rainbow should be the same as the number of notes in a musical scale. Clearly, this is a pretty arbitrary (and
non-scientific way) to look at the different colors in a rainbow. Indeed, many people still struggle to
distinguish indigo from violet and blue! (Muniz 2019)

What does it mean “white light” is not “white but it is composed of a homogenous
spectrum of colors”?4 What does it mean “compose”? It means that light white does not
were the EW1a-n and because the EW1a did not exist for any EDW, I do not need to introduce the
existence of ‘antimatter’ (the EW-1, for instance). Anyway, within the EDWs perspective, the cosmologists
have to change many essential concepts of Cosmology.” (2022b) (This article has been FREE at Timpul
journal Internet page since it was published in December 2022).
1
Are the ED electromagnetic fields (with different frequencies and wavelenghts) in the same place, at the
same time? The physicists have to answer to this question…
2
“ROYGBIV is an acronym for the sequence of hues commonly described as making up a rainbow: red,
orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. There are several mnemonics that can be used for
remembering this color sequence, such as the name ‘Roy G. Biv’ or sentences such as ‘Richard of York
Gave Battle in Vain’.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROYGBIV)
3
E = mc2 refers to EDWs since energy belongs to the field-EW and ED matters which belong to EDWs.
4
“It is because Aristotle was following the Platonic conception here that he spoke of the ‘reflection of
sight’. Carl Boyer suggested, however, in his book on the history of rainbow that if we are only concerned
with the physical causes of rainbows it would not make any difference if we spoke of the reflection of the

46
really exist? Does it mean it exists only for human observer? But we do not see white
light… However, we see rainbow, that is we see some color of ROYGBIV (obviously, not
all). If rainbow consist of more than a million colors, maybe we can say the same thing
about the relationship (hypercorrespodences) between the EW0 and EDWs.
According to Röhl, there is a distinction between electromagnetic field and wave.
Röhl considers that electromagnetic fields have their proper existences with certain
characteristics: they can be superposed, not countable (continuous stuff), determinate,
interact, etc. So, an electromagnetic field is a continuous stuff which can “coexist” with
ordinary matter. (p. 6) (In reality, there are EDWs…) “At a portion of space occupied by
my body there exist also earth, magnetic and gravitational fields without excluding each
other.” (In fact, there are EDWs, and space or spacetime could not even exist). An
electromagnetic wave has certain features: “(1) time-varying with a specific period
pattern, can (2) be characterized by amplitude, frequency, and wave length (or wave
number) and wave velocity (…)”. (p. 7)

If we clearly distinguish between waves and fields, the characteristics (amplitude, direction, frequency,
wave-length) of the wave can be seen as very properties of the field that makes this particular state or
configuration the field a wave. So these properties would be ascribed to the field as participant, not to the
wave as a process. This would also show that for waves with material bearers we would ways need the field
in addition to the bearer… In the field physics, a wave can be seen as a special filed configuration, a
solution of a special case of a field equation, so it seems somewhat artificial to describe the field as
participant in the wave process as it is this field configuration was something easily distinguishable from
the wave. (Röhl, p. 7)

Waves can occur both in entities that admit of non-field descriptions and in fundamental fields, although a
field description is also possible for the former case. Therefore it seems plausible to treat waves as
dependent on fields. (Röhl, p. 8)

The relationship between white light and ROYGBIV mirrors (just an analogy, nothing
more), somehow, the relationship between the Hypernothing (the EW0) and the EW1a-n.
The EW0 has no ontology (it is nothing with its hyperontology) that means the EW0
hypercorrespond directly to the EW1a-n and indirectly to all EDWs. 1 I recall the field-
EW has just been revealed (not produced by the Big Bangs - more exactly, after the
plasma-EW). The electromagnetic field is placed in all extension/“space” of this
“Universe” and it has extended since the Big Bangs until today and, probable, it will be
extended in the future. However, having speed c, the electromagnetic fields
(electromagnetic waves) do not have “time”. Being only revealed, we can consider this

light instead11. If we adopt this suggestion, then we may say that Aristotle was looking in the right
direction, namely, he was rightly seeking the causes of rainbows in the interactions between the light from
the sun and water drops in the air.” (Iida 213) “In short, a rainbow is a public sight. To repeat, each person
sees one and the same rainbow from her own perspective. But, a rainbow is different from other objects and
events that can be perceived from different perspectives in that the difference of perspectives does not seem
to make a change in the phenomenal content of its perception.” (Iida 2013, p. 16) “In sum, a rainbow is an
event, and should not be identified with its visual appearance to us, although it is recognized as such by its
characteristic appearance, namely, that multi-colored and arch-like shape. This means that a rainbow itself
can exist without appearing to us.” (Iida 2013, p. 17) “… a rainbow is in reality a complicated event
consisting of numerous smaller events of refractions and reflections and its participants are the mass of
water drops in the air and the light rays from the sun.” (Iida 2013, p. 18)
1
I recall, there is a direct correspondence between the field-EW and the micro-EW, and an indirect
correspondence between the field-EW and the macro-EW.

47
field is not even placed in “space” (since even “space” could not exist). We can consider
that the macro-EW are placed somewhere (one in relationship to the others), but we
cannot find any relationship for this electromagnetic field which covers the entire “space”
since the Big Bangs. All micro-entities or all macro-entities correspond to this field (the
field-EW), i.e., one such entity exists in relationship to other entities form the same EW.
We can attribute a “time” and a “space” to a micro-entity (or macro-entity), but we
cannot attribute space or time to the electromagnetic field (the field-EW). So, the same
rule that we applied to the relationship between the EW0 and the EW1a-n can be applied
to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW and the EDWs that appeared, accidentally, after the Big Bangs.
Maybe there were EDWs after the Big Bangs/plasma-EW, not only the field-EW (which
accidentally and immediately corresponded to the micro-EW), we do not know yet, but
these EDWs could be in the same “Universe” with EDWs (field-EW, micro-EW, macro-
EW) or in other “places”.1

2.5 More details about special theory of relativity2

Let me investigate, very shortly, some ideas referring to special relativity (from Greene
1999). We already know that, according to special relativity, “simultaneity” does not exist
since the speed of light is c, not infinite (and this speed cannot be passed - something to
pass c requires infinite mass and infinite energy, quantities that could not even exist!). For
Einstein, “time” exists because we can measure it using a “clock”. For instance, in his
example, Greene uses a clock made from a photon which travel between two mirrors:
“one second” is from the moment the photon travel from the above mirror to the below
mirror and return. If the clock is in motion (“sliding clock”), the path travelled by a
photon will be longer; therefore, the second will be longer (“time dilation”). 3 For me,
since space and time could not exist, I rejected the notions of “time dilation” and “space
contraction”. There are just “longer processes” (not “time dilation”) and “smaller
extensions” (not “space contraction”). Nevertheless, light has the same speed c
independent of the framework of measurement.

A big clue for how to do this comes from a central piece of information we have already encountered.
When an object moves through space relative to us, its clock runs slow compared to ours. That is, the speed
of its motion through time slows down. Here's the leap: Einstein proclaimed that all objects in the universe

1
Again, I draw the attention on the great difference between EDWs and “multiverse”: EDWs are in the
same “place” or in different places, the “universes” of the “multiverse” are always placed in different
places.
2
The EDWs perspective applied to both special relativities and quantum mechanics, see Vacariu 2006,
2007, 2008, etc.)
3
“The simple but essential point is that the double diagonal path that we see the photon traverse is longer
than the straight up-and-down path taken by the photon in the stationary clock; in addition to traversing the
up-and-down distance, the photon in the sliding clock must also travel to the right, from our perspective.
Moreover, the constancy of the speed of light tells us that the sliding clock’s photon travels at exactly the
same speed as the stationary clock’s photon. But since it must travel farther to achieve one tick it will tick
less frequently. This simple argument establishes that the moving light clock, from our perspective, ticks
more slowly than the stationary light clock. And since we have agreed that the number of ticks directly
reflects how much time has passed, we see that the passage of time has slowed down for the moving
clock.” (Greene 1999, pp. 22-3) It is not about “time dilation” (“one second is longer”), but simply the
motion of the photon takes place in a longer path (not longer space)! Nothing else… In motion, all
processes of any mechanism (it does not matter what kind of the mechanism is involved) take place longer
(that is, the elements of that mechanism travel in a longer distances due to the motion of that mechanism).

48
are always traveling through spacetime at one fixed speed—that of light. This is a strange idea; we are used
to the notion that objects travel at speeds considerably less than that of light. We have repeatedly
emphasized this as the reason relativistic effects are so unfamiliar in the everyday world. All of this is true.
We are presently talking about an object's combined speed through all four dimensions—three space and
one time—and it is the object's speed in this generalized sense that is equal to that of light. To understand
this more fully and to reveal its importance, we note that like the impractical single-speed car discussed
above, this one fixed speed can be shared between the different dimensions—different space and time
dimensions, that is. If an object is sitting still (relative to us) and consequently does not move through space
at all, then in analogy to the first runs of the car, all of the object's motion is used to travel through one
dimension—in this case, the time dimension. Moreover, all objects that are at rest relative to us and to each
other move through time—they age—at exactly the same rate or speed. If an object does move through
space, however, this means that some of the previous motion through time must be diverted. Like the car
traveling at an angle, this sharing of motion implies that the object will travel more slowly through time
than its stationary counterparts, since some of its motion is now being used to move through space. That is,
its clock will tick more slowly if it moves through space. This is exactly what we found earlier. We now see
that time slows down when an object moves relative to us because this diverts some of its motion through
time into motion through space. The speed of an object through space is thus merely a reflection of how
much of its motion through time is diverted. (Greene 1999, p. 27)

The most important words are the following: “Here's the leap: Einstein proclaimed that
all objects in the universe are always traveling through spacetime at one fixed speed—
that of light. This is a strange idea…”. Indeed, all objects (microparticles or
macroparticles) always travel with the speed of light, but they travel not in “spacetime”,
but in “nothing” which always corresponds to the electromagnetic field (with speed c). In
this case, the photon does not travel in an electromagnetic field, the photon corresponds
to an electromagnetic field (both photon and electromagnetic field have the speed c).

2.6 More details about general theory of relativity

Now, let me write few words about general theory of relativity. The problem of special
theory of relativity (which refers to the phenomena having constant speed) was that it
could not explain “gravity”. Obviously, with his theory of gravity, Newton realized the
great unification between the falling apple and the movement of planets. 1 We knew
Newton could not furnished a definition of “gravity”; he introduced only the
mathematical formula for the “force of gravitation”, but he did not have a clear of
gravity.2
Let me introduce several paragraphs regarding general relativity from Greene’s
book (1999) which I will comment below:

1
Maxwell was the scientist/mathematician who realized the second greatest unification: he unified the
magnetic field with the electric field. With my discovery of EDWs, I realized the first “greatest
desunification” in the history of human thinking…
2
“It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter, should, without the mediation of something else, which is
not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact. That Gravity should be innate,
inherent and essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a vacuum without
the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed, from one to
another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical matters a competent
faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to
certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my
readers.” (Newton in Greene 1999, p. 30) Greene continues with this sentence: “That is, Newton accepted
the existence of gravity and went on to develop equations that accurately describe its effects, but he never
offered any insight into how it actually works.” (Greene 1999, p. 30)

49
- “Einstein called the indistinguishability between accelerated motion and gravity the
equivalence principle.” (Greene 1999, p. 32) More exactly, gravity “is the warping of
space and time”. (Greene 1999, p. 35)
- “The sun, like the bowling ball, warps the fabric of space surrounding it, and the earth's
motion, like that of the ball bearing, is determined by the shape of the warp… The
difference, now, is that unlike Newton, Einstein has specified the mechanism by which
gravity is transmitted: the warping of space.” (Greene 1999, p. 36)
- “Einstein was able to calculate how fast disturbances to the fabric of the universe travel
and he found that they travel at precisely the speed of light.” (Greene 1999, p. 38, his
italics)
We have to interpret these paragraphs from the EDWs perspective. In our book
2016, we indicated “spacetime” could not have any ontological status. Therefore, in that
book, we re-wrote Einstein’s special and general relativities without spacetime. Gravity is
not “warping of space and time”, gravity is “warping” (indirectly through the
correspondences between the electromagntic field and the macroparticles) the
electromagnetic field, nothing more. “Quantum gravity” and “gravitons” do not exist at
all. We cannot detect the warping of electromagnetic field at “micro-scales”, but at
“macro-scales” (abstract notion) is not “spacetime” which is warped, it is “nothing” (no
ontological status) which corresponds to the electromagnetic field which is warped not by
a planet (the planet does not exist within the field-EW), but by a huge concentrated
electromagnetic field from the field-EW (this electromagnetic fieldcorresponds, within
the macro-EW, to a planet) which wraps the electromagnetic field which surrounds that
concentrated electromagnetic field.1 Gravity travels with the speed of light just because
“gravity” (no ontological status at all, not even as being the “warping of spacetime” since
spacetime could not have any ontology!) is the deformation of the electromagnetic field
which has the speed c.2

1
“This description shows that general relativity finishes a job initiated by special relativity. Through its
principle of relativity, the special theory of relativity declares a democracy of observational vantage points:
the laws of physics appear identical to all observers undergoing constant-velocity motion. But this is
limited democracy indeed, for it excludes an enormous number of other viewpoints—those of individuals
who are accelerating. Einstein's 1907 insight now shows us how to embrace all points of view—constant
velocity and accelerating—within one egalitarian framework. Since there is no difference between an
accelerated vantage point without a gravitational field and a nonaccelerated vantage point with a
gravitational field, we can invoke the latter perspective and declare that all observers, regardless of their
state of motion, may proclaim that they are stationary and ‘the rest of the world is moving by them,’ so long
as they include a suitable gravitational field in the description of their own surroundings. In this sense,
through the inclusion of gravity, general relativity ensures that all possible observational vantage points are
on equal footing.” (Greene 1999, p. 32) We can generalize the framework of thinking (“all possible
observational vantage points are on equal footing”) just because all observers (macro-entities or micro-
entities) correspond to the electromagnetic field with a constant speed c…
2
Maybe we can talk about “spacetime” within the macro-EW or the micro-EW or even the field-EW, but
the “spacetime” could not have any ontological status. The “spacetime” is the electromagnetic field (he
field-EW), therefore, there are only correspondences between the electromagnetic field and the “nothings”
(spacetimes) between the macro or micro-entities (within the macro-EW or the micro-EW). “This merger
was summarized by the poetic words of Minkowski, who during a lecture on special relativity in 1908 said,
‘Henceforward space on its own and time on its own will decline into mere shadows, and only a kind of
union between the two will preserve its independence’.” (Greene 1999, p. 34) In fact, the “union” between
“space” and “time” was possible just because neither space nor time could have any ontological status, so it
was an abstract “union”, no more.

50
Let me introduce now some ideas about a kind of framework for an “absolute
spacetime”. In this sense, regarding quantum interpretations, Putnam notices that

It is that neither of these theories is Lorentz invariant, and it seems likely to me there is no rigorous proof,
but, as Maudlin argues, it is pretty clear that no theory in either of the classes that they represent (the ‘no
collapse and hidden variables class’ and the ‘spontaneous collapse’ class) can do without an ‘absolute time’
parameter. An absolute time will come back into the picture if either sort of theory is destined to be the
future physics. (Putnam 2005, p. 631)

Can we soften the ‘bad news’ that we may need to return to a notion of ‘absolute time’? My final
suggestion is this: when it comes to quantum cosmology—and, as yet, neither GRW nor the Bohm theory
has been extended to quantum cosmology—in my view, present-day quantum cosmology does already
involve a ‘background’ time parameter. It is sometimes concealed, as when cosmologists say that they are
not really taking an absolute time as the parameter in the Schrödinger equation but are taking something
such as the ‘radius’ of the universe as the time parameter (and hoping that this is a well-behaved quantity).
But this parameter plays exactly the role of an absolute time in which the cosmos is supposed to evolve.
The reason for its presence is that, in present-day quantum cosmology, one does not talk about one
single space-time. Quantum mechanics depends on the idea that all physical ‘states of the world’ (Live Cat,
Dead Cat, Red Light lights, Green Light lights, and so on) are represented by mathematical objects, vectors,
which can be multiplied by scalars and can be added, so that one gets such states as p(Green Light lights) þ
q(Red Light lights). In quantum cosmology, the state vectors can represent different geometries of space-
time. (A classic presentation is Misner et al. [1973].) In effect, one superimposes whole space-times. And
this superposition of space-times evolves in the background time.
So, what relieves my initial distress at the idea of an absolute time coming back into the picture is
the following thought: it might not be quite as bad a contradiction of Einstein’s vision as it first seems. It
might be that, before we ‘superimpose’, each space-time is perfectly Einsteinian—each space-time is a
Minkowski space-time which knows nothing about any ‘simultaneity’. And it may be that the time
parameter that both GRW and Bohm need is just the absolute time parameter that quantum cosmology
seems to need. Of course, this is just a speculation. But it would mean that, although Einstein would have to
admit that there is such a thing as simultaneity, it comes from ‘outside’ any one well-defined space-time, it
comes from the quantum mechanical ‘interference’ between whole space-times. (Putnam 2005, p. 632)

Let me interpret, from the EDWs perspective, Putnam’s paragraphs. Indeed, we have,
somehow, to introduce an “absolute time”, but not as real physic “parameter”, but only as
a “tool of describing” the behavior of certain ED physical entities (for instance, micro-
entities and macro-entities). The physical “background” of microparticles (the micro-
EW) and macroparticles (the macro-EW) is the corresponding electromagnetic field (the
field-EW). However, this field has a constant speed, c, for all observers. “Time” does not
exist either for the electromagnetic field (the field-EW) or for photons (the micro-EW)
because all these ED entities have the speed c (in fact a clock could not measure one
second since all its mechanism moves with speed c). In my EDWs framework, we can
consider the field-EW as the “primordial EW” in the “chain of correspondences” (field-
micro-macro-life). Without the field-EW, we could not speak about the micro-EW or the
macro-EW (without the macro-EW, the life-EW could not appear!). 12 But, within the
“unicorn view”, the electromagnetic field does not have “time” even if it moves in space.

1
In this way, with the EDWs perspective, we avoid that “infinitezimal point” which contained all energy
and matter that has appeared from the “Big Bang” until now…
2
“The special theory of relativity owes its origins to Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic field.”
(Albert Einstein) This statement is quite normal since the field-EW is the primordial EW of the “first chain
of correspondences” (field-micro-macro-life) and the speed of electromagnetic field is c, independent of the
status of any observer…

51
Within the EDWs perspective, I indicated that the “electromagnetic field did not moves
in space”, it has been revealed itself (accidentally1) since the Big Bangs until now.2
As Putnam writes, “one does not talk about one single space-time”, there are
“geometries of space-time”. In reality, there are EDWs, but not “spacetime” (spacetime
could not have any ontology, otherwise, any ontology would produce some strong
ontological contradictions, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016). Moreover, the electromagnetic
field can be “straight” or “curved” (it depends if there are planets or not) and this
electromagnetic field is not placed in “spacetime”, but in “nothing” which maybe
corresponds to something which belongs to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW (we have no prove for
this idea). The micro-EW or the macro-EW did not have a pre-existence; these EDWs
have been formed in (direct or indirect) correspondences to the field-EW immediately
after the Big Bangs and later (the macro-EW - its macro-entities - almost one billion
years later).
Within the EDWs perspective, we can talk about an “absolute spacetime” (with no
ontological status, just as a tool of explanation) only based on the (direct or indirect)
correspondences between the “primary EW” (the field-EW) and certain EDWs (the
micro-EW, the macro-EW, the life-EW) in our “chain of correspondences” but taking into
account that the speed of electromagnetic field (the field-EW) is constant (being
independent of the state of any observer) and this speed is the maximum speed an entity
can reach. Because of the speed c, the electromagnetic field has no “time” (i.e., a clock
would not mark any second); it is “placed” in “nothing” (no ontological background
which maybe corresponds to something which belongs to an EDW, we don’t know yet),
but we cannot say that it is placed in a particular “space” (since space(time) could not
have any ontological status). The EW1a-n appeared exactly as the lives appeared on
Earth: the life did not appear from macro-entities, but in certain correspondences to these
entities. Life did not appear only in correspondence to one entity (an entity “having life”).
Obviously, the environment created the conditions of appearance of lives in many places
on Earth. Therefore, the lives appeared in different places, not in the same time but in
different periods. Exactly the same thing happened with the appearances of EW1a-n:
there was not only one EW1a which appeared in hypercorrespondence to the EW0; there
were many EW1a-n which appeared in different “periods”. Why the EW1a-n appear in
hypercorrespondences to the EW0? The answer is exactly as the “lives” appeared on the
Earth in correspondences to certain macro-entities: accidentally. There was no God, not
regress ad infinitum, but only “nothing” (the EW0) which was the “hypercorresponding
conditions of possibility” for appeareances of many EDWs (the EW1a-n) in different
1
Obviously, there are other “universes” in different places, in different periods. Electromagnetic field has
been accidentally revealed, but in other “universes”, there are other kinds of matter that were revealed.
2
In our “chain of correspondences”, we have to include the pre-Big-Bangs-EW… But we have to be aware
that, in correspondences to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW, maybe other EDWs has appeared… we don’t know,
yet… Like in hypercorrespondences with the EW0, not only one EDW appeared, but many EDWs (the
EDWs1a-n) appeared and maybe EDWs have still appeared in totally different places than where our
“universe” is placed, in the last year… I am convinced that the religious thinking (the existence of “one
God”) has influenced, directly and indirectly, the human thinking: philosophers and the scientists have
restricted all the existences to “one continent”, “one planet”, “one planetar system”, “one galaxy”, and “one
world/Universe”. Only different forms of “reductionism” had been available within the unicorn world until
the appearance of my approach (2002-2003 and mainly 2005 since in 2006 there are tens of people
“discovering” “different realities”, i.e., my EDWs). Also, the existence of self in itself (no “access” to other
selves) has influenced this way of thinking pro-“only one”.

52
“places”, in different “periods”. I emphasize again that the EW0 has been the
hypercorresponding “conditions of possibility” for many EDWs (the EW1a-n), not for
only one EW.1 Probably, in this period (how long period? I do not know exactly), an
EDW appears in itself (it does not exist for any EDW, including the EW0), but in the
hypercorrespondence to the EW0 somewhere… Why these EDWs (the EW1a-n) have
appeared in the hypercorrespondence to the EW0? Each EW has its “conditions of
possibility” of appearance “in itself” (no ontology) and in hypercorrespondence to the
EW0 (and in direct or indirect correspondences to EDWs). Life (an EW) appears in itself,
but in correspondence to a macro-entity, the organism (the macro-EW). I recall, again,
ROYBGIV for EDWs: all EW1a-n were “nothing”, i.e., they hypercorresponded to the
EW0. The EW1a (and, compulsory, all EDW1b-n) accidentally “appeared” in itself and
through hypercorrespondence to the EW0. The EW1a did not exist either for “nothing”
(the EW0), or for the EW1b (for instance). A life-EW appeared accidentally in itself but
always in correspondences to a physical organism created (also accidentally) within the
macro-EW from certain macro-entities (these entties being without corresponding to any
“life”).
I recall that the field-EW has no “time” (even just as description since
“spacetime” cannot have any ontological status, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016) as we can
describe the macro-EW, for instance) just because the speed of electromagnetic field is c.
We can consider that the field-EW does not have even “space” (if we believe the field is
placed within a “spatial framework”, there would be an ontological contradiction).
Officially, an electromagnetic field started 380.000 years after Big Bang when
temperature decreased enough first photons and waves to evade. From the EDWs
perspective, the electromagnetic field was not produced by the Big Bang; after the Big
Bangs, the electromagnetic field has been revealed until our days. We have to pay
attention to the features of the electromagnetic field, these features being the closed to
“nothing”: it is continuous, it has neither “time”/processes, nor interactions, not even
entities (like microparticles). Mostly, this field had electromagnetic waves; because of the
interactions between these entities, the corresponding microparticles have been created.
However, the micro-EW (or macro-EW) has more different features than “nothing”: there
are micro/macro-entities (discontinuities) and their interactions; we can only “attribute”
space and time (or spacetime) to micro/macro-entities2. So, their traits are more different
than “nothing”. It is more difficult to associate the micro-EW or the macro-EW to
“nothing” than the field-EW. The mind-EW has features totally different than the field-
EW. Obviously, the same thing we can sustain about the EW1a-n and the EW2b-p, for
instance: the hypercorresponding EDWs (the EW1a-n) are closer to nothing than the
corresponding EDWs (the EW2b-p, for instance). Again, the electromagnetic field has
been revealed not produced (as I indicated above and in my book 2022). It represents
1
If there were only one EW hypercorrespoding to the EW0, it would be quite difficult to accept that the
appearance of this EW was just accidentally. Such “accident” would have just very few chances to take
place. This is the main reason, we have to accept the hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and many
EDWs (EW1a-n) in different places, in different periods. It would be “ED accidents” (and “different
accidents” - for instance, the appearances of different “universes” in different places, in different “times”
within the same EW), not only one… Again, life did not appear on Earth just in one place, at one moment
but surely in many places on Earth, in different “times”.
2
We can attribute an abstract “spacetime” just because of the correspondences between electromagnetic
field and micro-macroparticles. Without these correspondences, we could not even attribute such abstract
“spacetime”.

53
“nothing” (no ontology) for the micro-entities and the macro-entities which we can
associate them with a “spatiotemporal explanations” (no ontology for any
“spatiotemporal framework”). Within the same “spatial framework”, there are all EW1a-n
(even if some of these EDWs could not have “spatial explanation” like the mind-EW).
The “conditions of possibility” (Kant) do not have any ontological status. These
conditions represent the “possibilities” of appearances, but these possibilities do not have
any ontological status. The EW0 represented the “conditions of possibility” for the
EW1a-n. at the beginning, when there was only EW0, these EDWs are in a potential
status, all these EDWs representing Hypernothing. Accidentally, from potential, each (or
maybe not all, but some) of these EDWs became actual, but this actuality happened in
itself, for itself (since an EW did not exist for any EDW). In this way, we have to define
the existence of any EW. Hypernothing remains Hypernothing and nothing else. Any EW
among these EDWs appeared only accidentally but in hypercorrespondence to the EW0.
Without such hypercorrespondence, any EW among the EW1a-n could not appeared.
There were no rule regarding the appearances of EW1a-n. Of course, there are some
correspondences between microparticles and macroparticles (a macro-entity is just an
amalgam of microparticles), but there are no such relationships between any EW1a-n and
the EW0: the appearance of any EW among EW1a-n was completely accidentally since
the EW0 was nothing and nothing else.
If we consider a particular case (there was no “universe” before the Big Bangs),
than before these Big Bangs (12.82 billion years ago) there was only the EW0
(Hypernothing). After the Big Bangs appeared the plasma-EW and, later (380,000 years
later), the field-EW appeared, or better, revealed in “correspondence” to “nothing” (as I
mentioned in 2022). The electromagnetic field has been revealed from those moments
(380.000 after Big Bangs) until now: actually, other parts of the electromagnetic field are
revealed in (all) directions in which the “Universe” has been extending since “its”
appearance. In reality, after the Big Bang (and ignoring the plasma-EW), our “Universe”
has been a manifestation (transformation from the “state of potentiality” to the “state of
actuality”) of the electromagnetic field. This electromagnetic field has been in a potential
state which has become actual state (through its revealing) in time. Maybe in other
places, in other periods, certain EDWs have been revealed in hypercorrespondence to the
EW0 or produced in correspondences to EDWs. All the EW1-n have been revealed in
hypercorrespondences to Hypernothing, while some EDWs appeared (later) in
correspondences to these EW1a-n (like the EW2b-m, etc.). However, the field-EW (in
this particular case, but all EW1a-n, in the general case) did not exist before the Big
Bangs, but it was in a “potential state” with other EDWs. In this work, I officially
rejected the existence of the “anti-field-EW” from my book 2022 (and maybe other
works). More exactly, I replace the “anti-field-EW” with certain EDWs. In general case, I
replaced “the EW1 and the EW-1” with the “EW1a-n”. All these EW1a-n represented
“nothing”, i.e., the EW0.
We return again to the analogy to ROYGBIV: together, all colors represent white
light. Using a prism (as Newton did), colors are separated and become visible for human
eyes. Before this separation, human eyes do not see even white color. We see the objects
which absorb majority of wavelenghts and reflect one electromagnetic wave of the light
(the color that we attribute to that object). Within white light, colors do not exist for
human eyes. In the same way, we cannot see the EW0 (Hypernothing) since it does not

54
have any ontology. Without any ontological status, there is nothing to observe. A prism
separates the electromagnetic waves attributed to different colors and human eyes are
able to perceive these colors. And now the analogy: together, all EW1a-n are in the same
status as colors are in ROYGBIV: the EW1a-n represent the EW0, while colors represent
white light. In relationship to human eyes, colors do not exist before they are separated
using that prism. When prism separates colors, each color is separated from other colors
and becomes visible. In the same way, each EW among the EW1a-n became active in
itself for itself. It is not necessary to consider each EW became separated from other
EDWs. So, at this point, we have to stop the analogy. Each EW (among the EW1a-n)
became active from its potential state (together, all these EDWs were in the “potential
states” and represented nothing, i.e., the EW0). Together, all EW1a-n did not exist;
however, at different moments, these EDWs started to exist, each in itself, for itself.
These EDWs did not exist for the EW0; the EW0 has always been nothing, i.e., being
“nothing”, it has not been existed.1 “Nothing” has no ontology, it is not extended (like the
field-EW), time could not be attributed because there are no processes, no entities, there
is nothing. I recall: this “nothing” hypercorresponded to the EW1a-n (all EW1a-n
“represented” the EW0).

1
Can we consider the electromagnetic field being in a potential state, and the electromagnetic waves and
the photons (for instance) became active? I do not know, the physicists have to answer to this question…

55
Chapter 3

More details about Hypernothing and its hyperontology1

3.1 Hypernothing (epistemologically different then “something” and “nothing”)

In my previous books (2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016a, 2016b), using EDWs, I
investigated the main streams of human knowledge, mainly in the particular sciences,
such as physics, cognitive (neuro)science, biology and philosophy. With the EDWs
perspective, I have given answers to the main problems of these domains. In my book
(2017), I have investigated other areas (like thermodynamics) and topics of physics. So, I
can claim that I have written about almost everything. I indicated that the regress ad
infinitum, nothing and God are just empty concepts (Vacariu and Vacariu 2019).
Let me insert more ideas about “nothing”. “Because it’s not there might be reason
enough to write a book about Nothing, especially if the author has already written one
about Everything.” (Barrow 2002) What does “nothing” mean, in general? Kuhn
(2017/2013) indicates five alternatives: “(1) a blank is absurd; (2) no explanation needed;
(3) chance; (4) value/perfection as ultimate; and (5) mind/consciousness as ultimate”.
(Kuhn 2017/2013, p. 1) Kuhn indicates nine levels of nothing: it starts with space and
time without any objects, visible objects, matter and energy, laws, abstract objects,
possibilities and God. However, Hypernothing is something completely different from
this “nothing”, since Kuhn’s “nothing” refers to the “nothing” constructed within the
unicorn world. On the contrary, Hypernothing has to be beyond “something” or
“nothing”: it cannot be “something” (“something” would require a previous cause), it
cannot be “nothing” (“nothing” produces nothing). Therefore, Hypernothing hyperis
Hypernothing. What does “nothing” mean for physics? According to the Merriam-
Webster’s dictionary,

nonexistence is the negation of being. There are several ways to refer to this enormous entity: zero, null,
empty, vacuum, void. All of these refer to the idea of nonexistence. There is more of this “nothingness” in
the universe than there is physical existence. However, none of this is empty. We need to define what
“empty” means in order to understand “nothing”. Emptiness can be filled endlessly with more nothing
without ever becoming full. (Stock 2017)

In the past, my works covered the main topics of various sciences and philosophy.
Therefore, just because I have already written about “Everything”, it is my duty to deal
with “Nothing”. In my EDWs framework, I will investigate Hypernothing (quite a
different notion from “nothing”): for me, Hypernothing is the first EW (a kind of
Aristotle’s “prime/unmoved mover”; these both expressions are quite wrong, so I
replaced them with something completely new: “Hypernothing”).
Let me clarify the difference between “Hypernothing” and “nothing”. When we talk
about “nothing”, it is about “nothing” which “refers” to a particular EW. For instance,
“on a table, there are two glasses of water and nothing else between them”. The table and
those two glasses belong to the macro-EW. Between these two glasses there is “nothing”
(we eliminate the air, dust etc.). The “nothing” between these two glasses has no
ontological status. However, this “nothing” corresponds to some microparticles that
1
Large parts of this chapter are from my work 2022.

56
belong to the micro-EW, for instance. On the contrary, Hypernothing has a kind of
hyperontology, that is beyond the ontologies of all EDWs that we know and we can know
in the future. “Hypernothing” has a hyperontology. We know that an EW does not exist
for any EDW, but the ontologies of all EDWs (except the EW0) are “somethings”, while
the hyperontology of Hypernothing is hypernothing, nothing more or less. The
“hyperontology of Hypernothing” is not only beyond the ontology of any actual or
possible EW, but it is the hyperontology of Hypernothing. Why do I need to postulate the
existence of such a hyperontology? The answer is in the following statements:

Without the hyperontology of Hypernothing, all EDWs would not be at all (even if one
EW does not exist for any EDW), i.e., there would not be any ED ontology, or any
ontological entity would not exist.
If Hypernothing were just “nothing”, then all EDWs would not be. The “hyperontology”
is something different from “ontology”. The EW0 hypercorreponded to the EW1a-n.
Since “nothing” has no ontological status, the old and well-known verdict “Nothing can
appear from nothing” is very true within the EDWs perspective.
Even if Hypernothing hyperis an EW, this EW hyperis the “first EW”, the EW0. Any kind
of “epistemological ontology” has to be rejected, otherwise, we have to accept the
existence of “infinity”, but “infinity” cannot exist (i.e., it cannot have ontological
status). If “infinity” existed (for instance, the infinite space and time), I would not
be “here” and “now”.

My main thesis that I present in this chapter is the following: “Hypernothing hyperis and
hypercorresponded to EW1a-n”. As an EW, the Hypernothing cannot be/exist since “any
EW is”. Only ED entities (objects, for instance) “exist” in EDWs. Moreover, only the
“self” (as an entity and an EW) has an ontology and the Hypernothing really have a
hyperontology, while some EDWs do not have real ontologies (for instance, the macro-
EW or the micro-EW are not). Only ED entities and their interactions really exist.
Many thinkers would wonder: “Where did everything come from?” Following the
unicorn world framework and very old religious sources, the answer of the majority of
physicists has been: “From nothing”. Isn’t it a wonderful answer? “Why is there
something rather than nothing? Well, why not? Why we presuppose ‘nothing’ rather than
‘something’? No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘there is nothing’ because any
observation obviously implies the existence of an observer.” (Sorensen 2015, p. 1)
Indeed, for everything that really “exists” (not “is”), there has to be an “observer” (in our
terms, there have to be certain “interactions”). Since an EW is (does not exist), I
introduce a rule:

Hypernothing hyperis an EW, therefore, in principle, it is quite impossible for a human

being to be an “observer” of the EW0, (not even indirectly - as the human being can
indirectly observe some EDWs).

The human observer is (the body, which exists, belongs to the macro-EW, the mind is an
EW), while Hypernothing hyperis. An EW is not for any EDW, but more than this state,
the EW0 hyperis, while EDWs are. So, the relationship “hyperis-is” indicates that it is
quite impossible for the EW0 to be observed (not even indirectly) by a human being; it is
quite impossible for the EW0 to interact with something else (either an EDW or an

57
entity). So, a human body does not belong to the EW0 and cannot interact with this EW.
A kind of hyperinteraction between any human body and Hypernothing would be
necessary, but I have no idea what this hyperinteraction would be. Obviously, from my
viewpoint, the EW0 does not exist (as any EDW). However, the Hypernothing-EW
hyperis hypernothing (a kind of “nothing”). Anyway, Hypernothing has no ED ontology
for us, like all EDWs. The EW0 is nothing for us and for all ED entities (EDWs). From
this “nothing”, through hypercorrespondence, appeared the EW1a-n, but each of these
EDWs appeared in itself, any relationship of these EDWs with the EW0 being
ontologically rejected. I emphasize, there was not a separation between these two EDWs.
From the viewpoint of EW0 (i.e., a kind of “nothing”), this separation does not exist, so
these EDWs are, together, “nothing” and nothing else.
Does Hypernothing have a kind of unity? Firstly, we are tempted to support the
idea that Hypernothing has indeed a unity. If Hypernothing were composed of certain
entities, then it would not be Hypernothing. I emphasize that it is completely meaningless
to believe that Hypernothing is composed of certain elements. However, I strongly claim
that Hypernothing is beyond “unity-disunity” distinction just because of its “aspects” (the
“possible conditions of existence”). If Hypernothing had a “unity”, no EDW would
appear, through correspondence, of course. If Hypernothing had a disunity, I would need
to explain this disunity (maybe I would need to introduce a previous EDW), so it is better
to reject any disunity. Again, Hypernothing is exactly as nothing is, it has nothing to do
with something (ED ontologies) or nothing (no ontology). The “absolute viewpoint” is
Hypernothing’s viewpoint (the first viewpoint), which it is “nothing”, the supreme
ontological status (“nothing” is missing). In this context, I need to introduce the “negative
principle of appearances of EDWs”:

The appearances of EDWs are randomly/accidentally processes exactly as there were the appearances of
animals species on Earth. The appearances of EDWs are quite spontaneously, accidentally ED processes.1

In “nothing”, it appears spontaneously, an EW or an EDW, but this new EDW can

correspond or not, later, with the appearance of a “chain of EDWs”. Only if we put
together all EW1a-n, we get “nothing”. When one of us die, “its” life returns to
“nothing”: it means the body is transformed in the ED entities, the self/life (which
corresponds to the body) disappears completely (as an EW), and from the viewpoint of
the EW0, something “positive” happens. The EW0 was not perturbed when each EW
among the EW1a-n appeared. The uniformity of Hypernothing was not perturbed by the
appearances of EW1a-n. The spontaneous appearances of EW1a-n were accidentally and
these appearances hypercorresponded to the EW0. The “hypercorrespondence” involve
that nothing changed in the EW0 with the appearances of EW1a-n (nothing could chance
in the EW0). I repeat:

The uniformity of the EW0 (i.e., nothing) was not perturbed by the spontaneously appearances of EW1a-n.
Nothing has remained nothing (and nothing else), even if the EW1a-n spontaneously appeared just because
each EW among all EW1a-n exist in itself, but not in direct relationship with the EW0, only direct
hypercorrespodences.

1
The notion of “accidentally” rejects the existence of God or regress ad infinitum…

58
From the viewpoint of EW1a (for instance), Hypernothing is not, and the EW1b-n aren’t.
Exaggerating, in analogy to Aristotle’s Prime Motor, I can claim that Hypernothing is the
“Prime EW”. Without Hypernothing, without the uniformity of Hypernothing, nothing
would have existed.
The question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is inevitably based
on Kantian category of “causality”: everything needs to have a cause for its appearance in
the “universe”. From my viewpoint, I could speak about “causality” only between the
entities which belong to the same EW. Other kinds of “causalities” are meaningless, since
one EW is not for any EDW. To stop an “infinite chain of causalities and to follow
Aristotle’s rule of “Prime engine”, philosophers and mainly physicists introduced
“nothing”: before the Big Bang, was nothing. However, many cosmologists claimed that
the Big Bang separated “matter” from “antimatter”1. Obviously, the main reason for the
introduction of “nothing” into this equation was that the question “What produced
nothing?” has always been meaningless. It is quite common that, when someone
discovers a very difficult question, other people consider that question meaningless.
“Nothing can appear from nothing” (Parmenides), even if we have to accept that the
“Universe” (i.e., the EW1a-n, but not the micro-EW or the macro-EW) appeared from
“nothing” precisely in order to avoid the regress ad infinitum argument. The notion of
“causality” has been questioned upon mainly after the development of quantum
mechanics: this notion, “causality”, has been placed within the realm of great problems,
but ever since the birth of quantum mechanics until today, the physicists have not been
able to notice that they had been working within the wrong framework, the unicorn
world. As I showed in the past, all alternatives to quantum mechanics are wrong, since
the framework under which these theories have been constructed has been quite wrong,
the unicorn world. Under the EDWs perspective, the “causalities” between the
events/processes which belong to EDWs are also excluded, since one EW does not exist
for any EDW. In our mind (and only in our mind), there are certain correspondences,
nothing more. There is a kind of “succession” of the appearances of EDWs, but “time”
and “space” could have any ontological status; if these notions had ontological status,
there would be strong ontological contradictions. (Again, see our work from 2016) So,
the life-EW (or the mind-EW) is placed as an EDW than the macro-EW, where the
body/organism is placed. In relationship to the macro-EW, the life-EW is just an EDW,
this is the “place” where I situated the life/mind/soul as an EW. The body corresponds
mainly to certain great disturbances of small part of the field-EW (in relationship with the
entire electromagnetic field), but the organism also corresponds to the life-EW (an entity
and an EW). These correspondences are just accidentally, randomly processes and I am
convince there are no rules for transforming these “correspondences” in certain scientific
notions. Such correspondences do not have any ontological status, therefore, there are no
scientific rules for these correspondences.
The “conditions of possibility” (no ontological status) for appearance of the
first macro-entity corresponded to the micro-EW. Without the “perturbations” of the
existence of certain micro-entities, a macro-entity could not appear. The same statement
is valid for the electromagnetic wave (which belongs to the field-EW) and the
microparticle (which belongs to the micro-EW): without the perturbation of a wave, the

59
corresponding microparticle would not exist. From these sentences, I deduce the
following essential statement:

Before the EW1a-n appeared, I could think that there were certain “conditions of possibility” for the
appearance of these EDWs, but these “conditions of possibility” (no ontology) were not inside
Hypernothing, and did not correspond to Hypernothing, but there are just epistemological notions in our
head for explaining the appearances of all EW1a-n.

The appearances of all EW1a-n are embodied in their “self-organization” (which

“belongs” to each EW among these EW1a-n) out of “nothing”, and this “self-
organization” just hypercorresponds to Hypernothing. ED entities and nothing appeared
spontaneously, but these entities/nonentities had hypercorrespondences to Hypernothing.
It is as if each EW among the EW1a-n had appeared from itself, even if, before their
appearance, these EDWs did not even exist. The EW0 is a kind of “ghost” for the EW1a-
n, but this “ghost” has no ontological status. Also, the macro-EW has to be associated (in
our mind, only through correspondence) to the micro-EW (not only in
hypercorrespondence to Hypernothing): however, even if one EW does not exist for any
EDW, without the micro-EW, the appearance of the macro-EW would not be possible.
There is a chronological order, but this “order” (i.e. “time”) has no ontological status:
again, I have to eliminate any causality between any two EDWs, so it would be
meaningless to check for the law between any two EDWs. I introduce here the “postulate
about nothingness” within the EDWs perspective:

In general, “nothing” of a particular EW had no ontological status, but this nothing corresponded to
something. Apparently, some EDWs have “nothing” in their “composition”: for instance, the macro-EW
and the micro-EW have this “nothing” in their “compositions” (the so-called “empty space”), but “space”
and these EDWs do not really exist (it does not have any ontologicla status) - only their ED entities and
interactions really exist. EDWs that do not “contain” “nothing” (correspondences) have a “unity” (like the
self-EW or the field-EW) and such an EW corresponds to something which belongs to (or is) an EDW.

Hypernothing rejects such necessary correspondences, since it is about the EW0. It would
be meaningless to believe that Hypernothing “contains nothing”. If Hypernothing
contained “nothing”, then this EW would not be Hypernothing. We can think that
Hypernothing has a kind of “unity”, but this “unity” would be a very rough (even wrong)
feature, since “unity” makes us think of “something” (an “entity”) with an “identity”, but
all these notions can be applied to characterize ED entities which belong to EDWs, but
not to Hypernothing, since the EW0 cannot have any such feature. Also, Hypernothing
cannot be characterized as being either “stable” or “unstable”. Again, I have to reject the
idea that the EW0 has any kind of entities and/or processes or properties that we know or
we can think of or even imagine. The EW0 is “nothing” and nothing else. On the
contrary, in the “later” EDWs, there have been some entities and processes that have
changed continuously and such changes involved “motion”. Together, the EW1a-n
represent “nothing” which hypercorresponded to Hypernothing. It is not one EW which
corresponded to the EW0, but only from the viewpoint of all EW1a-n, we can talk about
the EW0. (The notion of hypercorrespondence is related to this previous statement.) From
the viewpoint of an entity which belongs to a particular EW, we cannot talk about
“nothing”, i.e., nothing (the EW0) does not exist for that entity. Again, the EW0 cannot
have any property; if it has any property, I need to introduce a correspondence between

60
the EW0 and a previous EDW. If the EW0 had these properties (or any other property
that we can only think of), then EW0 would not be Hypernothing, but there would be an
EDW and not Hypernothing. It has to be clear following statement:

The EW1a-n did not appear from the “instability” of EW0.

Hypernothing is beyond the stable-unstable dichotomy and any dichotomy that can
characterize ED entities and their interactions which belong to EDWs (but not
“nothing”). The sudden appearance of EW1a-n depended on the “conditions of
possibility” of their appearances (abstract notion, anyway), not depending on the EW0
(which did not exist for the appearances and the existences of EW1a-n). The only
condition of “dependence” seemed that was: before the appearance of EW1a (for
instance), there was nothing. The “conditions of possibility” of their appearance had no
ontological status; it is a formal notion, in a strictly Kantian sense. The instability
appeared in itself, i.e., in the appearance of a particular EW. A particular EW, for
instance, the EW1a (among the EW1a-n) appeared in itself and for itself in dissociation
from all EDWb-n. All EDWs remained “nothing” until EDW (the EW1b, for instance)
appeared in itself, for itself. The EW1a did not exist for the EW1b. So, the periods of
appearances of EW1a-n “depended” on the “possibility of its appearance” (an abstract
notion), not on existence of the EW0 (which it could have any ontology, but a
hyperontology). This “possibility” has no ontological status, being exactly a Kantian one
(a notion of explanation, not an ontological notion). I will use this notion of “possibility”
to move the question of “What did produce the appearance of EW1a-n ?” from the EW0
to the EW1a-n, even if the EW1a-n did not exist at that moment.

3.2 The principles of hyperontology of Hypernothing

I introduce the principles of hyperontology of Hypernothing:
 Hypernothing hyperis (or hyperisn’t).1
 Hypernothing hyperis an EW. Anyway, Hypernothing isn’t for any EDW, but only
hypercorresponds (directly) to the EW1a-n (and indirectly to all other EDWs).
 Hypernothing hyperis, any EW is. Therefore, Hypernothing is beyond the dichotomy
“is-isn’t” which refers to some of EDWs (like the mind-EW): as we already know,
some of EDWs really are, while some of EDWs are just abstract labels which
designate a set of the ED entities and their interactions. Hypernothing has its own
hyperontology (Hyperbeing, that is, “first nothing” which hypercorresponded to the
EW1a-n), while some other EDWs have their ontology (being). All ED entities and
their interactions really exist (“belong” to some EDWs like the macro-EW or the
micro-EW).
 If Hypernothing had any kind of known or possible ontology, all EDWs would not
appear through (hyper)correspondences to Hypernothing just because there would be
a regress ad infinitum argument.
 Because Hypernothing hyperis, sequences of events/processes of entities inside it are
totally meaningless. Therefore, notions like “earlier” and “later” are meaningless for
Hypernothing. Also, question like “What was before Hypernothing?” is meaningless.

1
I cannot state that Hypernothing is/exist (or isn’t). Otherwise, I would either regress ad infinitum argument
or all EDWs would not be.

61
Only introducing Hypernothing, we could stop the regress ad infinitum argument
regarding the being of EDWs. Also, the thought “Hypernothing has been an eternal
EW” is meaningless, since this EW hyperis and, within this hyperontology, it is
meaningless to talk about “existence” or “being”, “infinite” or “finite” and other
features (existence, being, causality, etc.) which belong to ED entities from EDWs.
 Hypernothing replaces Aristotle’s “Prime Motor”. Hypernothing is not just
“Unmoved”, but I extend this Aristotelian “missing property” to all the properties
that can characterize all ED entities that we know: it means that Hypernothing did
not have any property that we know as belonging to an entity from any EW.
Hypernothing has no property and this status is the most positive characterization:
the EW0 is nothing and nothing else.
 I need to explain the relationship (hypercorrespondence) between the Hypernothing
and the EW1a-n, even if, in principle, one EW isn’t for any EDW. In this case,
however, Hypernothing (which hyperis/hyperisn’t for the EW1a-n which each EW
was in itself, not for the EW0): it means the beings of EW1a-n did not
disturb/perturb Hypernothing).
 We can ask the question: “What did happen in the micro-EW since this
corresponding macro-entity appeared?” The answer would be: “The accumulation of
an huge amalgam of microparticles corresponded to the appearance of a macro-entity
(a planet, for instance). That means, something happened in the micro-EW for a
corresponding macro-entity to appear in the macro-EW. On the contrary, when we
talk about the appearances of EW1a-n, nothing happened in Hypernothing. Since it
would be about Hypernothing, nothing happened within this EW in order something
which hypercorresponded to it (the EW1a-n) to appear.
 The “chain of the correspondences” that we can talk about regarding certain EDWs
(for instance, between the field-EW and the micro-EW or between the micro-EW and
the macro-EW) did not exist between the Hypernothing (which hyperis) and the
EW1a-n (which are): the Hypernothing hyperisn’t for the EW1a-n; the micro-EW
isn’t for the macro-EW. It means all ED entities hypercorrespond (directly like the
EW1a-n) or indirectly (like all other EDWs) to Hypernothing.
The macro-EW appeared through the correspondences to the micro-EW and the field-
EW. The micro-EW and the field-EW appeared from the “nothing” which corresponded
to something (the pre-Big-Bang EW).1 And so on. I emphasize that the process of moving
from one EW to another in the past can be useful for us since it allows us to imagine,
somehow, the being of previous EDWs. In this way, I could move closer and closer to
Hypernothing. “Nothing” is not equivalent to Hypernothing, since always something
existed before “nothing”, but nothing existed before Hypernothing. Therefore,
Hypernothing is the “first nothing” and nothing else.
Hypernothing has always hyperbeing (time and space do not have any ontological
status) and this EW does not exist for any EDW (the causalities between ED entities
which belong to EDWs are meaningless). Hypernothing hyperis; if Hypernothing only
“is”, the regression ad infinitum argument would appear. It is meaningless to use
“causality” related to Hypernothing. Any “causality” cannot even exist within

1
Exactly as “entanglement” has no ontology (it is based on the correspondence between wave and
particles) and cannot be explained within the unicorn world, the same reason is applied to the “space”
(“nothing”) between two objects which belong to the macro-EW, for instance.

62
Hypernothing and cannot exist between any two EDWs. The notion of “causality” would
require the notions of “process” and entities, but Hypernothing has neither entities nor
processes/interaction. It is meaningless to consider that Hypernothing has or does not
have this property of causality. Hypernothing is neither static, nor in motion; it hyperis
(or hyperisn’t) something beyond these properties. We cannot even say “Hypernothing
hyperis or hyperisn’t”. Anyway, following the main rule of EDWs, as an EW,
Hypernothing isn’t for any EDW. Again, I am certain that I have to reject, as belonging to
Hypernothing, all ED entities/processes/forces/properties that we know belong to real
entities/interactions or imaginary entities/interactions which belong to EDWs. Otherwise,
that EW would not be Hypernothing. Because, ontologically, each human mind has
certain limits in its ability to think, we cannot even think more details about
Hypernothing. Again, by rejecting the existence of God (see my paper on my webpage)
and other pseudo-notions invented by the human beings (see all our previous books), in
this way and only in this way, Hypernothing is beyond Aristotle’s “Prime mover”.
Otherwise, I cannot avoid the regress ad infinitum argument, but the notion of “infinity”
does not exist (it has no ontological status), so it is excluded from the EDWs perspective.
Obviously, Hypernothing is not the “unmoved mover”, since such properties (moved or
unmoved) do not even exist for this EW (or for something inside the EW just because
there is nothing inside the EW0). Moreover, it is not only about the property of
“movement”, but about any property that we can think of as characterizing any entity or
any EW. If the EW0 were something that ontologically exist, then the questions “Why
this kind of matter?” and “What did produce this matter?” would immediately appear.
Therefore, I am forced to change Aristotle’s “Prime mover” with Hypernothing, which
also rejects the necessity of a previous EDW. With Hypernothing (not the Big Bangs), I
finally stop the regress ad infinitum argument.
From my EDWs perspective, no entity “is becoming”, an entity spontaneously
appears “inside” an EW. Obviously, in many cases, there has to be a correspondence
between the entity which spontaneously appears and other entities and/or processes
which belong to an EDW. Anyway, a class of entities and processes represents, in general,
an EW. Again, except for the mind-EW and Hypernothing, from what we know today, no
other EW really exists. I can say that all EDWs are, but only ED entities/processes really
exist. I introduce an important principle regarding the “negative epistemology-ontology”
for Hypernothing:

If we were able to “identify” somehow Hypernothing, then the (hyper)correspondences

between Hypernothing and all EDWs would be a meaningless notion. That is, that EW
would not be Hypernothing, since Hypernothing hyperis, while all EDWs are and
between “hyperis” and “is” any correspondence cannot be established.

From the ontological viewpoint of any EW, Hypernothing has no “identity”; more
exactly, Hypernothing “hyperis not”. Nevertheless, the EW0 hypercorresponded to the
EW1a-n. Obviously, an EW is not for any EDW, but theoretically, we can think of two
EDWs, even if there is no relationship between them. The problem is that we cannot even
think of Hypernothing, not only in the relationship with any EDW, but we cannot think of
the EW0 in itself at all. Why? Because Hypernothing hyperis and therefore it has not an
“ontological identity”, but a “hyperontological identity”. This is the main reason, we have
to accept that the “Hypernothing hyperis”. All above mentioned dualities cannot be

63
applied to Hypernothing. Since the Ancient Greek philosophy, our knowledge has always
involved verbs like “to be” and “to exist”, but nobody so far has thought of the verb
“hyperis”. The missing verb is due to the wrong framework of thinking, the unicorn
world. The relationship between Hypernothing and EDWs is given by this simple law
(law of “existing/being-hyperbeing”), which mirrors the conditions of possibility of
EDWs:

No Hypernothing, no EDWs:
(1) An object/entity exists.
(2) An EW is. (The mind-EW is, for instance.)
(3) Therefore, Hypernothing hyperis/(hyperisn’t). “Hyperisn’t” means “nothing” which
permit the appearance, accidentally (simultaneously or not) of EW1a-n. These two EDWs
represent “nothing” from the viewpoint of the EW0. Therefore, nothing changed in the
EW0, when the EW1a-n appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW0.
(4) Any EW is, Hypernothing hyperis (or hyperisn’t), i.e., this EW is beyond the
dichotomy “is-isn’t” which refers to all EDWs.

In order to avoid the regress ad infinitum argument, the “being of EDWs” is the main
indication of the hyperbeing of Hypernothing. Precisely to avoid either a strong
ontological contradiction or a regress ad infinitum argument, I discover that if EDWs are,
then it is compulsory that the EW0 (Hypernothing) hyperis which hypercorresponded to
all EW1a-n. Apparently, the expression “Hypernothing hyperis” seems to be a
contradictory statement: how can we claim that “nothing is”? Obviously, we do not say
either “nothing is”, or “Hypernothing is”. Both statements would be just contradictions.
To avoid such ontological contradictions, we have to add a new verb (quite related to the
verb “to be”) in our vocabulary: “to hyperbe”. In this way, I constructed the syllogism
written above. This it is not to say either “Hypernothing is not”, or “Hypernothing is”. I
can claim is that “Hypernothing hyperis”. Again, by comparing the existence of the
various ED things with the being of EDWs, on one side, and with the status of
Hypernothing, on the other side, I have discovered the hyperbeing of Hyperverse. By
investigating this relationship, I became aware that this is the only way in which I could
avoid the regress ad infinitum argument. So, avoiding this regress ad infinitum argument
was possible only by discovering the new ontology of Hypernothing: hyperontology. I
need to introduce the notion of “contrariety” within my EDWs perspective.

Hypernothing (the EW0) is contrary (not a contradiction) to any EW. “Hyperis” is

contrary to “is” or “exists”, hyperontology is contrary to “epistemology-ontology”. This
contrariety represents the Kantian “conditions of possibility” of all EDWs. Hyperbeing
hypercorresponded to all EW1a-n (which are).

This “contrariety” is not a property of Hypernothing; it is the linkage/relationship

between it and mainly the EW1a-n. I cannot claim that, for instance, the micro-EW is
“contrary” to the macro-EW, or the mind is “contrary” to the brain, since all these EDWs
are and Hypernothing hyperis. Nevertheless, Hypernothing is contrary to any EDW and
this contrariety admits middle term, so between Hypernothing and the field-EW (for
instance), there have been many EDWs. Certainly, the EW1a is not the field-EW (we can
talk, for instance, about the “plasma-EW”, an EW between the Big Bangs and the field-

64
EW - see my previous works). I can postulate that the field-EW appeared “before” the
micro-EW, I would know for sure that the micro-EW appeared “before” the macro-EW, I
would know that Hypernothing was there before the EW1, but I would not be able to
indicate the details referring to the relationship (hypercorrespondences) between
Hypernothing and any EW among the EW1a-n.1 When the “I” thinks about
Hypernothing, the “framework of thinking” (the self-EW with its ontology) is contrary to
Hypernothing (with its hyper-ontology). It is the contrariety between the being/existence
and the non-being/non-existence. However, can I talk about the non-being/non-existence?
No, I cannot, but I can name what it is about: it is about Hypernothing which
hypercorresponded to the EW1a-n. With this solution, I rejecte the regress ad infinitum
and the existence of God (see my article free at my webpage against the existence of
God).

3.3 More details about the accidental appearances of the EW1a-n in

hypercorrespondences to the EW02
In my book 2022, I developed my EDWs approach about the first epistemological world
(EW), that is about Hypernothing (or the EW0). In this work, I will not repeat many
details about this EW, but I would like to introduce new ideas (some of them being in
contradiction to my previous ideas from my book published on Amazon in 2022).
Let me start with the main ideas. I am convinced there were many EDWs before
the appearance of our “universe”. In correspondence to the EW0 (Hypernothing), many
EDWs (the EW1a-n) have appeared in different “ED places/periods”. In this way, I reject
the idea that from “nothing” appeared “matter and antimatter” (or the “EW1” and
respectively the “EW-1”, as I wrote in my book 2022). My new idea is the following: in
correspondence to the EW0, there appeared many EDWs (the EW1a-n), therefore, we do
not need to introduce any EW-1 (or antimatter); on the contrary, in my article 2022, I
reject completely the existence of antimatter (any kind of antimatter). 3 With this rejection,
I preserve the principle of “conservation energy” since one EW does not exist for any
EDW: any EW among these EW1a-n did not exist for the EW0. Thus, introducing many
first EDWs, I do not contradict the “principle of conservation energy”. Maybe, there have
1
As I emphasized in the past, Bohr’s complementarity (the main principle of I published in 2002-2014) has
been changed: EDWs are not even complementary, since one EW is not for any EDW. Or, I can say that I
do not have to use the notion of “complementarity” (not even to explain quantum mechanics - against
quantum mechanics, see our previous works) for indicating the relationship between certain EDWs. This
“complementarity” means a kind of epistemological-ontological complementarity, but it is not about two
EDWs: there is no complementarity between Hypernothing and any EW, there is no complementarity
between any two EDWs. Again, one EW is not for any EDW, so there is no ontological contradiction here,
but the ED ontologies which belong to EDWs. So, I have to eliminate even Bohr’s complementarity from
our vocabulary for the relationships referring to certain EDWs like the field-EW and the microparticle-EW.
2
Large parts of this section have been published in 2002b, Timpul journal.
3
In our works 2016/2020, we rejected the ontology of dark matter/energy and spacetime. About the origin
of the “universe” in the views of some physicists (explained by Devereux 2021, Singh 2005, for instance),
see my future work. Anyway, in 2022, I introduced a new alternative for dark energy: the correspondences
between electromagnetic waves, microparticles and macroplanets/galaxies are “dark energy”: since the
elecromagnetic waves have speed c, through correspodences, all corresponding microparticles (except
photons which has already c) increase their speeds and also corresponding planets/galaxies increase their
speeds. This is enough to explain completely dark energy within the EDWs perspective. (In this context, I
recall Einstien’s idea that all objects have speeds c in their spatiotemporal framework: a part of this speed is
in space, a part in time, photons have no “time”, all their speed being in “space”.)

65
been “places” where EDWs have appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW0 even
now. Surely, there were other “universes” that appeared in other places (this being the old
idea of “multiverses”).1 It would be completely wrong to consider there was only “one
Big Bang” and only “one universe” which appeared (13.82 billions years ago). I was also
convinced (no proof) that there were many Big Bangs at the same time (13.82 billion
years ago, for avoiding Guth’s “inflation”), but also many Big Bangs which appeared
“earlier” and “later” in EDWs. Therefore, the line of EDWs and different “universes” is
somehow like this one:

- EW0 (Hypernothing) HC (hypercorrespond) to EW1a-n.

- These EDWs corresponded to (C) EW2b-m … (C) pre-Big Bangs-EW (C) many BBs (in the same area to
avoid Guth’s inflation, 13.82 billions years ago) (C) plasma-EW (C) field-EW (C) micro-EW (C) macro-
EW (C) life/mind-EW.
- “Big Bangs” (ED Big Bangs or Big Bangs corresponding to the same EW) happened in different places,
in different times. Different “universes” (like our “universe”) have appeared in different places, in different
periods; all these “universes” are in the same “spatiotemporal framework”. 2

Because the Big Bangs (that we have already known) existed 13.82 billion years ago,
other Big Bangs existed earlier and later than this period… Probable, other Big Bangs
appear just now in different places or in EDWs. Because of these many Big Bangs in
different places/periods, it is quite normal to believe that “our universe” did appear total
accidentally. Therefore, it was nothing special with the appearance of “our universe”.
There have been many “universes” and many EDWs which have appeared after many
Big Bangs (in “our universe” and other universes) or after many ED Big Bangs (in
EDWs). So, according to the EDWs perspective, we already know that 13.82 billion
years ago, many Big Bangs happened in the same area, earlier, at that moment or later. I
also believe, it would be totally wrong to consider that the entire “energy/matter” was
contained in the “Big Bang”. As I indicated in my work 2022, the “energy” of the
“universe” has been revealed (and not “produced”) since the Big Bangs (13.82 billion
years ago) until our days. For instance, the entire “energy” of electromagnetic field was
not contained within Big Bangs: this “energy” has been revealed (not produced) 380,000
years after Big Bangs until today. It did not mean that the “entire” electromagnetic field
existed before Big Bangs or the “entire” field existed immediately after Big Bang in an
“infinitezimal point”3. In relationship to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW (for instance), the field-
EW did not exist. Again, my opinion is that this idea (the universe started as a single
point, an “infinitezimal point”, all energy/matter being concentrated in a “singularity”) is
totally wrong (even absurd). As I indicated in my work 2022 (and other works), the
field/matter (for instance, the electromagnetic field) has not been created from an
1
We have to make an analogy between our galaxies and the discovery of thousands of billions of other
galaxies: at the beginning of Cosmology, many scientists were convinced that only our galaxy, Milky Way,
exists. Many decades later, there have been discovered thousands of billions of other galaxies. Obviously,
other many galaxies would be discovered in the future.
2
“Multiverse”: These “universes” are all within the same “spatiotemporal framework”, one universe can
interact with another universe. For instance, our “universe” can interact with another “universe” in the
future. Therefore, the “multiverse” is a completely different notion than the “EDWs” since one EW does
not exist for any EDW (so it is meaningless (or totally wrong) to consider “one EW can interact with an
EDW” or to believe that all EDWs are in the same “spatiotemporal” framework).
3
I emphasize again, the idea of this “infinitezimal point” containing all energy/matter is totally wrong idea
constructed within the unicorn world…

66
“infinitesimal point” (a “singularity”), but this “field” had been revealed 380,000 years
after Big Bangs until today. Moreover, as we indicated in 2016, space and time
(spacetime) could not have any ontological status: any kind of ontological status of
spacetime would produce strong ontological contradictions. We have different “chains of
EDWs”, one of these chains is the “standard chain of EDWs”:

EW0 hyperC EW1a C EW2 C EDWs… C pre-Big-Bangs-EW C field-EW C micro-EW C macro-EW C

life/mind-EW. (C means “corresponded”)

There are hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and all EW1a-n just because the EW0
is “nothing” with its hyperontology which hypercorresponds to the ontologies of EW1a-
n: the EW0 directly hypercorresponds to the EW1a-n, and indirectly corresponds to the
EW2 or the macro-EW or the life/mind-EW. We could claim that the field-EW
(electromagnetic field always with speed c) is the “absolute framework” of thinking for
microparticles and macroparticles. The electromagnetic field did not appear from an
infinitezimal point. That point corresponded to nothing; therefore, electromagnetic field
did not appear (in its EW), but it has been revealed from that point (any point today) in
all directions. Why do I need to use “hypercorrespondences”? Because the EW0
hypercorresponded to the EW1a-n. What does “hypercorresponded” exactly mean? When
only the EW hyperexisted, any of EW among the EDW1a-n did not exist. Hyperexistence
means that the EW0 did not exist, it did not have any ontology but a hyperontology. This
hyperontology is given by the fact that all EDW1a-n “represented” the EW0, i.e.,
“nothing” since none of these EDWs existed and the EW0 is “nothing”. So, only the
EW0 hyperexisted, i.e., being “nothing”. The EW0 has always hyper-existed, even now
this EW hyper-exists, but humans cannot detect “nothing” at all since “our universe” is
“full” of electromagnetic field. Can we say that the EW1a-n “pre-existed inside” the
EW0? Clearly, this statement would be a pseudo-judgment. Why? Before each of these
EDWs appeared, all EDW1a-n “represented” (hyper-corresponded to) the EW0.
Within this new framework, we can indicate how many EDWs has accidentally
appeared through direct or indirect hypercorrespondences to the EW0 (the
Hypernothing). In this way, we exclude any other alternative (like “God” or the “regress
ad infinitum”). Essentially, it is this notion of “accidental”. What does it mean, more
exactly, that “an EW accidentally appeared”? For instance, the life-EW appeared
accidentally in correspondences to certain macro-entitites which belonged to the macro-
EW. It means that different macro-entities were arranged in different ways, more or less
accidentally: there were some macro-laws which determined these arrangements, but we
cannot claim there was a “pre-determined plan/scheme” for these macro-arrangements
(which corresponded to “life”). Such arrangements happened accidentally 3.5 billions
years ago (or so)... In different periods, there happened accidentally arrangements of
certain macro-entities and “lives” appeared as EDWs but in correspondences to these
arrangements of macroentities. There was no plan for the appearances of “lives”, this is
the meaning of “accidentally”. There were many accidentally arrangements, in general
many of them being within an organizational framework (without producing something
new like “life”). When these arrangements passed an “epistemological-ontological
threshold”1, “life” (as an EDW) appeared in correspondences to those macro-

1
About “epistemological-ontological” threshold and “organizational” threshold, see my previous works.

67
arrangements (the macro-EW). Passing from an “organizational threshold” to an
“epistemological-ontological threshold” happened accidentally, no more.
Could we talk about the “pre-existences” of EW1a-n? No: before these EDWs
appeared, there was nothing (the EW0) and nothing else. All EDWs appeared totally
accidentally; we need to believe in this “absolute accidentally”, otherwise we need to
introduce, for instance, “God” in equation or the “pre-existence status” of EDWs, but I
totally rejected the existence of God (see my article at my webpage) and any kind of
“pre-existences”. The appearance of any EW happened just accidentally. The EW1a-n did
not exist, somehow, before the first Big Bangs; they did not have any “pre-existences”
status. Always, the EW0 has been nothing and nothing else. Any EW among the EW1a-n
appeared totally accidentally and nothing else.
Within the EDWs perspective, we have to reject the idea that from “nothing”
appeared “matter” and “antimatter” (in “equal quantities”). In reality, “antimatter” did not
exist at all. There were the EW0 and direct hypercorrespodences to the EW1a-n, but these
EDWs did not exist for the EW0, so we do not have any rejection of the conservation
principle of something (energy/matter) and nothing: nothing (the EW0) remained
nothing, the EW1a (for instance) did not exist for the EW0, so there is no ontological
contradiction at all. I emphasize that my old idea from my previous work (2022) that “the
EW0 hypercorresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1” is totally wrong: in the new context
(the hypercorrespondences to many EW1a-n), I do not need to postulate the existence of
the “EW-1”; in fact, I have to reject completely the existence of any kind of “antimatter”.
So, “antimatter” is quite a wrong notion within the EDWs perspective. Working within
the unicorn world, the physicists needed to introduce the “antimatter” for preserving the
“principle of conservation energy”: it was believed that from “nothing”, matter was
separated from antimatter (even if nobody could explained how and why this
“separation” took place). Through the EDWs perspective, because of the correspondence
between any two EDWs, I strongly indicate that “antimatter” did not exist. In my
previous work (2022), I introduced the correspondences between the EW0 and the EW1
and the EW-1 (last EW being a kind of “antimatter”). Because there was only a
correspondence (no ontology) between the EW0 and the EW1, I was forced to maintain
the “antimatter” in my equation. However, now, in this new context, I do not need to
introduce EW-1 (or “antimatter”), I do not need the “existence of the antimatter”, so
within the EDWs perspective, I reject the existence of EW-1. If the EW0
hypercorresponded only to one EDW (for instance, the EW1), maybe I would have
needed to introduce the EW-1 (as “antimatter” for the EW1). In reality, the EW0
hypercorresponded to many EDWs (the EDW1a-n) which accidentally appeared in
different “places”/ “periods”.
In our previous works (Vacariu and Vacariu 2016, 2020), I rejected the existence
of dark matter/energy in the macro-EW. Dark matter is the results of interactions among
ED entities which belong to the mega-EW (a “higher” EW than the macro-EW). 1 In 2022,
1
Kroupa and Haslbauer (2023) indicates that the “universe” is “more ‘clumpy’” than the standard
cosmological model predicts: “The data thus robustly falsify the cosmological principle. While the same
laws of physics may apply in every corner of the universe, the universe itself it is not the same
everywhere.” The last statement of this article: “… rather than discarding the standard cosmological model,
our scientific establishment is digging itself ever deeper into the speculative fantasy realm, losing sight of
and also grasp of reality in what appears to be a maelstrom of insanity.” (2023) In fact, as I indicated long
time ago, the “universe” does not exist at all, but there are EDWs. It means that, somehow, even the macro-

68
I introduced a new alternative for dark energy: the distances between galaxies have
extend continuously because of the correspondences between planets, microparticles and
electromagnetic waves: indirectly, through these correspondences, because of the speed c
of electromagnetic field, microparticles continuously increase their speed and thus
planets/galaxies continuously increases their speed. So, these correspondences produce,
indirectly, the expansion of galaxies with an accelerate rate. Obviously, because of their
masses, microparticle/macroparticles will never reach the speed c. In our work 2020, we
rejected the existence of “spacetime”: because of the correspondence between
electromagnetic field (presents everywhere), spacetime could not exist since we cannot
place two entities (“electromagnetic field” and “spacetime”) in the same “place”, at the
same “time”/period.
In this section, I indicate that we have to reject “antimatter” (or the EW-1 from
my perspective published in my work 2022) and its “separation from matter”. This kind
of separation would require an “external click”. Who did produce such “click”, God or it
did accidentally happen? God could not exist (see my work), therefore we could claim it
happened accidentally. Why? Having only one such event (the appearance of one
“universe”) which did happen accidentally, such “accidental event” become quite
suspicious. If we extend to a much larger number these “accidental events” (the
appearances of EW1a-n), it result that these accidental events are not “absolute
accidentally” (it would require “God” or a “special click”), but become something
inevitable. Moreover, if we accept the “antimatter”, we need to introduce many
antimatter-EDWs, and this would be quite absurd. Because there were the EW1a-n and
because the EW1a did not exist for any EDW, I do not need to introduce the existence of
“antimatter” (the EW-1, for instance). Anyway, within the EDWs perspective, the
cosmologists have to change many essential concepts of Cosmology.1
Discovering the EDWs, I furnish a new view about
- man and “reality”
- the origin of the “universe”/world
- nothing (i.e., Hypernothing)
- the metaphysical framework/background of everything.
For the first time in the history of human thinking I elaborated a new view about
the relationship between the origin of the “universe” (i.e., the EDWs) and nothing (i.e.,
the Hypernothing). In this way, I completely excluded “God” and “infinite” from any
equation referring to the “world” and “man”. I clearly argued that we did not need God or
infinite in explaining something (anything), in fact, working within the EDWs
perspective, anybody has to reject “God” and “infinity”. The “beginning” did not exist;
there has always been “nothing” but not in an “infinite past” (“time” or “spacetime”
could not even exist; infinite could not even exist - see Aristotle), every EW appeared
accidentally in relationship to an EDW or to the EW0. Since when the EW0 is?

EW “contains”/corresponds to EDWs. More than this, as I emphasized in the past, the macro-EW did not
even exist; there are only macro-entities and their interactions. However, there can be, of course, macro-
EDWs, not only one. I recall, there is also the mega-EW, but in the same line with the previous observation,
surely, it is not only one mega-EW but mega-EDWs.
1
I can make an analogy between the appearances of EW1a-n and life (on Earth): these EDWs accidentally
appeared in different places/periods in hypercorespondences to “nothing” exactly as “lives” (EDWs)
appeared on Earth in different places/periods in hupercorrespondences to “nothing” but in correspondences
to certain macro-arragements of matter (the macro-EW).

69
Meaningless question since time could not exist and, moreover, the Hypernothing did not
have any ontology. Therefore, it is meaningless to ask when the Hypernothing appeared;
the EW0 is “nothing” and nothing else. And this “nothing” hypercorresponded (not even
corresponded) to the EW1a-n. Each of these EDWs (the EW1a-n) appeared in itself; it
“existed” in itself, it did not exist for the EW0 or for any EDW. Also, I rejected “the One”
(a philosophical name for “God”): from my viewpoint, “the One” would be the
Hypernothing/EW0 and nothing else. You, the reader, do not exist for the EW0 (which
anyway is “nothing”), therefore, it is meaningless to ask about the “origin” of yourself,
about the “fundamental level” of reality. The “nothing” is not the “origin” of everything
since the Hypernothing does not exist for any EDW; nothing has just corresponded to the
EDWs. There is no “causality” between nothing and the EDWs, there have been only
hypercorrespodences (not even correspondences); I reject any kind of “causality”,
“emergence” or direct relationship between one EW and an EDW since one EW does not
even exist for any EDW. With my perspective, I passed beyond so-classical “dualities”
like mind-brain/body, material-immaterial1, self-world, micro-macro, etc. I introduce here
two very important principles regarding my EDWs perspective:

Principles A
Each EW appears in-itself, it does not exist for any EDW. Therefore, it is not necessary
an “external click” to produce any EW.

In this way, each EW appears accidentally in correspondences to an EDW and in

hypercorrespondence to the EW0. Within my EDWs perspective, rejecting the existence
of “God” and “infinite”, we conclude (metaphorically, using wrong notions):

Principle B
All EDWs appear accidentally and each EW exists in itself (it does not exist for any
EDW). However, each being (=life/mind an EW) is an “universe” and “god” in the same
time even if, at its “fundamental level” is (corresponds to) “nothing”/Hypernothing!2

1
From an ontological view, Descartes’ dualism is closer to my perspective, closer even than Spinoza’s dual
aspect theory just because the mind and the brain are not “two different aspects of the same substance”. The
mind is immaterial, the brain is material. To this dualism, we have to add Spinoza’s “dualism” but rejecting
his “one substance”, i.e., “God”. We know, even Descartes needed to introduce God in his equation (for
explaining the interactions between those two substances. Spinoza’s step was quite interesting, but his
aspects were “suspended in the air” and this was the reason he also needed to introduce God into his
equation, pantheism which was, anyway, totally wrong. Both philosophers were wrong because they
worked within the unicorn world.
2
The reader has to be aware that these principles (through their meaning) are some of the most important
statements in the history of human being (even if som parts of these principles can be found in the previous
principles - just because of their importance, I insterted them here). Translated in my terms: “Each human
being is an EW having her own rationality, and before all EDWs was “nothing” (the EW0) and nothing
else. I furnish, for the first time, the metaphysical framework of “nothing” as being the “origin of the
universe”. This statement had been supposed by many physicists (obviously, they have been correctly
forced to exclude “god” and “infinity” from their scientific framework of thinking), but they presupposed
matter and antimatter, for instance. Anyway, all scientists and philosophers had been working within the
unicorn world until I discovered the EDWs. I rejected, for the first time, the antimatter in this work. Each
man is an “universe”/“God”, but everything has happened accidentally. Amazing, isn’t it? Each person is
totally responsible for its own mind since nothing exists for it (not even your body). I believe, this
framework of thinking the most INCREDIBLE one in the history of human thinking. From the old

70
Based on these two principles, we can completely reject God, regression ad
infinitum, and any other alternative regarding the beginning of the “universe”. With these
principles, we also eliminate completely the anti-matter and we furnish complete
argument for “nothing” (no ontological status), i.e., the EW0 (the hyperontology), as
being the beginning of “everything”. The EW1a-n appeared spontaneously in different
places and time and accidentally in certain hypercorrespondences to the EW0, no more.
With my EDWs perspective, in my previous article (2022 in Timpul) and this work, I
furnished, for the first time in the history of human thinking, the argument for “nothing”
as being the “origin of everything”. It is the supreme time when human beings have to
renounce to “God”, “infinite” and many other pseudo-notions in their human thinking. A
new paradigm (a hyper-paradigm, see Chapter 8) is on the market, you cannot avoid it.
With my EDWs perspective, a totally new ERA of human thinking has started for
scientists and philosophers, artists and thinkers, in general! I return to the motto of this
book: “Every transformation demands as its precondition ‘the ending of a world’ - the
collapse of an old philosophy of life.” (Carl Jung) My discovery of the EDWs means the
end of the “world/universe”, it means the disappearance of the largest and the most oldest
paradigm of human which has involved so many concepts, ideas, approaches, theories
and (sub)paradigms. Everything has already been changed in the human thinking since
there have been so many people, from so many countries, from different domains (the
main particular sciences (like cognitive neuroscience and physics) and philosophy), on so
many topics who have plagiarized my ideas (the EDWs paradigm). With my EDWs
perspective, a totally new “world of thinking” has already been accepted by many people
on this Earth.
At the end of this chapter, I introduce a new very important principle related to
two important notions: “accidentally” and “probability”:

Principle P
To increase the probability of appearance of the macro-EW (the appearance of any EW)
that we know, there had been necessary the accidentally appearances of many macro-
EDWs (the appearances of many EDWs) that we do not know yet.

With Principe P, we can explain why the EDWs that we know really are: these EDWs are
just because there have been many EDWs, not only the ones that we know there are (the
plasma-EW, the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW, the mind-EW). We can apply
Principle P to the being of your mind-EW: you have appeared just because there have
appeared “billions of billions” of beings on this Earth in the last four billions years. You
are who you are just because there have been incredible many billions of human persons
on this Earth until now. It means, the probability you (your mind-EW and your macro-
body) to appear on this Earth has been considerably quite high until now; however, the
appearance of your mind-EW has been purely accidentally, no more, while the
appearance of your macro-body is related to the union between the macro-bodies of your

framework of “believing in God”, regarding the “last believer”, we have to recall the Russian director of
movies Andrei Tarkovsky. (See my book about him and other artists…) Since God could not even exist,
large parts of your destiny is “in your hands”… amazing, isn’t it? I believe “religion” has been the worst
thing for human beings in all times; it produced the most crimes in the history of human thinking, it has
been the wrong umbrella (a refugee) for many great thinkers (philosophers, artists, scientists), for the
majority of many human beings. If Nietzsche knew “God was death”, I indicated God could not even exist.

71
parents. In principle1, there have been no differences among the ontological status of the
mind-EDWs, while, obviously, there have been differences among the macro-bodies of
human persons.

1
I use this expression “in principle” just because there are certain differences regarding the minds of human
beings. For instance, the abilities for playing music or being a painter or doing mathematics have certain
native aspects. However, the ability of creativity of new ideas, music, paintings, etc. is not a native aspect.
For instance, it would be quite absurd to consider I have been born for discovering the EDWs…

72
Chapter 4

Friedman’s “relativized a priori” and

“changes of paradigms in science” versus EDWs

In this chapter, I will present the very interesting article written by Michael Friedman
(2009) on “relativized” a priori knowledge for certain scientific theories and another
Friedman’s article (2012) on “the change of paradigms” in scientific theories in particular
science, physics.1 Then, I will interpret my EDWs within Friedman’s framework.

4.1 Geometry and Physics: relativized a priori for Newton/Kant, Helmholtz,

Poincare and Einstein
In the first article (2009), Friedman illustrates, as usually very amazing, the relationships
between Kant, Helmholtz, Poincare and Einstein (special and general relativities)
regarding their a priori knowledge versus empirical knowledge in their theories. 2
Obviously, the starting point for principles of a priori knowledge is, for Friedman, Kant’s
transcendentalism: “sensibility” (pure intuitions in “The Transcendental Aesthetic”)
which presupposes the Euclidian space and “understanding” (categories in
“Transcendental Analytic”) which requires Newton’s laws of motions. Both pure
intuitions and pure understanding represent the “transcendental apperception”. This
transcendentalism is “absolute”, i.e., these pure intuitions and pure understanding are
necessary for the entire human knowledge (not only for Euclidian geometry and
Newton’s physics.
On the contrary, due to the knowledge of 19th Century (non-Euclidian geometries,
polyadic logic and anti-psychological movement), Kant’s “absolute” apriorism became
“relative”: a particular scientific theory contains certain a priori elements, but this
apriorism is relative to a certain historical context. Friedman have successfully indicated
certain a priori elements in these theories. I will introduce a table about all these elements
(a priori and empirical for the authors mentioned at the beginning) as a summary of
Friedman’s chapter and I also inserted some of his ideas.

Authors A priori/postulates Geometry Kinematics motion entities

Newton Euclid laws of motion + gravity

Kant pure intuitions Euclid Newton’s gravitation

vs. (infinitely iterate geometric construction)
Hume + perception of spatial objects)
Locke laws of motion

Helmholtz space Euclid spatial measurements → Euclid

free mobility
1
About previous Friedman’s works, see Vacariu 2008 (6.8) or Vacariu 2016.
2
Michael Friedman (2009): “Einstein, Kant and relativized a priori” (from M. Bitbol et al. eds.,
Constituting Objectivity). The article written by Michael Friedman has been one of the best articles I have
ever read in my career.

73
Poincare hierarchy disciplines Euclid +nonEuclid=conventions
free mobility + iteration → physical law of relativity
↑
relativity of space
(space: homogenous, isotropic)

Einstein
SR relativity Euclid dynamic of Minkovsky space-time
rectilinear motion electrodynamics moving objects
↑
inertial trajectories/
laws electromagnetic, c → new simultaneity
mechanical phenomena

GR equivalence non-Euclid (empirical) free falling trajectories

gravitation=acceleration in gravitational field
mg=mi

The main topic: “relativization of a priori principles” in human knowledge in the

framework given by the rational-empirical debates.
 Newton: Euclid geometry + 3 laws of motion. It results motions of inertial objects
and gravity.
 Kant: pure intuitions (sensibility, Euclidian space) and categories (understanding
with Newton’s laws of motions and Aristotle’s logic) are a priori. Such a priori
knowledge (pure mathematics and universal natural sciences) was against Hume’s
skepticism and Locke’s empiricism. Geometry (space) and physics (motion) are
strong related under his “transcendental apperception”.
 Helmholtz: “space” and “free mobility” as apriori, but “Euclidian geometry” is given
by “spatial measurements”.
 Poincare: “hierarchy of domains (arithmetic, analytics, geometry, mechanics
(physics); free mobility and iteration as a priori, but geometries (Euclidian and non-
Euclidian) are just “conventions”. From “relativity of space” (homogenous and
isotropic) results “physical law of relativity”.
For both Helmholtz and Poincare, Geometry (space) is not directly related to physics
(motion).
 Einstein:
Special Relativity: principle of relativity (Galilei) + constant speed of light c are a priori
principles (geometry Euclidian); motion of objects in inertial trajectories/frames
following Minkowski’s kinematics of space, time and motion (electrodynamics of
moving objects). It results a new “simultaneity” (space contracts and time dilates in
relation to speed of objects).

74
General Relativity: principle of equivalence (mg=mi or gravitation=acceleration) is a
priori; geometry non-Euclidian (established empirically); gravitation is curved
spacetime1. The result is “free falling trajectories in gravitational field”.
Einstein rejects
- “Helmholtz’s empiricism” because of relativity of motion
- “Poincare’s conventionalism” because of non-Euclidiean geometry of spacetime
(determined empirically) in general relativity.
Like Kant, Einstein strongly relates geometry (space/sensibility) and physics
(understanding). In fact, in his entire article, Friedman indicates the relationship between
geometry (space) and physics (kinematics, space-time-motion) for Newton-Kant,
Helmholtz, Poincare and Einstein. Kant’s a priori “absolute” principles (sensibility and
understanding) became “relative” a priori principles in different scientific
theories/knowledge.

EDWs perspective: I discovered the existence of EDWs working on the mind-brain

problem (somehow, an “empirical” problem). I have always been working on various
“entities” and their processes/relationships, but I totally avoided working on “spacetime”
in the earlier period. However, few years later, I asked myself if it was the same “space”
in some EDWs or each EW had its “own space”? The only answer was that space(time)
could not even exist. Even at the begining I realized that mind had no “space”; later I
understood that space itself could not have any ontological status (its existence being in
contradiction to the existence of electromagnetic field). So, in our book 2014, we
indicated “spacetime” could not have any ontological status (i.e., its ontological status
would produce strong ontological contradictions - for instance with the existence of the
electromagnetic field). In our book 2016, we re-wrote Einstein special and general
relativity without “spacetime” (using only “motions of entities”). Therefore, our
movement was not to relate “geometry” to “physics”, but to exclude completely
geometry (space) from discussion regarding physics (motion of objects/entities). We
believed that space and time (or spacetime, as you wish) were just human mind creations.
Essential point: working on special relativity and noticing how Einstein “relativized”
“spacetime” (depending on the movement of framework), I realized that, if “spacetime”
could be relativized in this way, then “spacetime” lost any ontological background. 2
Moreover, working on the correspondences between the macro-EW and the field-EW (for
instance), I realized that space(time) and electromagnetic field would be situated in the
same “place”/“period” and this empirical fact represented, for me, a strong ontological
contradiction since two entities like “space” and “electromagnetic field” could not
1
Newton did not have a definition for “gravitational force” (even if he introduced its mathematical
formala). Moreover, the trasmission of gravitational force was instanteneous (action-at-distance). Contrary
to this idea it was Maxwell’s principle regarding the limited speed of light, c, being the greatest speed that
can be rechead by something. Therefore, Einstein need to replace Newton’s gravitational force with curved
spacetime (transmission of curvature in spacetime having the speed of light, no more). In my previous
works, I indicated that spacetime could not have any ontological status and I replaced curved spacetime
with “nothing” among macro-objects (the macro-EW) which corresponded to “curved electromagnetic
field” (the field-EW). So, gravitational force for macro-objects is given by the curvature of the
corresponding electromagnetic field.
2
I am not the first thinker who deny the existence of spacetime (se for instance Leibniz). However, my
argument in rejecting any ontology for spacetime is totally new (the EDWs perspective). I furnished
arguments which indicated that spacetime could not have any ontology.

75
occupy the same “place”/“time”. It did not mean one of these entities do not have any
ontological status (this would be the “strong reductionism” approach in physics which
reduced everything to the electromagnetic field); on the contrary, with the help of the
EDWs perspective, the macro-entities acquired a clear ontological status.1
Following Friedman (2009), I could sustain that my empirical discovery of EDWs
became an a priori (relative) principle regarding many problems (for instance, the
“ontology of spacetime”): the existence of EDWs rejected the existence of space(time).
Helmholtz and Poincare separated the Kantian strong link between space and motion
(geometry and physics). With my EDWs, I completely rejected the existence/ontology of
“spacetime”, so geometry is not a “science” but a discipline which its “objects of
studying” do not refer to “real entities” but to certain abstract notions created by human
mind. Among macroentities (the macro-EW) and microentities (the micro-EW), there
would be “nothing” which has no ontological status, but in these two cases the “nothing”
corresponds to electromagnetic field (the field-EW). Therefore, a planet does not curve
“space” but “nothing” (no ontology) in the macro-EW which corresponds to
electromagnetic field (the field-EW). (See Vacariu and Vacariu 2016) Spacetime could
not have no ontological status. Then what is it curved if it is nothing between these two
planets. Between two planets (the Sun and the Earth, for instance) there is “nothing” (no
ontological status) which corresponds to the electromagnetic field. Therefore, the
electromagnetic field is curved, but not by planets since the planets do not exist in th
field-EW. This electromagnetic field is curved by the concentrations of the
electromagnetic field which correspond to those two planets. The “infinitezimal” space is
straight (not curved); an apple falls on Earth following the shortest distance which is
“straight” in infinitezimal distance, but curved in the field-EW. I can raise my hand if I
want, so, my hand do not follow the “law” of gravitation; I can touch my nose with my
hand following a “straight” line. In the field-EW this line is curved. On short distances,
we have the illusion the distance is straight; in reality, any distance is curved because it
corresponds to the curved electromagnetic field. Eddington’s experiment confirmed
Einstein’s theory of general relativity, even if the photons (light) do not have masses, just
because the light follows the shortest distance which is, in the field-EW, curved. Why
then an apple falls down on Earth? Because the apple and the Earth have masses which
correspond to two concentrations of the electromagnetic field. It is not these
concentrations which attract each other (since these concentrations do not have masses),
but there are those two planets which attract each other because of their masses and the
corresponding entities/interactions belonging to the field-EW.

4.2 The change of paradigm in scientific knowledge: Cassirer, Carnap versus

Meyerson and Kuhn2
The main idea of Friedman’s second article (2012) refers to the dispute between
“development-of-accumulation model” (early logical positivism) versus “discontinuity or
1
I have to recall that the strong debates on Quantum Mechanics have been, until I discovered EDWs, on the
existences of microparticle and electromagnetic wave. As I indicated in my early works (2003, 2005, 2006,
2007, etc.), all great problems of QM have been solved by introducing EDWs: waves and particles belong
to EDWs, no more. (I recall, many “physicists”, “cognitive scientists” and “philosophers” have plagiarized
my ideas since I have solved all great problems of physics, CNS and philosophy.)
2
This section is about Michael Friedman (2012), “Kuhn and Philosophy” (Modern Intellectual History,
Cambridge University Press)

76
incommensurability” (Kuhn) regarding the development/progress of or change in
scientific theories or to change of a paradigm in science. I also introduce a table and some
ideas as a summary of Friedman’s work (2012):

Authors Philosophical position Revolution/change in science

Cassirer function relative a priori rational progression/continuity of

(neo-Kant abstract relations (maths) universal laws
Platon) structures = maths Rs
continuity theories (Cohen, Marburg school)
↓
↓
Carnap formal/linguistic frameworks relative plurality languages
(logic + neoKant + internal questions (logic)
empirism with Einstein R) external q-s
(convention/empiricism)
vs.
Meyerson substance irrational/dialectical (limits of maths)
Koyre (vs. function/structure)
(Plato/Hegel)

Kuhn substance philosophy

(ontology vs. mathematics) language change: cognitively important
discontinuity/
incommensurability
(rejects continuity)

 Carnap (following Cassirer + Whitehead/Russell) influenced by the Neo-Kantians:

logical formal structures (mathematics) results “constitutively systems of reality”
(Aufbau). He relativizes Kant’s “synthetic a priori principles”: objects are
defined/constituted by “stipulation” and investigated by “experience”. Our
knowledge of scientific theories is not “necessary” (fixed through the a priori
principles) but “relative” to a specific “scientific context”.
 Cassirer: Platonic idea for mathematization of nature (Marburg neo-Kantianism)=
mathematical-relational concept of “function” (universal laws of mathematical
physics) versus Aristotelian concept of “substance”. “Kant-mathematics”: rational
purification of our view of nature, progress from substantialistic conceptions
(substances, causes) toward purely functional conceptions (mathematical
representations of phenomena in universal laws) (fixed for Kant, but relativized for
1

Cassirer and others)

vs.

1
The maxim exageration of mathematization of physical entities/processes (i.e., a total accent on function
and totally ignoring substance) has been the (super)string theory in physics. Against this theory, see my last
chapter 2010. In fact, in 2016, we indicated that even spacetime itself could not have any ontological status,
therefore, the (super)string theory became totally meaningless.

77
 Meyerson: underlying “substance” conserved (absolutely unchanging and self-
identical in all sensible alterations of nature) → mechanicistic atomism (particles) +
Lavoisier principle of conservation energy/matter + second law of thermodynamics
(temporally irreversible process of dissipation of energy) → dialectical opposition
between substantiality (absolute identity) versus function.

So, for Meyerson/Koyre (Plato/Descartes/Hegel):

- substance (ontology of substantiality things) versus “mathematical laws”
- Hegel’s dialectic, irrational progress (temporal successions) versus Cassirer’s anti-
substantialistic conceptions of science/mathematical physics.
 Kuhn: related to Meyerson (ontology, not mathematics/function)
- rejecting any “continuation of theories in explaining nature”
- “sudden” changes/revolutions from one scientific theory to another from the same
particular science.

EDWs perspective: Working on the mind-brain problem, I have always dealt only with
“substance” (I have never dealt with “function”/mathematics 1). In this way, I discovered
the existences of ED entities (“substance”) which belong to EDWs. But even when I was
working on EDWs (others than the mind-EW), I indicated they involved ED entities. For
instance, later, I applied the EDWs perspective to quantum mechanics and I indicated that
waves (field-EW) and microparticles (micro-EW) belonged to EDWs. More later, I
applied the EDWs perspective to Einstein’s special and general relativity without
“spacetime”: there are macro-entities (planets, for instance) and their motions (no
spacetime) which belong to the macro-EW2.

Authors Philosophical position Revolution/change in science

String function/formalism (absolut) mathematics = reality

theory Mathematics = Physics abstract math equations = reality
(Veneziano, Schwartz (super)strings 10-11-26 dimensions
Green, Witten)

For the superstring theory, each particle is a “vibration of a string” in 10/11/26

dimensions; the mass of a particle is determined by the energy of string vibration.
(Greene 1999) Different types of vibration determine particles with different masses. The
researchers of superstring theory believe that they (Schwarz and Sherck) can explain not
only strong forces but also the gravitation/“graviton” (as I indicated in my previous
works, graviton could not even exist!). Based on the “uncertainty principle”, every string
is in continuously “vibration” in 10/11/26 dimensions. Thus, reality is geometry, more
exactly, reality is given by a mathematical abstract formula in multidimensional space of
10/11/26 dimensions, nothing else. Everything is abstract mathematics, not even
“geometry” since the space of string theory is 10/11/26 dimensions.

1
I have always considered “mathematics just tools of helping scientists to construct predictions for their
theories, but no more. Nature (i.e., EDWs) does not “know” mathematics.
2
As I emphasized in the past, the micro-EW and the macro-EW do not have any ontological status; there
are just labels. Micro-entities and macro-entities really exist but in EDWs.

78
As I indicated in 2010, the (super)string theory has been the worst
“mathematization” of physics (explaining reality only in mathematical formula, not even
Geometry) in the history of human thinking. In our chapter (2010), we indicated that
(super)string theory was totally wrong since its mathematics had nothing to do with
“reality”; the (super)string theory is SF and nothing else... Later, in our book 2016, we
indicated space (spacetime) could not have any ontological status, therefore, string theory
is just the wrong imagination of mathematicians working in physics. The researchers
have gotten certain mathematical formulas trying to relate quantum mechanics to general
relativity. As I indicated in my works, quantum mechanics refers to at least two EDWs
(the particle-EW and the field-EW1), while general relativity refers to the macro-EW, and,
since one EW does not exist for any EDW, it is meaningless to relate these two theories.
So, the entire (super)string theory is totally wrong. Obviously, the EDWs perspective has
been a sudden/“incommensurable” change/revolution in the development of human
thinking (not only for a particular science like CNS or physics!). 2 With the EDWs
perspective, I introduced a totally new “paradigm of thinking” against the oldest
paradigm of thinking, the “Universe/world”. This change was a totally
“radical/incommensurable change” since it presupposed not a development/improvement
of a scientific theory, but a radical change of the oldest and largest paradigm of thinking
of human thinking (not only for scientists/philosophers) with a totally new one, the
EDWs perspective. Without any doubt, my discovery of EDWs and their applications to
many topics of main sciences (CNS, physics, biology) has been the greatest “revolution”
for human thinking (in particular for sciences and philosophy, but also in general) until
now since I have completely changed its framework.

1
I repeat: as I indicated in my previous works (2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, etc.), all interpretations of quantum
mechanics have been totally wrong since all have been constructed within the wrong framework, the
unicorn world.
2
However, I consider the difference between “development-by-accumulation” and “discontinuity/
incommensurability” as being too artificial distinction. Any “incommensurability change” presupposes
“accumulation” and/or “rejection” of certain previous knowledge. I realized the “revolutionary change” by
discovering EDWs and denying the identity theory (which produced many “anomalies”). It was not a
“continuity” in my discovery, but without rejecting the identity theory and Cartesian dualism, it would have
been difficult for me to discover the EDWs.

79
II. “Antireductionism” under the Umbrella of
Epistemology/Language within the Unicorn World

80
Chapter 5

Few words about Gell-Mann’s “antireductionism”

In this chapter, I will investigate some chapters from Gell-Mann Murray (1994), The
Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex (Eighth Printing
2002).1 Even at the beginning, I would emphasize something already classical in my
works: as everybody, but mainly because he was physicist, Gell-Mann worked within the
unicorn world framework: “Quantum mechanics is not a theory; rather, it is the
framework into which all contemporary physical theory must fit.” (p. 6) This sentence is
enough to understand that Gell-Mann works within the unicorn world. He emphasizes
that “determinism” must be abandoned and the scientists have to work on probabilities.
(p. 6) All these ideas are, of course, quantum mechanics framework. Obviously, he had
no idea about the EDWs, even if, as we will see in this investigation, he is totally against
reductionism. However, even at this page, he underlies that in spite of quantum
mechanics successes, nobody understands completely this theory, especially its
application to the “universe as a whole”. (p. 6) Again, this sentence indicates directly that
Gell-Mann works within the unicorn world. For this scientist, the quarks are “elementary
particles” (wrong notion within the EDWs perspective), while the jaguar is a “complex
entity” which mirrors the “complexity of the world”. (p. 11) Again, only somebody
working within the unicorn world could write these statements.
Together, Arthur’s images of the quark and the jaguar seem to me to convey perfectly two aspects of nature
that I called the simple and the complex: one the one hand, the underleying physical laws of matter and the
universe and, on the other hand, the rich fabric of the world we perceive directly and of which we are part.
(p. 11)

It is almost Spinoza’s dual aspect theory applied to the world (not to the mind-brain
relationship). We have to be aware that the “rich fabric of the world” is given by what
“we perceive directly”, therefore, we have to include a Kantian view, here. It is exactly as
we see in the Spinoza-Velmans’s dual aspect theory (see a later chapter), but applied to
the “world”.2 Writing about Einstein’s gravity and planets, Gell-Mann believes that
planets involves the “emergence of complex adaptive systems”. (p. 16) 3 Again, only
1
“Murray Gell-Mann died on the 24th of May, 2019. In 1964 Gell-Mann postulated the existence of quarks.
(The name was coined by Gell-Mann himself and it's a reference to the novel Finnegans Wake, by James
Joyce.) Quarks, antiquarks and gluons were seen to be the underlying elementary elements of neutrons and
protons (as well as other hadrons). Gell-Mann was then awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1969 for his
contributions and discoveries in the classification of elementary particles at the nuclear level.” (Murphy, p.
1)
2
It has to be very clear that many researchers have adopted Spinoza’s dual aspect theory (including Bohr!
and later Thomas Nagel with his subjectivity), but until me, all have been working within the unicorn
world. Gell-Mann’s complex-simple dual mirrors exactly the same paradigm of thinking within the unicorn
world.
3
“And since we're on the subject of condensed matter physics, we must also raise the controversial issue of
emergence. In the case of condensed matter physics again, it can be said that ‘complex assemblies of
particles behave in ways dramatically different from their individual constituents’. One specific example of
this is that a range of phenomena related to high-temperature superconductivity are poorly understood; yet
the physics of electrons, etc. is understood very well. Gell-Mann then seems to strike a middle-way
between strong and weak emergence in the following quote. Here's the hint at strong emergence: ‘[I]t's

81
somebody working within the unicorn world could write such statements. In my previous
works, I rejected all kinds of “emergence”. Obviously, even his main notion, “complex
adaptive systems” is constructed within the unicorn world. In his framework, complex
system are, ontologically or “fundamentally” speaking, just “aspects” of the fundamental
quarks. In Gell-Mann scheme (p. 20), we see the causally relationships between simple
systems (“pre-biotic chemical systems”) and complex systems (individuals and societies).
However, within my EDWs perspective, we have to replace such causalities with
correspondences. It seems to be a little difference, but it involves a totally different
paradigm of thinking: it is the difference between the paradigm of thinking given by the
unicorn world and my new paradigm of thinking, the EDWs perspective.
In Chapter 3, Gell-Mann introduces a very dubious notion (for me):
“information”. At p. 24, he writes that everything (including complex adaptive system)
follow the “laws of nature” which “rest on the fundamental laws of matter and the
universe.” Again, it is very clear the Gell-Mann’s general framework: the unicorn world;
only somebody working within such framework could write this important statement.
And few lines he writes about “information”, but I avoid to talk about this dubious
notion. In the next section Gell-Mann writes again that, in the universe, because of
quantum laws, determinism had been replaced with “indeterminacy”. (p. 24) About this
notion I wrote in my previous works: I indicated that determinism indicates the laws of
EDWs, and indeterminacy principle or “Heisenberg’s uncertainty” was given by the
wrong mixture of two EDWs: the field-EW and the micro-EW.
Gell-Mann uses “levels” for defining “complexity” (p. 29), a common notion
within the unicorn world. He discusses about “enlargement” gives as example the very
good artistic Antonioni’s movie Blow-up. However, from my viewpoint, as I explained
very well in my previous works, such enlargements would involve different “thresholds”.
You can pass a threshold in the same EW: for instance, a car and its macroscopic parts are
all within the macro-EW. However, the microparticles (which correspond to both the car
and its macroscopic parts) are in the micro-EW. Obviously, because of these thresholds,
the EDWs were not so easy to be discovered by a researcher during more than 2,500
years. So, Gell-Mann uses, as usually within the unicorn world, “levels of descriptions”,
“context dependence” and “information”. All Gell-Mann’s notions are linguistic games
within the unicorn world, no more.1
In next sections, Gell-Mann investigates different unifying theories like
Maxwell’s equations or Newton-Einstein’s theories about gravitation. Even if Newton

essential to study biology at its own level, and likewise psychology, the social sciences, history, and so
forth, because at each level you identify appropriate laws that apply at that level.’ And then Gell-Mann also
hints at weak emergence: ‘Even though in principle those laws can be derived from the level below plus a
lot of additional information, the reasonable strategy is to build staircases between levels both from the
bottom up (with explanation in terms of mechanisms) and from the top down (with the discovery of
important empirical laws). All of these ideas belong to what I call the doctrine of 'emergence' '.” As I
indicated in my previous works, all kinds of “emergence” are wrong notions constructed within the unicorn
world.
1
Murphy writes: “For a start, has any reductionist ever actually claimed that literally everything can be said
and explained at the reduced level? No; usually reductionists have simply said that most things can be
reduced to another level. And that's not the same thing.” (p. 2) Nevertheless, Gell-Mann writes about
“explanation”, not about what it exists at “fundamental level”. If, “It's almost as if the word ‘fundamental’
is normative, rather than descriptive.” (Murphy, p. 3), nevertheless, “normative” has nothing to do with
EDWs…

82
unifies the phenomena of Earth with the celestial phenomena, there would be EDWs in
both cases. The existences of EDWs do not depend on sizes of entities involves 1; he main
notion for the ED ontologies of the ED entities is the ED interactions.2
In Chapter 9, the authors asks “What is fundamental?”, and writes about the
elementary particle physics and cosmology as being the “most basic disciplines” and
about the “hierarchy of the sciences”. (p. 107) Again, even this question and notions send
directly to the unicorn world. The subtitle: “Chemistry at its own level” sends almost to
the EDWs; however, Gell-Mann had no ideas about the EDWs. There is a fundamental
level and other levels, but working within the unicorn world, he needs to uses
“fundamental level”: for him, the relationship between QED theory and part of chemistry
that “deals with electrons” is a “special case of the relationship between elementary
particle physics… at more fundamental level and chemistry… at the less fundamental
one”. (p. 112) Again, these notions could be used only within the unicorn world. He
writes that: “I know of no serious scientist who believes that there are special chemical
forces that do not arise from underlying physical forces… the upshot is that chemistry is
in principle derivable from elementary particle physics. In that sense, we are all
reductionists, at least as far as chemistry and physics are concerned.” 3 However, he
claims that, taking into account “information”, even in this case, the “reductionism is
incomplete”. (p. 112) Again, information sends directly to “language”, so we can identify
exactly Carnap’s “linguistic frameworks”, no more. At the same page, there is a sentence
that sends directly to the unicorn world: “One lesson to be learned from all this is that,
while various sciences do occupy different levels, they form part of a single connected
structure. The unity of that structure is cemented by the relations among the parts.” (p.
112) Obviously, this sentence is realized under the unicorn world. Different sciences
manages different “levels” and different “information”. Again, there is just linguistic
framework.
Regarding the relationship between biology and physics, Gell-Mann introduces
the same linguistic frameworks. Rejecting “vital forces”, he considers “life” is a notion
that is different than the notions from elementary particle physics, but it is no more than a
notion. We can talk about different properties of living beings, but there is only one real
ontology: the fundamental ontology furnished by the elementary particle physics. “The
laws of biology do depend on the laws of physics, or chemistry, but they also depend on a
vast amount of information about how those accidents turned out.” (p. 115)

1
There is section in Gell-Mann’s book: “Scale independence”. Anyway, he investigates this notion within
the unicorn world. He relates this notion to the “emergence structure” (another notion constructed within
the unicorn world).
2
Gell-Mann recalls that Newton’s gravitational force had an instantaneously propagation, while Einstein’s
gravitational act is the curvature of spacetime which moves with the speed of light. I investigated these
theories/notions in other chapters and other works.
3
Quoting this statement, Murphy comments: “Indeed it would be hard to see how things would work in
science (or at least in physics) if reductions weren't employed. Speaking platonically, reduction seems to be
the very essence of physics (if not also of many other sciences). Elsewhere Gell-Mann again admits to
being a reductionist. (In this case, in relation to the status of the “mental”.) He writes: ‘Here again, it must
be a rare contemporary scientist who believes that there exist special 'mental forces' that are not biological,
and ultimately physicochemical, in nature. Again, virtually all of us are, in this sense, reductionists’.”
(Murphy, p. 6) We have to be aware, again, that Gell-Mann is antireductionism only from an
epistemological viewpoint, that is, some phenomena cannot be explained using notions from physics. SO, it
is only about “explanation” not about “ontology” or “fundamental level”.

83
“Information” is used for explaining complex system, but Gell-Mann had no idea about
the EDWs.
Regarding the relationship between psychology and neurobiology, Gell-Mann
furnishes a similar linguistic view: “Here again, it must be a rare contemporary scientist
who believes that there are special ‘mental forces’ that are not biological, and ultimately
physicochemical, in nature.” Again, this sentence mirrors directly the unicorn world
framework of thinking for Gell-Mann. He talks about its own “level” of psychology, but
there is an epistemological/linguistic level, neither ontological (like for dualists), nor
EDWs (like for me). For Gell-Mann, the mind is the “phenomenological manifestations
of what the brain and related organs are doing”. (p. 117) This sentences sends to Spinoza-
Velmans’ dual aspect theory. (see Chapter…), but still Gell-Mann works with the
linguistic frameworks (different kinds of “information”) under the umbrella of
“fundamental level”.1
In Chapter 10, Gell-Mann introduces the quantum mechanics: the “fundamental
laws are subject to the principles of quantum mechanics, and at every stage of our
thinking we will have to refer to the quantum approach”. Again, this sentence could be
created only working within the unicorn world. It has to be very clear, Gell-Mann has no
idea about the field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-EW: the “universe consists of
matter, and matter is composed of many different kinds of elementary particles, such as
electrons and protons.” (p.123) Later, however, there are some sentences that almost send
to Bohr’s “complementarity”: “In fact, any fundamental force must be associated with an
elementary particle that is the quantum of the corresponding field. Sometimes, the
quantum is said to ‘carry’ the corresponding force.” (p. 124) This sentences sends to
Bohr’s complementarity, but in my previous works, I indicated this notion is constructed
under Spinoza and Kant’s influences but within the unicorn world. It has to be very clear
that “complementarity” (or Spinoza’s dual aspect theory) could not have any correct
ontological background within the unicorn world. (See the chapter about Spinoza-
Velmans approach) Even at the same page, there are other sentences that sends to Bohr’s
“complementarity” or de Broglie’s “association” of particle with an electromagnetic
wave. But these notions were constructed within the unicorn world. “Fundamentally”
speaking, using Gell-Mann’s notion, there is only one “fundamental level”, no more:

when matter is described as being composed of elementary particles-that is, of fermions and bosons-it
should be emphasized that under certain conditions some of the bosons may behave more like a field than
like particles (for example, in the electric field surrounding a charge). Fermions too can be described in
terms of field;… (p. 124)2
1
“Gell-Mann explicitly puts the bad reductionist position of his own faculty (i.e., California Institute of
Technology). He writes: ‘If a subject is considered too descriptive and phenomenological, not yet having
reached the stage where mechanisms can be studied, our faculty regards it as insufficiently 'scientific'.’
Gell-Mann's way of distinguishing the non-scientific is very interesting and very (as it were) particular.
Firstly, he sees Real Science as being primarily about ‘mechanisms’. (That isn't giving us much to go on.)
As for non-science, it is ‘phenomenological’. Now that can be a reference to the “what it is like” aspects of
the mind or brain (e.g., consciousness or subjectivity) or it could refer to the phenomenological accounts of
literally any scientific study… And elsewhere, Gell-Mann writes: ‘In that sense, the founding of the Santa
Fe Institute is part of a rebellion against the excesses of reductionism’.” (Murphy, p. 7) Obviously, all
researchers from Santa Fe had been working, until my first articles/books published, under the unicorn
world. Nobody before me published something about the existence of the EDWs.
2
“As for Gell-Mann, he tells us that condensed matter physics ‘is concerned with systems such as crystals,
glasses, and liquids, or superconductors and semiconductors’. More relevantly, condensed matter physics is

84
Writing about the “grand unified theories”, Gell-Mann knows that gravity could not be
incorporated within the micro-forces. In fact, the physics had been checking almost one
century for “gravitons” until I discovered the EDWs; since those years, many physicists
gave up searching for these “elementary particles”. Gell-Mann mentions Einstein’s
failure to unify his general relativity and Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. (p. 126)
Gell-Mann indicates the reason of this failure: the existence of other fields than the
gravitational and electromagnetic ones; the necessity to include fermions into this
unification; the necessity to work within the quantum framework, framework rejected by
Einstein. (p. 127) Obviously, only within the unicorn world, can somebody think to such
unification.1 Gell-Mann shortly investigates Everett’s “many worlds” (also alternatives
histories and fine-grained histories of the universe and “decoherence”), but I rejected this
alternative and “decoherence” in my previous works.2
Interestingly, there is a section called “individual objects” in which Gell-Mann
inquires about the existence of “planets”. (p. 160) “… the properties of individual things
represent a great deal of effective complexity of the universe”. (p. 161) Again, this
sentence, as all Gell-Mann’s ideas, are constructed within the unicorn world: he refugees,
again, under the umbrella of “information”. His “fine-grain histories of the universe” (and
“quasiclassical domains”) are not fundamental reality: “… when complex adaptive
systems evolve, they do so in connection with a particular maximal quansiclassical
domain…” (p. 164) It is not surprising Gell-Mann quoted Bohr’s famous verdict about
quantum mechanics.3 There is a section called “Aggregation resulting in higher levels of
organization”, but this title does not send to the EDWs since “higher levels of
organization” are just “labels” which do not involves the “fundamental level”.
My conclusion is (as everybody knows already): Gell-Mann had been working
under the unicorn world; he believes that the fundamental level is furnished by quantum
mechanics (maybe he thought that the fundamental level was the electromagnetic field).
His complex adaptive systems are constructed under the “linguistic umbrella” since
everything is under the “fundamental level”, that is, ontologically speaking, there is only
one fundamental level, that furnished by quantum mechanics. Gell-Mann’s anti-
reductionism is a linguistic one. It has to be very clear, he was working within the
unicorn world and he had no ideas about the EDWs.
a ‘very special subject, applicable only under the conditions (such as low enough temperature) that permit
die existence of the structures that it studies’. In addition: ‘Only when those conditions are specified is
condensed matter physics derivable, even in principle, from elementary particle physics.’ Thus, if I'm
reading Gell-Mann correctly, condensed matter physics is simply not reducible to ‘elementary particle
physics’.” (Murphy, p. 9) Again, it is about explanation, not about ontology; so, Gell-Mann’s
antireductionism is an epistemological one, no more.
1
Gell-Mann analyses also the string theory, but I do not talk about it here. See my work 2010.
2
Gell-Mann also writes about Schrodinger’s cat and measurements in quantum mechanics, but about these
notions, se my previous woks. In this chapter, my intention is not to investigate Gell-Mann’s ideas, but to
emphasizes that his anti-reductionism in realized under the “linguistic refugee”…
3
“If someone says that he can think about quantum mechanics without becoming dizzy, that shows only
that he has not understood anything whatever about it.” (p. 165) As I writes in my previous works, Bohr’s
statement is not amazing since he was working under the unicorn world.. Gell-Mann writes about Einstein-
Bohr/quantum mechanics dispute (pp. 169-170), about hidden variables, Bohm’s alternative and string
theory (Chapter 14), but I do not investigate these ideas here. Se my previous works. Chapter 15 is about
“Times’ arrows”, but we indicated (our work 2016) that “spacetime” could not have any ontology.
Moreover, I am not interested at all in writing something about the last chapters of his book...

85
86
Chapter 6

Dual aspect theory (Spinoza-Velmans) versus the EDWs perspective

On January 2023, I received an email from Academy.edu regarding Velmans’s article

2008. After I took a look at the paper, I started to read his book 2000. Therefore, in this
section, I will investigate Velmans’ works from 2000 and 2008.

6.1 Velmans’ Understanding consciousness (2000)

I emphasize that Velmans does not reject the “Universe”/“world” at all; therefore, he is
still working under the unicorn world! Nowhere in his works (before 2005) he rejected
the existence of the world/universe. In fact, in this work, this notion is quite important
one.
As he recognizes, in this work, Velmans is very close to Spinoza’s dual aspect
theory. From my viewpoint, the main problem of this work is that the author works on
“consciousness” and not on “mind”. Moreover, we can find a quite wrong idea even in
preface: “Part 3 of this book provides a synthesis. In it I suggest what consciousness is
and does. I also develop a form of ‘reflexive monism’ which treats human consciousness
as just one, natural manifestation of a wider self-conscious universe.” (x) This idea sends
directly to Spinoza’s pantheism…1 Anyway, for me the main problem has been the mind-
brain/body problem and not consciousness (a relative small problem) under the umbrella
of the mind-body problem.
It is very clear, Velmans works under strong influence of Thomas Nagel’s famous
article “What is it like to be a bat?” We have to be aware that Velmans makes a clear
distinction between consciousness and mind; he underlines the mental non-conscious
states. (p. 16, for instance) Velmans clearly works under Spinoza’s dual aspect theory:
“There is nothing hypothetical about our own conscious experiences. To each and every
one of us, our conscious experiences are observable phenomena (psychological data)
which we can describe with varying degrees of accuracy in ordinary language.” (p. 35)
The problem is that Velmans works under classical distinction between the “first-person
perspective and “third person perspective”.

From a third-person (external observer’s) perspective one has no direct access to a subject’s conscious
experience. Consequently, one has no third-person data (about the experience itself) which can be
compared to or contrasted with the subject’s first-person data. Neurophysiological investigations are
limited, in principle, to isolating the neural correlates or antecedent causes of given experiences. (p. 35)

Obviously, many researchers (including Spinoza) had pleded for this view in the past.
This view is quite close to the EDWs perspective. In the past, somebody even asked me
abut the difference between Spinoza’s dual aspect theory and my EDWs perspective. My
answer was: Spinoza constructed his dual aspect theory within the unicorn world. Even if
Velmans wants to push further Spinoza’s view, he still works under the unicorn view, that
1
Velmans writes: “For Spinoza, however, the differences between mind and body are so great that their
causal interaction is inconceivable. Rather, mind and body are different aspects of one underlying reality
(which he variously refers to as ‘Nature’ or ‘God’), and it is for this reason that they appear intimately
Conjoined… In its original form, this theory threatens to solve a mystery by introducing a greater one (the
unfathomable nature of ‘Nature’, or ‘God’).” (pp. 23-4)

87
is he does not reject the “universe/world” at all! However, he clearly rejects reductionism
and dualism.

Conscious experiences are first-person phenomena. To those who have them, they provide the very fabric
of subjective reality. One does not have to wait for the advance of neuroscience to know that one has been
stung by a bee! If conscious experiences were merely hypothetical, the mind—body problems, and in
particular the problems posed by the phenomenal properties of ‘qualia’, would not exist. (p. 37)

Indeed, this sentence is quite close to the EDWs perspective. However, it is formulated
under Spinoza’s dual aspect theory, even if is somehow a tendency of ontologizing it. He
clearly states that “No, we can’t get rid of qualia!” (starting at page 84). And qualia is a
state which belongs to the first-person view. The problem is that this ontologization is
realized under the unicorn world. Velmans has no idea about the rejection of the “world”
and the existence of the macro-EW, the micro-EW or the wave-EW.
Another problem for Velmans is that he emphasizes the great differences between
conscious and unconscious states. Regarding the “pain” in a finger (and his “conscious
phenomenology”, p. 108): I reall do not understand Velmans’ view.

In terms of its phenomenology, the pain really is in the finger and nowhere else. This simple example
demonstrates a general principle which leads one away from the dualist model in Figure 6.1 and the
reductionist model in Figure 6.2 towards a ‘reflexive’ model of how conscious phenomenology relates to
the brain and the physical world in Figure 6.3 (cf. Velmans, 1990a). The damage produced by a pin in the
finger, once it is processed by the brain, winds up as a phenomenal pain in the finger, located more or less
where the pin went in. That is why the entire process is called ‘reflexive’. Figure 6.3 illustrates a similar
process with a phenomenal cat. As before, some entity or event innervates sense organs and initiates
perceptual processing, although in this case the initiating entity is located beyond the body surface in the
external world. As before, afferent neurons and cortical projection areas are activated, along with
association areas, long-term memory traces and so on, and neural representations of the initiating event are
eventually formed within the brain—in this case, neural representations of a cat. But the entire causal
sequence does not end there. S also has a visual experience of a cat and, as before, we can ask what this
experience is like. (109)

This paragraph clearly indicates that Velmans works within the unicorn world, even if he
is under Spinoza’s umbrella of dual aspect theory. He did not clearly assume Kant’s view,
that everything (including our body and the external world) are represented in the mind-
EW. The pain is not in the finger but in the mind-EW since all our mental perceptions
(mental vision, auditory, smell, pains, etc.) are the mind-EW. Even the image of the body
is part of the mind-EW. Therefore, the pain is not in the finger; in the finger, there are
only physical reactions and interactions, no more!

According to the reflexive model, while S is gazing at the cat, her only visual experience of the cat is the
cat she sees out in the world. If she is asked to point to this phenomenal cat (her ‘cat experience’), she
should point not to her brain but to the cat as perceived, out in space beyond the body surface. In this, S is
no different from E. The cat as perceived by S is the same cat as perceived by E (albeit viewed from S’s
perspective rather than from E’s perspective). That is, an entity in the world is reflexively experienced to be
an entity in the world. (p. 109)

It seems Velmans did not clearly assume Kant’s transcendental view. From my viewpoint,
there is a huge difference between S and E: he makes a clear distinction between “internal
states” and “external states”. However, from my viewpoint, this distinction is TOTALLY

88
wrong! Again, he is working within the unicorn world. He did not clearly explain the
self/mind in relationship to the “external world”, but he assumes both exist within the
same framework of explanation. Like Spinoza, Velmans works within the unicorn world.

But the reflexive model suggests that in terms of phenomenology there is no actual separation between the
perceived body and experiences of the body or between the perceived external world and experiences of
that world. It goes without saying that when one has a conscious thought, there isn’t some additional
experience of a thought ‘in the mind’. But neither is there a phenomenal pain ‘in the mind’ (without
location and extension) in addition to the pain one experiences in the finger if one stabs it with a pin. And
there isn’t a phenomenal cat ‘in the mind’ in addition to the cat one sees out in the world. Applying
Occam’s razor, the reflexive model gets rid of them.
But the reflexive model does not get rid of conscious phenomenology. Thoughts, pains and
phenomenal cats are experienced to have very different ‘qualia’ (along with different locations and
extensions), but they are nevertheless aspects of what we experience. Together, such inner experiences,
bodily sensations and external experienced entities and events comprise the contents of our consciousness
—which are none other than our everyday phenomenal world. (p. 111)

This statement is quite close to the EDWs; the problem is that is is under Spinoza’s dual
aspect theory, i.e. under the unicorn world.

The reflexive model shown in Figure 6.3 suggests that all experiences result from a reflexive interaction of
an observer with an observed. For the purposes of illustrating how this interaction works to produce
different kinds of experience, these can be subdivided into three categories:
1 experiences of the external world (which seem to have location and extension);
2 experiences of the body (which seem to have location and extension); and
3 ‘inner’ experiences (thoughts, images, feelings of knowing and so on) which have no clear location and
extension in phenomenal space, although they can be loosely said to be ‘in the head or brain’. (p. 113)

Also, this statement is quite close to the EDWs perspective, but still is constructed within
the unicorn world: Velmans has no idea that the world does not exist; he is totally wrong
using notions like “external world” or “experiences of the body” or “loosely said to be ‘in
the head or brain’”. It is clear he works within the unicorn world.

Figure 6.3 illustrates one example of a reflexive interaction resulting in an experience (a visual percept) of
a phenomenal cat. In this case, the initiating stimulus (the observed) is an entity located in space beyond the
body surface that interacts with the visual system of the observer to produce an experienced entity out in
space beyond the body surface. As noted above, a similar reflexive interaction takes place when the
initiating stimulus is on the surface of (or within) the body, or within the brain itself to produce experienced
entities and events on the surface of (or within) the body or ‘in the head or brain’ itself.
What is going on? Following current conventions in the psychology of perception, I assume that
the brain constructs a ‘representation’ or ‘mental model’ of what is happening, based on the input from the
initiating stimulus, expectations, traces of prior, related stimuli stored in long-term memory, and so on (cf.
Rock, 1997). Such mental models encode information about the entities and events that they represent in
formats determined by the sensory modality that they employ. Visual representations of a cat, for example,
include encodings for shape, location and extension, movement, surface texture, colour, and so on. In
addition, I suggest that the way information (in a given mental model) appears to be formatted depends on
the observational arrangements. The information appears in different forms to the subject (S) and the
external rver (E), for the reason that the means available to S and E for accessing the information in that
mental model differ (see Velmans, 1991b). (pp. 113-4)

It seems that Velmans is quite close to Searle (even if he rejects Searle in this work): if he
assumes that the “brain constructs a ‘representation’ or ‘mental model’ of what is

89
happening, based on the input from the initiating stimulus, expectations, traces of prior”,
I don’t see great difference between this view and Searle’s view (even if he works under
Spinoza’s dual aspect theory and not Searle’s view…) Anyway, this sentence is written
under the unicorn world! It is totally wrong to think this sentence within the EDWs
perspective. So, nobody could think that my EDWs approach is quite close to Spinoza-
Velmans dual aspect theory: the dual aspect theory (and Velmans’s approach) is
constructed within the unicorn world! He has no idea about rejecting the world! Just few
passage later, he writes that
However, the observational arrangement by which the subject accesses the information in her own mental
model is entirely different. As with E, the information in her own mental model is translated into something
that she can observe or experience—but all she experiences is a phenomenal cat out in the world. While
she focuses her attention on the cat she does not become conscious of having a ‘mental model of a cat’ in
the form of neural states. Nor does she have an experience of a cat ‘in her head or brain’. Rather, she
becomes conscious of what the neural states represent—an entity out in the external world. In short, the
information encoded in S’s mental model (about the entity in the world) is identical whether viewed by S or
by E, but the way the information appears to be formatted depends on the perspective from which it is
viewed.7 (p. 114)

This paragraph is written under Spinoza’s dual aspect theory, indeed, but no more. It has
nothing to do with EDWs. Moreover, we can ask Velmans what is the difference between
his approach and Kant’s transcendental approach? Anyway, Kant did not touch the mind-
brain problem, but Velmans’ work on the mind is quite close to Kant (even if, I suppose.
he did not read Friedman’s work (1992) on Kant and exact sciences). Moreover, Velmans’
approach is based on the first-person and third person perspectives constructed within the
unicorn world (no more), but we have not to confuse this approach with my EDWs.

Unconscious mind/brain processes construct experienced realities in which our phenomenal heads appear
to be enclosed within three-dimensional, phenomenal worlds, not the other way around. But the mental
models that encode information about these 3-D experienced realities are ‘in the head or brain’. Given this,
how do phenomenal cats and other phenomenal objects that are perceived to be located and extended in
space get to be out there? It is clear that nothing physical is projected by the brain…. Rather, ‘perceptual
projection’ is a psychological effect produced by unconscious perceptual processing. (p. 115)

It is the mind, of course, but it is Spinoza’s dual aspect theory… As Spinoza, Velmans did
work within the unicorn world. His view about the relationship between unconscious and
conscious processing (he talks about Libet’s experiment1, a very important element
regarding this relationship) is quite correct, but he has no idea about the EDWs and the
rejection of the “Universe/world”. The problem with Velmans is that he assume too much
importance for “consciousness” under Spinoza’s dual aspect theory. For me,
consciousness is just a minor effect of the mind and nothing else. We can talk about “free
will” only from the mind-EW, but as Libet’s experiment indicates, from the third-person
viewpoint, there is no such free will.
1
The same thing we can say about Velmans’ example of “phantom limb”. (p. 116-8) “In short, whether we
choose to regard what we hear as being ‘mental’ or ‘physical’ depends largely on our direction of interest. If
we are interested in the event in the world (the acoustic energy) that the perceived sound represents,15 and
in how that event relates to other events in the external world, then we tend to think of it as ‘physical’. If
we are more interested in the phenomenology as such, for example in how acoustic energy produces certain
perceived effects in ourselves, then we tend to regard the sound as a ‘conscious experience’.” (p. 120) This
view is Spinoza’s dual aspect theory constructed within the unicorn world and nothing else.

90
But the fact that seen objects are experienced as being different from visual images does not alter the fact
that both objects and images are experienced—and that their phenomenology results from mental
modelling in the mind/brain.
The dependence of visual images on mental modelling is easy to accept. Subjectively, their
generation seems to require mental effort and, phenomenally, they seem to be (roughly) located ‘in the
mind or brain’. By contrast, the phenomenology of the objects we see appears to require no generative,
mental effort on our part. The perceived objects seem to exist in their own right, and they seem to be out in
the world, quite separate from the mind/ brain. Nevertheless, the evidence for mental modelling in the
construction of objects as seen, including their seen location in 3-D space, is compelling. (p. 121)

I do not understand these words: “their phenomenology results from mental modelling in
the mind/brain”. Why Velmans writes “mind/brain”? Even if the “perceived objects seem
to exist in their own right, and they seem to be out in the world, quite separate from the
mind/ brain” seems to be about the EDWs, it is not: it is about Spinoza’s dual aspect
theory.

Virtual realities provide an added ‘existence proof for the operation of perceptual projection. In virtual
reality (VR) one appears to interact with a virtual world outside one’s body although there is no actual
(corresponding) world there… These virtual appearances do not fit easily into either a dualist or a
reductionist understanding of consciousness—as, in spite of being nothing more than seemings, they do not
seem to be ‘in the head or brain’. But in the reflexive model they are easy to explain. In the manner shown
in Figure 6.6, when visual input from screens in VR headsets are appropriately co-ordinated with head and
body movements, they provide information which resembles that arriving from actual objects in the world.
The mind/brain models this information in the normal way, and constructs what it normally constructs
given such input: a perceived, phenomenal world located and extended in three-dimensional space. (p. 125)

Again, this paragraph is written under Spinoza’s dual aspect approach but within the
unicorn world. Moreover, from my viewpoint, there is no such thing as space (no
spacetime). (see my work 2016)

Within the reflexive model the physical world as perceived is part of the contents of consciousness. The
contents of consciousness are not in some separate place or space ‘in the mind or brain’. That is, in terms of
phenomenology no clear separation exists between what we normally think of as the ‘physical world’, the
‘phenomenal world’ and the ‘world as perceived’. The everyday physical world as perceived does have to
be distinguished from the more abstract world described by physics (and other sciences). That is, the
physical world as perceived is just one (biologically useful) representation of the world that science
describes. But, with our eyes open, what we normally call the ‘physical world’ just is what we experience.
There is no additional experience of the world ‘in the mind or brain’. This, I suggest, is simple common
sense. (pp. 125-6)

From my viewpoint, Velmans’ “phenomenal world” fits exactly with Spinoza’s dual
aspect theory, but both constructed their view under the unicorn world. He indeed works
with this “phenomenal world” (“Not just ephemeral thoughts, so-called percepts ‘in the
mind’ and the like must be reduced to states or functions of the brain, but the entire
phenomenal world.”) (pp. 126-7), but it is nothing new comparing to Spinoza’s dual
aspect theory.

In sum, science has found no evidence of tactile sensations in the brain. Direct microelectrode stimulation
of somatosensory cortex causes tactile sensations that are subjectively located in different regions of the
body. That is exactly what the reflexive model describes. But if tactile sensations cannot be found in the

91
brain, viewed either from the experimenter’s third-person perspective or from the subject’s first-person
perspective, how can one justify the claim that these are nothing more than brain states? (pp. 129-30)

Again, we have a clear distinction between the first-person and third person perspectives
but there are still Spinoza’s dual aspect theory within the unicorn world.

McGinn concludes from this that ‘consciousness does not slot smoothly into the ordinary spatial world’ (p.
153) and that Descartes was right to think of mental phenomena as essentially nonspatial in character (in
which case we are left with the problem of how something non-spatial can emerge from something spatial
like the brain).20 In contrast, I argued in Chapter 3 that we should not confuse antecedent causes with
resulting phenomenology. While the neural causes (and correlates) of pains and other tactile experiences
are in the brain, these need to be distinguished from their effects (the experiences themselves). At the same
time, it is a brute fact about consciousness that examination of the brain from the outside can only reveal its
physical causes and correlates. It can never reveal the experiences themselves. One would never guess,
from inspection of the brain alone, that its ‘owner’ has an inner conscious life, within an experienced body
embedded in a surrounding phenomenal world. But from the subject’s perspective the existence of this rich
phenomenology is undeniable and much of its appearance can be readily described. Given that very few of
these appearances resemble brain states, it is difficult to imagine what science could discover to
demonstrate that such phenomenal worlds are ontologically identical to states of the brain. (p. 130)

Totally wrong, from my viewpoint, is this expression “we should not confuse antecedent
causes with resulting phenomenology”. In my view, there is no “resulting
phenomenology”. Velmans did not assume “Kant’s transcendentalism” completely!
Velmans (as Kant) works within the unicorn world. For me, there is no such “resulting
phenomenology: from a Kantian viewpoint, the “external world” is a wrong expression:
in his transcendentalism, there is no such thing like “external world”, there is only
noumena, and phenomena is the mind. Nevertheless, even Kant works within the unicorn
world. As we have seen above, for Velmans, there is an “external world” if he assumes
that the mind “represents” in itself the external world. Velmans still works within the
unicorn world (under Spinoza’s dual aspect theory) and he did not reach the EDWs (that
is, he did not reject the “world”). He rejects the identity theory, reductionism and
dualism, but he embraces dual aspect theory and nothing else. Excluding God from
equation, I do not see any difference between Velmans’s “reflexive monism” and
Spinoza’s dual aspect theory except that he ontologizes more these “aspects” but within
the unicorn world.1
1
“It should be obvious from these counter-examples. that the seemingly odd, intransitive nature of pain
location has nothing to do with any misconceived attempt to locate pain experiences in the body. Rather, it
is a consequence of the mundane fact that a cut is a property of the (affected) body surface or part that the
resulting pain represents.” (p. 131) From my viewpoint, there is no such “resulting pain represents”: this
expression is totally wrong (even Kant would reject this expression…) also this paragraph has wrong idea:
“We agree that, from a subjective, first-person perspective, the phenomenal pain is in the finger, and that
the phenomenology (usually) represents something actually going on in the finger. We also agree that it is
useful to distinguish the phenomenal contents of consciousness from their causes both in the world and in
the mind/brain—and that these causes are, in a sense, the vehicle or ‘carrier’ of conscious experiences.” (p.
132) It is clear that Velmans works under Spinoza’s dual aspect approach but within the unicorn world.
Even if Velmans rejects that the mind has no relationship with the brain (Given that one does not require
this theoretical fiction to make sense of the way consciousness relates to the brain and physical world, the
reflexive model gets rid of it—along with the fiction that the entire subjective, phenomenal world is ‘really’
in the brain” (p. 133), he still works under Spinoza’s dual aspect within the unicorn world. It seem that this
is my main critics against Velmans. Somebody can sustain that my EDWs is nothing more than Spinoza’s
dual aspect approach. Nevertheless, Spinoza did not rejected the “world”; working within the unicorn

92
Velmans partially assumes Kant’s view regarding the distinction between
“observer”, “observation” and “observed object itself”. (p. 134) But this view is again
just Spinoza’s dual aspect constructed within the unicorn world. His following paragraph
mirrors exactly this fact:

For example, in cases of exteroception of the kind shown in Figure 6.3, the object itself is the source of the
stimuli that initiate visual processing. These stimuli interact with the perceptual and cognitive systems of
the observer to produce the observation, an object as seen. Barring hallucinations, this perceived object (a
phenomenal cat in 3-D space) represents something that actually exists beyond the body surface. But it
does not represent it fully, as it is in itself….
Consequently, the reflexive model does not confuse experiences with what they are experiences
of. In supporting the common-sense notion that the phenomenal world just is what we experience, it
eliminates added experiences of objects in the mind or brain (on the grounds that these are theoretical
fictions). But it retains the view that experienced objects and events are just representations of objects and
events in themselves. (p. 134)

Velmans clearly works within the unicorn world since he writes that “these stimuli
interact with the perceptual and cognitive systems of the observer to produce the
observation, an object as seen”. Even Kant would not accept this view: there is no
interactions between “external stimuli” and “perceptual and cognitive systems of the
observer to produce the observation”. Velmans did not assume entirely and completely
Kant’s transcendentalism: for Kant the “external world” is the mind, but he introduces
noumena, so for Kant (and Velmans) there is still a relationship between the subject and
the external world. Obviously, Velmans’ “reflexive model” admits that “the phenomenal
world is what we experience” and these experiences are “representations of objects and
events in themselves”, but again, this is exactly Spinoza dual aspect approach mixed,
somehow, with Kant’s transcendentalism. My EDWs approach would not to be confused
with Spinoza’s dual aspect theory, Kant’s transcendentalism or Velmans’s reflexive
monism since all these approaches have been constructed within the unicorn world. In
reality, until me, all scientific and philosophical approaches/theories have been
constructed within the unicorn world.1 The huge difference between the EDWs
perspective and the reflexive monism is that my perspective rejects the unicorn world,
while reflexive monism (obviously, also Spinoza and Kant) is constructed within the
unicorn world. Even “reflexive monism” is totally wrong: it sends toward a reflexive act,
but what kind of such act is this one? Where did it take place? Within the mind. But it
seems quite absurd to consider such reflexve acts. Also, “monism” is totally wrong

world, he was forced to introduce “God” into his equation resulting his pantheism. Obviously, Velmans did
not introduce “God”, but he uses Spinoza’s “monism” which means exactly Spinoza’s pantheism without
“God” but a “thing-in-itself”! My EDWs perspective is totally against any kind of “monism”, including
Velmans’s reflexive monism”.
1
“There may be neural causes and correlates of conscious experience in the brain, but on the basis of all
available first- and third-person evidence, no additional phenomenal experiences of objects ‘in the mind’
exist! This undermines the very basis of the dualist versus reductionist debate.” (p. 135) Indeed, here we
have Spinoza’s dual aspect, but it is still within the unicorn world. Or, we can consider a Kantian
transcendentalism but included in Spinoza’s dual aspect theory. As Spinoza, Velmans constructs his
approach within the framework of monism. Or, the monism (or thing-in-itself for Kant) is the unicorn
world; the background of Velmans is the unicorn world…

93
notion… therefore, it is quite clear that the reflexive monism is constructed wtihin the
unicorn world.1 Velmars’ approach misses the rejection of the world2…

• In terms of their phenomenology the perceived ‘physical world’ and percepts of the physical world are one
and the same (there is no additional experience of the world ‘in the mind or brain’).
• The perceived ‘physical world’ is just a representation (produced by perceptual and cognitive processing)
of some more fundamental reality which natural science might describe in very different ways.
• The perceived ‘physical world’ that we take for granted is a peculiarly human world. Given their different
sensory and perceptual systems, other animals are likely to experience different ‘worlds’. To some extent
this applies also to humans with major sensory impairments.
… In this sense, the reflexive model commits one to idealism—to the belief that the existence of the world
as perceived by us depends on the existence of and operation of our own perceptual processing…. As noted
above, the world as perceived may be thought of as a representation of a more fundamental reality which
physics, for example, would describe in a very different way. We (p. 154)

Indeed, this paragraph sends directly to Spinoza’s dual aspect and Kant’s
transcendentalism, but it has to be very clear that all these views are constructed within
the unicorn world. The more fundamental reality (or Velmans’ monism) is the unicorn
world. His “phenomenological world” is exactly Spinoza’s one aspect (the mind) or even
Kant’s transcendentalism (this is the reason, Velmans assumes, in a limited sense, a kind
of Berkeley’s idealism).3

There are many differences between the phenomenal world (the world as perceived) and the world
described by natural science. So, unless one is prepared to reject natural science, one must reject the view
that the world simply is as it appears to be.22 Observed phenomena cannot fully or exclusively represent,
or be, ‘what is real’. Rather, sensory and perceptual systems translate the energies and events they detect
into neural representations of those energies in different ways in different animal species, producing
‘mental models’ of the world appropriate to each form of life. Human ‘mental models’ form one small
subset among many… Observed phenomena are partial, approximate, species-specific but useful
representations of the ‘thing itself’.23 (p. 162)
1
Take this example, the title of a sub-section: “How sensory systems translate energies into experiences”
(p. 143) This expression (like Spinoza and even Kant’s approaches) is obviously constructed within the
unicorn world. It has nothing to do with my EDWs. For me, the mind/self does not exist for the brain and
the external environment of the body.
2
“Given this evidence, it would seem that what we take to be ‘normal perceived reality’ has more to do
with what enables successful interaction with the world than with any immutable, one-to-one mapping of
the events described by physics into events as perceived.” (p. 14, his italics) We can understand for
Velmans, everything is located within the unicorn world… The same observation is available for this
statement: “How does the phenomenal, ‘physical’ world relate to the world described by physics? The data
from physics, sensory physiology, perception and psychophysics makes it clear that the perceived world
‘models’ only a selection of the events and energies described by physics.” (p. 152)
3
“According to the model I have developed above, colour appears only once light waves (in the visible
waveband) have been translated by the visual system into colour experiences. That is, objects are only red
if (a) they reflect light with the appropriate wavelengths (around 700 nm) and (b) the visual system
translates that electromagnetic energy into a red colour experience. Of these two conditions, (b) is the more
important. That is, the visual system can produce a colour experience without being innervated by light in
the 700 nm region (for example in dreams, vivid imagery and hallucinations).” (p. 155) Again, “have ben
translated” in the first sentence sends us directly to the unicorn world! Velmans’ framework (as for Spinoza
and even Kant) is, without any doubts, the unicorn world. Many of his statements indicates the framework
of the unicorn world. He is clearly against reductionism and dualism, but he embraces Spinoza’s dual
aspect theory within the unicorn world. In fact, Velmans did not come with something new in his approach
at all; there are just more details constructed within Spinoza’s dual aspect theory (and partially kant’s
transcendentalism; we have not to forget, Kant did not deal with the mind-brain problem at all…)

94
The last sentence indicates Velmans’ framework: the unicorn world. He did not assume
Kant’s transcendentalism completely, but he accepts Kantian noumena-phenomena
distinction. Such distinction is available only within the unicorn world: “The critical
realism I adopt assumes instead that there really is something there to experience or to
think about, whether we perceive it, have thoughts about it, or not.” (p. 164) Nothing
more than Kant. It has to be very clear the enormous difference between my EDWs
perspective and Verman’s dual aspect approach (and Kant’s approach1). The framework
of my EDWs is totally different than Velmans’ framework (the unicorn world). My
approach rejects:
- thing-in-itself or the world
- Kantian noumen-phenomena distinction
- Spinoza’s dual aspect theory
- any kind of monism.2
Again, Velmans accepts Spinoza’s dual aspect, but he reject somehow Kant’s
idealism: “However, according to the reflexive model there is no phenomenal difference
between physical phenomena and our experiences of them.” (p. 176) With my EDWs
perspective, I also accepted that there is the macro-EW and the mind-EW and the human
being has an approximate perception of reality.3

1
“I do not wish to skate over the fundamental problems raised by Kant’s analysis of how the mind’s own
nature constrains what it can know. Kant is surely right to point out that we cannot have knowledge of
‘reality’ in a way that is free of the limitations of our own perceptual and cognitive systems.28 We cannot
make observations that are ‘objective’ in the sense of being observer free, or have knowledge that is
unconstrained by the way in which our cognitive processes operate. Our knowledge is filtered through and
conditioned by the sensory, perceptual and cognitive systems we use to acquire that knowledge. Given this,
we cannot assume that our representations provide observer-free knowledge of the world as it is in itself.”
(p. 164) I rejected Kant’s approach, but also Spinoza’s approach since both have been constructed within
the unicorn world. Velmans has no idea about the rejection of the world/universe.
2
“The reflexive model makes the conventional assumption that causal sequences in normal perception are
initiated by real things in the external world, body or brain.31 Barring illusions and hallucinations, our
consequent experiences represent those things. Our concepts and theories provide alternative
representations of those things. However, neither our experiences nor our concepts and theories are the
things themselves. In the reflexive model, things themselves are the true objects of knowledge.” (p. 166)
Velmans’ view is Spinoza’s dual aspect partially combined with Kant’s view within the unicorn world.
3
“For example, I cannot experience your phenomenal mountain or your phenomenal tree. I only have
access to my own phenomenal mountain and tree. Similarly, I only have access to my own phenomenal
light stimulus and my own observations of its physical properties (in terms of meter readings of its
intensity, frequency, and so on). That is, we each live in our own private, phenomenal world. (p. 176)
Obviously, this paragraph sends directly to Spinoza and Kant approaches but also to Nagel’s bat and first-
third perspectives, but not to the EDWs: “ • There is only private access to individual observed or
experienced phenomena.
• There can be public access to the entities and events which serve as the stimuli for such phenomena (the
entities and events which the phenomena represent). This applies, for example, to the entities and events
studied by physics.
• If the perceptual, cognitive and other observing apparatus of different observers is similar, we assume that
their experiences (of a given stimulus) are similar. In this special sense, experienced phenomena may be
public in so far as they are similar or shared private experiences.” (p. 177) Nothing new in these
paragraphs… The reader has to go to Thomas Nagel’s bat or Spinoza or Kant, but not to the EDWs.
“However, the physical and psychological descriptions result from two different observation procedures.”
(p. 180) Clearly, this statement is constructed within the unicorn world. The same observation is available
for this statement: “The reflexive model agrees with other models that physical stimuli can cause our

95
According to the reflexive model, there is no actual conscious content physical phenomena separation. For
everyday purposes it is useful to think of the phenomena we observe as the ‘physical causes’ of what other
people experience. However, once we have observed such physical phenomena, they are already aspects of
what we ourselves experience. That is, physical phenomena are part of what we experience rather than
apart from it. There is a sense therefore in which physical phenomena are private and subjective in the ways
conventionally attributed to ‘mental’ events. (p. 189)

This statement sends directly to Kant’s transcendentalism (and Nagel’s bat) approach but
not to the EDWs. Discussing about Libet’s experiment, Velmans writes about “perceptual
projection” (p. 197), but this notion indicates that his construction is within the unicorn
world and has nothing to do with the EDWs, but mostly with Spinoza’s dual aspect and
Kant’s transcendentalism. Analyzing Baars “global workspace”, Velmans writes that
“information that enters consciousness has already been integrated and appears to be
generally available to the system as a whole.” Working within Spinoza’s dual aspect,
Velmans did not have the same explanation as I furnished in the past: the self/mind
corresponds to the brain, body and interactions with environment (the macro-EW). He is
quite close to this view, but he is still working within the unicorn world and Spinoza’s
dual aspect. However, his explanation about conscious-unconscious states is quite close
to Baars’s global workspace; also, my explanation is quite close to Baars’s view but it is
constructed within the EDWs perspective and not within the unicorn world.
In a section “Perception viewed as a reflexive process”, Velmans states that “An
initiating stimulus located in the space beyond the body surface interacts with the
exteroceptive systems of the observer to produce an experienced entity or event out in
space beyond the body surface (such as a seen object, or heard sound).” (p. 230)
Somebody could construct such statement only working within the unicorn world! Not
even Kant would accept this statement.

We experience the phenomenal world as being outside our heads. We have representations of the world
inside our brains, but we do not experience this world as being inside our brains. Having a model that
reflects what we actually experience encourages exploration of how it comes to be that way. For example, it
encourages the study of perceived spatial localisation and extension, the experience of depth and the
mechanisms underlying perceptual projection. (pp. 230-231, his italics)

Again, this paragraph is clearly written under the unicorn world. From the EDWs
perspective, there is no such “perceptual projection”. Someone can talk about such
projection only working within the unicorn world… It is totally wrong to assume that
“we have representations of the world inside our brains” even if “we do not experience
this world as being inside our brains”. “Reflection” and “monism” are both wrong
notions within the framework of EDWs; however, these concepts are very important for
Velmans’ reflexive monism. Even if the binding problem (mentioned at the same page,
231) has, for Velmans, a solution quite close to my solution, his framework remains the
same, the unicorn world. Moreover, Velmans’ relationship between the “phenomenal
world” and the “external world” is nothing more than Spinoza’s dual aspect combined
with Baars’s “global workspace” within the unicorn world. Velmans is missing the EDWs
view.

perceptions of them, and that the resulting experiences can represent their causal antecedents.” (p 186)

96
Virtual reality systems in which one appears to interact with a (virtual) three-dimensional world in the
absence of an actual (corresponding) world provide one of the best demonstrations of perceptual projection
in action—and the investigation of virtual realities will no doubt provide useful information about what the
necessary and sufficient conditions for perceptual projection might be. Virtual reality also provides a useful
metaphor for understanding how the contents of consciousness relate to the entities, events and processes
that they reflexively ‘model’. (p. 231)

Indeed, this statement is very close to the EDWs, but it is constructed within Spinoza’s
dual aspect theory and the unicorn world since he uses again “perceptual projection in
action”; from my viewpoint, this essential notion for Velmans, “perceptual projection” is
totally wrong!

Human minds, bodies and brains are embedded in a far greater universe. Individual conscious
representations are perspectival… Taken together, the contents of consciousness provide a view of the
wider universe, giving it the appearance of a 3-D phenomenal world. This results from a reflexive
interaction of entities, events and processes with our perceptual and cognitive systems that, in turn,
represent those entities, events and processes. However, conscious representations are not the thing itself.9
In this vision, there is one universe (the thing itself) with relatively differentiated parts in the form of
conscious beings like ourselves, each with a unique, conscious view of the larger universe of which it is a
part. In so far as we are parts of the universe that, in turn, experience the larger universe, we participate in a
reflexive process whereby the universe experiences itself. (p. 233)

This paragraph indicates, again all Velmans’ ideas, that he works within the unicorn
world. “Individual conscious representations are perspectival” indeed (nothing else than
Spinoza), but he writes about a “wider universe” (which sends directly to Spinoza’s
pantheism, even if Velmans replaces “God” with an unknown universe). Velmans clearly
works within the unicorn world: “there is one universe (the thing itself) with relatively
differentiated parts in the form of conscious beings like ourselves”. I think it is very clear
Velmans’ framework: Spinoza’s dual aspect approach within the unicorn world.
Obviously, Spinoza’s dual aspect theory is the closest approach to the EDWs, BUT this
approach (as Velmans’ approach) is constructed within the unicorn world: “there is one
universe (the thing itself) with relatively differentiated parts…” From my perspective,
writing such statement clearly indicates Velmans (and Spinoza and Kant) works within
the unicorn world.

Given such fundamental problems with both dualism and reductionism, nonreductionist monism deserves
serious consideration. An early version of this is Spinoza’s dual-aspect theory, which neither splits the
universe into two incommensurable substances nor requires consciousness to be anything other than it
seems. Rather, mind and body are thought to be two aspects of one fundamental ‘stuff’ (which Spinoza
variously refers to as ‘Nature’ or ‘God’). To be scientifically useful, this approach needs to be naturalised.
(p. 239)

This paragraph indicates exactly Velmans’s approach: Spinoza’s dual aspect theory (mind
and body are “two aspects of one fundamental ‘stuff’”) constructed within the unicorn
world (“nature of God” for Spinoza). Velmans tries to naturalize Spinoza’s pantheism, but
he clearly works under the unicorn world; even the title of his approach, “reflexive
monism” indicates the unicorn world. From my viewpoint, this framework is TOTALLY
wrong; therefore, Verlmans’ approach1 is totally different than my EDWs perspective.
1
“Third-person evidence about the workings of the brain retains its full privileged status (about the
workings of the brain), and first-person evidence about what it is like to have a given experience retains its

97
Important is that Verlmans assumes Bohr’s complementarity 1: “Such first- and
third-person information is complementary”. (p. 247, his italics) Moreover, his
“ontological monism” is “combined with epistemological dualism”. (p. 247, is italics)
The reader can almost think that this is a kind of EDWs. Nevertheless, his view is under
the unicorn world. In my works, even if at the beginning, I used Bohr’s complementarity,
in my PhD thesis (2007), I rejected Bohr’s notion. In fact, as I clearly indicates in my
article 2005, Bohr (like Velmans in his book) uses Kantian dichotomy noumena-
phenomena distinction. Influenced by Kant (see my article 2005), Bohr’s
complementarity sends directly to Spinoza’s dual aspect theory. However, all people
(including Spinoza, Kant, Bohr and Velmans) have been working within the unicorn
world until I rejected the world/universe.2

If first- and third-person perspectives on the mind are complementary and mutually irreducible, then the
nature of the mind is revealed as much by how it appears from one perspective as from the other. If so, the
nature of mind is not either physical or conscious experience, it is at once physical and conscious
experience. For lack of a better term we may describe this nature as Psychophysical… The struggle to find
a model or even a form of words that somehow captures the dual-aspect nature of mind is reminiscent, for
example, of waveparticle complementarity in quantum mechanics—although this analogy is far from
exact… If first and third-person accounts of consciousness and its physical correlates are complementary
and mutually irreducible, an analogous ‘psychological complementarity principle’ might be required for us
to understand the nature of mind.19
At the macrocosmic level the relation of electricity to magnetism also provides a clear parallel to
the form of dual-aspect theory I have in mind. If one moves a wire through a magnetic field, this produces
an electrical current in the wire. Conversely, if one passes an electrical current through a wire, this produces
a surrounding magnetic field. But it does not make sense to suggest that the current in the wire is nothing

full privileged status (about the nature of experience).” (p. 245) Again, here is just first-person and third
person perspectives within the unicorn world, but not the EDWs.
1
I believe, all philosophers of the 20 th century have been totally influenced by scientific theories and
concepts (mainly from physics, but not only)… It has to be very clear that no philosopher (working in the
last century) had any role in physics (in sciences, in general) in 20 th century! Discovering the EDWs, I
completely rejected all great scientific theories/approaches elaborated in physics, cognitive science and
philosophy. Available to my EDWs, it remains Darwin’s species evolution, but I introduced a new view
referring to the “life-organism” relationship and a new definition for “life”.
2
“Physical → physical causal sequences describe events from an entirely third-person perspective (they are
‘pure third-person’ accounts). Mental → mental causal sequences describe events entirely from a first-
person perspective (they are ‘pure first-person’ accounts). Physical → mental and mental → physical causal
sequences are mixed-perspective accounts employing perspectival switching. Physical → mental causal
sequences start with events viewed from a third-person perspective and switch to how things appear from a
first-person perspective. For example, a causal account of visual perception starts with a third-person
description of the physical stimulus and the visual system but then switches to a first-person account of
what the subject experiences. Mental → physical causal sequences switch the other way. From a subject’s
point of view, for example, an experienced pain in a tooth might cause a visit to the dentist. It might be
possible to give an entirely third-person account of this sequence of events (in terms of dental caries
producing pain circuitry activation, efferent signals to the skeleto-muscular system, etc.). But the mixed-
perspective account gives a more useful description of what is going on in terms of the knowledge available
to the subject. In principle, complementary first- and third-person sources of information can be found
whenever body or mind/brain states are represented in some way in subjective experience.” (p. 248) The
same observation as above is available for this paragraph since one page later, Velmans claims that “What
dwells within the ‘explanatory gap’? Ontological monism combined with epistemological dualism assumes
that there must be something, event or process that one can know in two complementary ways”. (p. 249)
These “complementary ways” sends directly to Spinoza’s dual aspect even if Velmans tries to ontologize
this complementarity. The problem is that he indeed ontologizes it, but within the unicorn world. This is the
greatest difference between Spinoza-Velmans’s dual aspect approach and my EDWs.

98
more than the surrounding magnetic field, or vice versa (reductionism). Nor is it accurate to suggest that
electricity and magnetism are energies of entirely different kinds that happen to interact (dualist
interactionism). Rather these are two manifestations (or ‘dual aspects’) of electromagnetism, a more
fundamental energy that grounds and unifies both, described with elegance by Maxwell’s laws. (p. 250)

It is indeed missing a “better term” describing “nature” as Psychophysical”! Only

working within the unicorn world, somebody could state such judgment… I repeat: with
my EDWs perspective, I totally rejected Bohr’s complementarity. The main reason being
that one EW does not exist for any EDW; it does not mean the EDWs are complementary.
This notion, “complementarity”, has been constructed Spinoza, Bohr, Velmans and others
within the unicorn world.1
In the section “What consciousness adds to the world” (even the title indicates the
unicorn world framework), Velmans writes that

This analysis also explains why the contents of consciousness seem to enter into many different causal
interactions with each other. They do so because the entities, events and processes represented in our
experience really do enter into many different causal interactions (in the external world, body and
mind/brain itself). But this still does not explain what consciousness itself does. It remains the case that the
physical world is causally closed. It remains the case that the neural correlates of consciousness (and the
information they encode) would fill any ‘gaps’ in the working of mind/brain that consciousness might fill.
(p. 258, his italics)

He writes about the “physical world is causally closed” (notion examined by other
researches mentioned by Velmans; also se Kim in my works). Indeed, for Velmans, there
are complementary aspects having complementary ontologies, but all these
“complementary ontologies” are complementary aspects of the “universe/world”. So,
Velmans works within the unicorn world even if he tries to furnish complementariy
ontologies to Spinoza dual aspect.2 Velmans’ observation indicates the same point of
“complementarity”: “Rather, consciousness might be a ‘natural’ accompaniment of neural
1
The same observation for this paragraph: “If first- and third-person accounts are complementary, some
aspects of this paradox are easily resolved. Physical science is, by convention, a ‘third-person’ science—
and if one views the material world solely from the perspective of an external observer, it appears to be
causally closed. Events viewed from a third-person perspective can be entirely explained in terms of data,
theories and laws obtainable from that perspective. This applies equally to the workings of the brain. The
conscious experiences of others cannot be observed, so it is not surprising that, viewed from this
perspective alone, the operations of their minds appear to be nothing more than the operation of their
brains.” (p. 253) “One cannot reduce first-person experiences to third-person observations for the simple
reason that without first-person experiences one cannot have third-person observations!” (p. 254) It is
Nagel’s bat subjectivity, the first person view, correlated with the third person view under Spinoza’s dual
aspect ontologized within the unicorn world framework.
2
“It is not the case that a lower-level (microscopic) representation is always better than a macroscopic one;
the example of billiard balls is a case in point. Nor are third-person accounts always better than first-person
ones; descriptions of our thoughts and emotions are a good example. The value of a given representation,
description or explanation can be assessed only in the light of the purposes for which it is to be used.” (p.
257) This statement seems to indicate the EDWs, but it indicates only “complementary ontologies” within
the unicorn world. I repeat: as I wrote in my works, “complementarity” is constructed within the unicorn
world. The same observation for this: “It is only when we experience entities, events and processes for
ourselves that they become subjectively real. It is through consciousness that we real-ise 28 the world.
That, and that alone, is its function.” (p. 260, his italics) It is Spinoza’s dual aspects within the unicorn
world. The same observation is available for this statement: “For example, in the precise ways suggested in
Chapter 11, first- and third-person accounts of consciousness and its neural correlates may describe the
operations of mind, developing over time, viewed in two, complementary ways.” (p. 267)

99
representation.” (p. 267)1 Another statement that indicates Velmans’ unicorn world
framework:

In the ways noted in Chapter 7, the phenomenal world that humans experience is determined by the
structure of human sense organs and by the nature of human perceptual and cognitive processing. It is a
representation of entities, events and processes but it is not the thing itself. In so far as this mix of sensory,
perceptual and cognitive processing is unique to humans, this phenomenal reality is species-specific.” (p.
278)

Velmans’ last sentence indicates his framework, Spinoza’s dual aspect approach within
the unicorn world: “Consciousness and matter are intertwined in mind. Through the
evolution of matter, consciousness is given form. And through consciousness, the
material universe is real-ised.” (p. 281, his italics) Someone working within the EDWs
perspective could not write these sentences…
Conclusion: Velmans tries to furnish “ontologies” to Spinoza’s dual aspect theory,
but he still works within the unicorn world (embracing Thomas Nagel’s subjectivity, and
the first-person and third-person perspectives). Velmans is missing the EDWs perspective
and the rejection of “universe”/“world”. On the contrary, as I indicated above, even if he
furnishes these ontologies, it is very clear, Velmans works within the “universe”/“world”
framework.2

6.2 Velmans’ article 2008 (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15 (2), pp. 5-50)
I start this section with a paragraph from this article:

Reflexive Monism is a dual-aspect theory (in the tradition of Spinoza) which argues that the one basic stuff
of which the universe is composed has the potential to manifest both physically and as conscious
experience… While remaining embedded within and dependent on the surrounding universe and composed
of the same fundamental stuff, each human, equipped with perceptual and cognitive systems has an
individual perspective on, or view of, both the rest of the universe and him or her self. In this sense, each
human participates in a process whereby the universe differentiates into parts and becomes conscious in
manifold ways of itself, making the entire process reflexive. (p. 2)

This paragraph mirrors exactly the same idea from 2008. Velmans’ framework is
Spinoza’s dual aspect theory within the unicorn world. Obviously, Velmans’ framework
has nothing to to with the EDW framework which completely reject the notion of
Universe/world. Within the EDWs perspective, it is meaningless to talk about “universe”
and different “aspects”. Within the EDWs perspective it is quite wrong to write: “While
remaining embedded within and dependent on the surrounding universe and composed of
1
Recall de Broglie’s association between a particle and a wave within Bohr’s complementarity! Velmans’s
approach is nothing new…
2
In this context, I recall our paper from 2001 (Synthese): influenced by E. T. Rolls (Oxford University), we
understood that we have to accept the existence of mental representations. However, working within the
unicorn world, we just postulated their existences without offering a background for them. I believe,
Velmans is in the same situation: he accepts the existence of the subjectivity (first person view) and the
third persons (different “complementary” ontologies, let say) but he still works within the unicorn world.
Therefore, his approach is nothing new… since he did not come with a new explanation of
complementarity. If fact, for me, it was necessary a rejection of Bohr’s “complementarity” and Spinoza’s
dual aspect theory (both being constructed within the unicorn world). (see my second work, my article
2005, my PhD thesis 2007…) For me, the existence of the mental representations was the beginning of
discovering the existence of the EDWs. However, Velmans remains within the unicorn world…

100
the same fundamental stuff…”, even if you adopt Spinoza’s dual aspect approach.
Velmans works within Thomas Nagel’s viewpoint (first and third perspectives) but within
the unicorn world.

In short, both BN and RM adopt a form of appearance-reality distinction which accepts that the
appearances of the world only indirectly represent (and sometimes misrepresent) the nature of the world
itself. For the purposes of the following discussion I will call this the dual aspect reality distinction. (p. 16)

From my viewpoint, the appearance-reality distinction (a Kantian point) is quite wrong;

this distinction is constructed within the unicorn world. Spinoza, Kant, Bohr (with his
complementarity) Velmans and everybody until me had been working within the unicorn
world. In this article, Velmans has a section “What is perceptual projection?”: as I
mentioned in my observation about his work 2000, even this notion is constructed within
the unicorn world. In my approach, “perceptual projection” is quite a meaningless notion:
“reflexive model posits a form of perceptual projection that completes the reflexive
process”. (p. 18) Again, even the notion of reflexive is quite wrong: in the mind, nothing
is “reflexive”; only working within the unicorn world, someone could construct this
notion.

We know that preconscious processes within the brain, interacting with events in the external world,
produce consciously experienced events, which may be subjectively located and extended in the
phenomenal space beyond the brain, but we really don’t know how this is done. We also know that this
effect is subjective, psychological, and viewable only from a first-person perspective. Nothing physical is
projected from the brain. (p. 18)

Only somebody working within Spinoza’s dual aspect theory (and Nagel’s subjectivity)
but within the unicorn world framework could write this statement. Therefore, Velmans
brings nothing new… Obvisouly, Spinoza and Kant (more than Spinoza) influenced my
work, but the difference between Spinoza/Kant/Velmans/etc. and me is unmeasurable:
there are different paradigms of thinking, no less: the unicorn world versus the EDWs.
Spinoza’s dual aspect theory is a small part of my solution to the mind0brain problem,
but my solution is within a new paradigm of thinking, the EDWs perspective, which
NOBODY has thought until me since everybody (including Spinoza, Velmans, etc.) had
been working within the unicorn world. Many “professors” have plagiarized my ideas not
Spinoza’s ideas… Spinoza’s pantheism (or Velmans’ fundamental world) is meaningless
within my paradigm of thinking: more exactly, I replaced God or fundamental
“level”/world with “hypernothing” (the EW0). This point is another completely new
ideas within my framework because in my article 2022, I indicated exactly the
relationship between the EW0 and the EDWs.

There is convincing evidence that the experience of depth is, in part, a construction of the mind/brain, for
example in cases of depth perception arising from cues arranged on two-dimensional surfaces in
stereoscopic pictures, 3D cinemas, holograms, and virtual realities—and I have reviewed scientific
evidence for perceptual projection in various other sense modalities in Velmans (1990, 2000 chapter 6). (p.
20)

Again, this statement could be written only working within the unicorn world: “a
construction of the mind/brain”, “perceptual projection in various other sense modalities”
are notions constructed within the unicorn world. Notions like “virtual realities” or

101
“projection holograms”1 (p. 21) send directly to Spinoza’s dual aspect theory (within the
unicorn world), but not to the EDWs. Obviously, Spinoza’s dual aspect theory is the
closest approach to my EDWs, BUT it was constructed within the unicorn world.
Spinoza, Kant, Velmans and everybody had no ideas about EDWs, about ED interactions,
and about ED entities…
In Velmans article there is a section having this title: “Is the phenomenal world
inside the brain?” Even this question is wrong within my EDWs perspective.

Here RM tells a conventional story. It assumes that each phenomenal feature of the cat has a distinct neural
correlate that encodes the same information (about the cat). From the perspective of an external observer,
this correlate will appear as a form of neural encoding (in neural state space), while from the subject’s
perspective the same information (about the cat) appears in the form of the phenomenal cat (in phenomenal
space). Consequently, representations in the mind/brain have two (mental and physical) aspects, whose
apparent form is dependent on the perspective from which they are viewed. (p. 30)

Again, this view is nothing more than Spinoza’s dual aspect theory or the first-person and
the third person perspectives within the unicorn world. 2 His last paragraphs are written
under the unicorn world, too:

Reflexive monism suggests a way of understanding these relationships that neither splits the universe into
two incommensurable mental and physical substances nor requires consciousness to be anything other than
it seems. It neither splits consciousness from matter nor reduces it to a state of the brain. Instead, it suggests
a seamless, psychophysical universe, of which we are an integral part, which can be known in two
fundamentally different ways. Whether one adopts the perspective of the “external observer” or a “subject”,
the embedding surround, interacting with brain-based perceptual and cognitive systems provides the
supporting vehicle for one conscious view, and what we normally think of as the phenomenal “physical
1
A note from Velmans: “Holography was first proposed as a model of neural organisation and space
perception by Pribram (1971, 1974, 1979) and has been developed further by Pribram (2004). Virtual
reality as an explanatory model for the spatial nature of visual experience has been extensively developed
by Revonsuo (1995, 2006)—see also Velmans (1993b, 1998b, 2000 chapter 6).” (p. 21) Indeed, holography
is very close to my mind-EW, BUT holography (as dual aspect theory) had been constructed within the
unicorn world. How many people have plagiarized Spinoza or Velmans since their framework was the
unicorn world? Velmans (1993b, 1998b, 2000 chapter 6)”. (p. 21)
2
The same observation about this paragraph: “From your viewpoint, the only information you have (about
the entity in the world) is the phenomenal cat you experience. From my point of view, the only information
you have (about the entity in the world) is the information I can see encoded in your brain. The way your
information (about the entity in the world) is displayed appears to be very different to you and me for the
reason that the ‘observational arrangements’ by which we access that information are entirely different.
From my external, third-person perspective I can only access the information encoded in your neural
correlates by means of my visual or other exteroceptive systems, aided by appropriate equipment. Because
you embody the information encoded in your neural correlates and it is already at the interface of your
consciousness and brain, it displays ‘naturally’ in the form of the cat that you experience.” (p. 31) “Such
first- and third person accounts of mind are complementary and mutually irreducible. We need your first-
person story and my third-person story for a complete account of what is going on.” (p. 32) “While the
parallels are not exact (see Velmans, 2008) wave-particle complementarity in quantum mechanics provides
a rough analogy. One can relate wave and particle properties of electrons to each other with great precision,
but within physics, neither is regarded as more basic than, reducible to, or supervenient on the other. As in
RM, such properties are regarded as complementary and mutually irreducible—and physics has to grapple
with the very same issue of how to specify what it is that these properties are properties of. Just as RM opts
to describe the fundamental nature of mind as ‘psychophysical’, physics typically opts for descriptions that
somehow combine wave and particle-like aspects, for example, describing electrons as ‘wave packets’ or
‘electron clouds’.” (p. 32) About “complementarity and mutually irreducible” and quantum mechanics, see
my observation above (Vermans’ work 2000).

102
world” constitutes that view. Nor does reflexive monism ultimately separate the observer from the
observed. In a reflexive universe, humans are differentiated parts of an embedding wholeness (the universe
itself) that, reflexively, have a conscious view of both that embedding surround and the differentiated parts
they think of as themselves. (p. 33)

As we already know, these sentences are written under Spinoza’s dual aspect theory but
within the unicorn world. No more. It has to be clear that Spinoza, Velmans and
everybody until me had been working within the unicorn world. The most significant
change that I have realized with my EDWs was not to come with a new solution to the
mind-body problem (my solution is quite close to Spinoza, but Spinoza Kant, Velmans,
etc. have been working within the unicorn world). My main change refers to the rejection
of the world/Universe (the unicorn world); I replaced the Universe/world with the EDWs;
nobody had done this before me, nobody wrote something about the EDWs, the ED
entities, the ED interactions. NOBODY.

6.3 My view about consciousness in few words1

As I wrote in my previous works, consciousness is indeed the result of subconscious
processes. My view is very similar to Velmans, but I believe we were both influenced by
Libet’s experiment. The problem is that, from my viewpoint, we cannot make a very clear
distinction between conscious, subconscious states (not unconscious states like in coma
or sleeping), attention, memory and self/mind. I see a table in the middle of a room just in
front of me; I am aware/conscious of seeing that table. I perceive also two chairs in two
corners of that room but I am not aware/conscious about them. If somebody will ask me
what I perceived in that room in a few seconds, I would reply: “a table”. However, I
perceived both chairs without being aware/conscious about (without paying attention to)
them. The difference between conscious states and subconscious states is one of degree
(not of nature). Let us say, the corresponding neuronal states for conscious states are
“more activated” than the corresponding neuronal states for subconscious states. This is
all than we can say about the difference between conscious and unconscious states.
However, from my perspective, all conscious and unconscious states are the self/mind.
My main observation is that the self has no “free will” to become aware of the table and
not of the chairs. This selection is the result of subconscious processes. Indeed, properly
speaking, we do not have “free will” since everything is processes at subconscious level.
For instance, we someone speaks continuously, the sentences pronounced are constructed
at subconscious level. Even the topic of discussion is constructed at the subconscious
level but it creates the illusion of “free will”. The conscious states become conscious just
because they are predetermined to become conscious states by the unconscious states. In
relationship to the self, the unconscious states are much more numerous than the
conscious states. Exaggerating, we can say that the self thinks what its subconscious
states dictate. The words pronounced by somebody in a discussion come all from
unconscious states. The subject does perceive, internally let say, the sentences that she
pronounces during, for instance, one continuously 60 seconds. The subject becomes
conscious of those words in the same time with the person who listen her speech. The
words that I write here are just partially controlled by my conscious; in fact, the control
comes from subconscious states. The conscious states are serial just because they are a
serial process from many parallel subconscious states. Conscious states are the top of the
1
For more details, see my previous works.

103
aisberg of unconscious states. This is all. We just have the illusion of free will, but we
cannot talk about it since the process of “free will” are the top of the aisberg of
subconscious states. This is all about consciousness.
To declare “consciousness” as the main topic for philosophers and even for
scientists is, in reality, to avoid dealing with the great problems of particular sciences. It
is a kind of refugee under the umbrella of only one problem (a typically alternative for
many philosophers who did not have any idea about the great problems of particular
sciences)… In fact, solving the problem of consciousness did not need a change of
framework of thinking at all. In contrast, topics like the mind-brain problem (philosophy
of mind and cognitive neuroscience) or entanglement/nonlocality (physics) required a
new framework of thinking and therefore these problems have been much more important
than “consciousness”. In particular sciences and philosophy have been much more
important problems (since to solve them required a new framework of thinking) than
“consciousness”. Such problems needed a Copernican revolution; with my discovery of
EDWs, I realized the greatest revolution in particular sciences and philosophy, in the
history of human thinking, in general.
The mission of a philosopher is to solve the great problems of particular sciences.
Consciousness is an important topic in Cognitive Neuroscience, but it is one among many
other more important topics from this particular science. Moreover, there is Physics with
a lot of many other essential topics. With my EDWs perspective, I have solved all great
problems of the main particular sciences (like physics, cognitive neuroscience and
biology) and philosophy.

104
Chapter 7

Heil’s “Real tables” or

“linguistic disease” in the philosophy/sciences of the 20th century

In this short chapter, I will investigate, very shortly, the dramatic change realized by
philosophy of language (Wittgenstein) and analytic philosophy in the history of
philosophy. This chapter, in fact, mirror my view about the philosophy of language,
analytical philosophy, and more generally, almost the entire philosophy of the 20 th
century.
When I was student at Philosophy, I took a look at so-called famous
Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. I had the impression of reading a philosopher who was in a
frustrating situation against the world of sciences. More exactly, it was a philosopher who
did understand nothing from the new discoveries in physics (for instance). In such a
frustrating situation, Wittgenstein found a refugee in “philosophy of language”. It was
like great scientists did not pay attention to language at all! Obviously, philosophy of
language was a refugee for frustrated philosophers. The problem was the almost all
philosophers of 20th century were in this situation: being unable to understand the state of
affair in physics (mainly in quantum mechanics and its relationship to the general
relativity), the philosophers of 20th century found refugee in philosophy of language and
analytic philosophy. Even worst, later in the second part of this century, philosophers
have started to work on something much worse: “Ethics”. In fact, from my viewpoint,
“ethics” has nothing to do with real philosophy; “ethics” is a job for sociologists and
politics but not for philosophers. A real philosopher has to deal with what real exists and
to create a philosophical “framework of the world” (including human being), not with
abstract notions (like good and bad) created by the human beings.
Obviously, the situation was in a bad situation for physicists working on quantum
mechanics. Nobody elaborated a solution for entanglement and nonlocality (and other
problems) to be accepted by the majority of scientists. There have been different
alternatives for these problems, but none of them was accepted by the majority. (see
Putnam’s article 2005) Then, in physics, the majority of physicists believed that general
relativity will be replaced with quantum gravity; many experimentalists had checked for
“gravitons” tens of years (until I published my article in 2005 and my PhD thesis in
2007). Many physicists believed that general relativity is just an approximation of reality
since the planets did not really exist, but only the microparticles and electromagnetic
fields really exist (even if, this relationship was the main unsolved problem in quantum
mechanics). It has to be very clear that the state of affair in Physics (mainly quantum
mechanics and its relationship to general relativity) had been quite fuzzy during the entire
20th century. However, many physicists had been reductionists: they believed everything
has to be reduced to the microparticles and the electromagnetic fields, that is, the macro-
entities do not really have an ontological status. Working within the unicorn world, it was
something absolutely acceptable that any thinker could not accept the existence of the
macro-entities and the micro-entities in the same place at the same time.
In this scientific fuzzy state of affair, the philosophers refugee in the “philosophy
of language”. My question is: what did Wittgenstein believe?

105
(1) Did Wittgenstein believe Newton did not pay attention to his main notions? Newton
knew and recognized that in his theory, there was no definition of gravity/gravitational
force. As everybody knows, he indicated that, in the future, based on his formula,
somebody will define “gravitational force”.
(2) Did Wittgenstein believe Einstein did not pay attention to the main concepts of his
special and general relativities? Few words about Einstein’s general relativity: in 19 th
century, Faraday and Maxwell (and others) working on light (electromagnetism)
discovered that the maximum speed of any phenomena in this world is the speed of light.
However, it was supposed that Newton’s gravitational force has an instant transmission;
this aspect contradicted the limited speed of light, c. Einstein solved this problem
replacing Newton’s “gravitational force” with the “curved spacetime”. However, even
these “gravitational waves” are transmitted with the speed c, no more. The main dispute
between Einstein’s general relativity and quantum mechanics was this one: from the
viewpoint of physicists working in quantum mechanics, the planets did not exist.
Working within the unicorn world, these physicists could not accept the existences of
both microparticles and macroparticles. There would be a strong ontological
contradiction even for physicists.
(3) Did Wittgenstein believe physicists working in quantum mechanics did not pay
attention to the main concepts of their approaches? Did they not pay attention to
“entanglement” and “nonlocality”? Obviously, any great physicist pay a lot of attention to
the main concepts of quantum mechanics. There were elaborated quite many alternatives
for explaining these concepts; “many” just because none of these approaches had been
accepted by the majority of scientists. Each approach had essential problems. However,
the physicists did not need Wittgenstein’s “philosophy of language”. Being unable even
to understand the state of affair in quantum mechanics (and other theories of physics), the
philosophers of 20th century needed a justification for their jobs…
In this context, let me investigate Heil’s article: “Real tables” (2005). The first
sentence of this article is: “Table exist.” Even the title is under the same umbrella: the
macroscopic objects exist. The main problem for Heil is that he was working (as
everybody until me) within the unicorn world. “The philosophical question, if there is
one, is not whether tables exist but what makes it the case that tables exist.” (p. 493) I
don’t believe everybody accepted the table exist in that period. Many people would
accept that table exist only from a pragmatic or linguistic framework, having no
ontological background. Within the unicorn world, there would be impossible to have an
ontological background for tables, planets and all macroscopic objects.
Heil continues his article introducing different answers to this statement,
including the rejection of the existence of tables or the linguistic framework. Moreover,
he introduced he debates between the macroscopic objects and the microparticles.

When we look closely at tables, we discover that they comprise swarms of micro-particles. Particles in
these swarms come and go. There is no prospect of identifying tables with collections of their micro-
constituents. This table could have existed, even if these particles had not existed. And the particles can
exist without the table's existing: if you set the table on fire, you destroy the table, but not the particles.
Perhaps the table is an arrangement of particles. But in that case, the table is not a continuant, not a
substance, but a mode or an instance of a universal. (p. 494)

Heil investigates Locke distinction between “substance”/“universal” and “modes”; Locke

concludes that tables do not exist. Heil writes about other alternatives like eliminativists

106
and supervenience. In the next part, Heil moves to language investigating the concept of
table, the “truth-conditions” of “table predicat” (p. 495). However, in the next page, Heil
inquires about the ontology of the word “table”: even if we identify a table with a “swarm
of particles”, Heil specifies that “table” and a “swarm of particles” “have different
identity conditions”. (p. 496)

These properties, “historical properties” and “modal properties,” oblige us to distinguish the table and the
swarm and encourage us to regard the table and the swarm as occupying, at least for a time, the same
spatial region… Locke argues, and many philosophers agree, that objects of the same kind could not be co-
located. This leaves open the possibility of objects of different kinds being co-locatable. Two tables cannot
occupy the same region of space at the same time, but a table and a swarm could. It will follow that every
complex object is co-located with an aggregate consisting of its parts. The object and the aggregate must be
counted different objects because they differ in their modal properties, and, typically anyway, in their
historical properties as well. (p. 496)

However, Heil is aware that

When we looked closely at the table, we observed a swarm. The swarm has impressive credentials: it is
recognized in physics. Our best science tells us that the swarm exists, behaves in particular ways, and falls
under strict laws of nature. The table's standing is less impressive. Physics includes no mention of tables.
(p. 497)

In this scientific context, Heil considers that the “table is starting to look iffy”. (idem)
Quoting from Eddington (1928), Heil writes that

Science speaks: embracing physics means accepting that tables are illusions. Nothing in the material world
answers to our table concept, insofar as that concept is of objects possessing a substantial constitution. All
that exists-all that really exists-are swarms of electrons and other particles or whatever it is that physicists
tell us constitutes the fine grain of reality. (p. 498)

Obviously, the scientists of 20th century were much more important than philosophers. In
fact, the world had been explained by scientists (they who did not believe in any
philosopher of that century1!). In 20th century, no philosopher furnished new perspective
about the “Universe”/world.2 The view about the Universe/world had been completely
dominated by scientists:
- physicists regarding the material world
- cognitive scientists regarding the mind-brain relationship
- biologists regarding the life-organism relationship.
In this context, there were no place for philosophers, mainly because they
assumed Wittgenstein’s umbrella. Or, philosophy of language has been a “tautological
movement” for any scientist. They did not need Wittegenstein and philosophy of
language to know that they have to explain their main notions. I consider that
Wittgeinstein’s movement (philosophy of language, analytical philosophy) was the worst
movement in the history of philosophy. It was a movement of somebody (followed by
majority of philosophers of 20th century) who did not understand anything from the

1
Wittgenstein was the leader of philosophers of 20 th century for philosophers but nobody from physics (or
even cognitive science) mentioned him. The scientists did not need “philosophy of language” since every
scientist knew she/he had to explain completely the main concepts of her/his approach.
2
Recall Carnap’s “linguistic frameworks”…

107
sciences of his time.3 Or, on the contrary, the starting point of any philosophical system
has to be particular sciences. If there are no scientific problems, than philosophy loses its
meaning and justification as discipline since it loses its main (and the only one) job: to
furnish a new “image of the universe/world” (accepting and/or rejecting the main
scientific accomplishments).
Heil investigates Fodor’s “special sciences”, but within the unicorn world, there
are great problems accepting the existences of the “higher-level entities”. He is aware that
we cannot accept the existences of both one particular “Volvo” (a macro-entity) and a
“swarm of particles”. Again, there would be an ontological contradiction, anyway. Even
if Heil considers that we can assume that Volvo interacts with other macro-entities,
however, working within the unicorn world, he could not avoid the ontological
contradiction than moving to language since the interactions between macro-entities and
microentities seems quite dubious. The other alternative would be “philosophy of
language”: “This is the assumption that ontology can be ‘read off’ our language. If you
want to know what tables are, you dissect the table concept. This will reveal the nature of
tables.” (p. 501) Heil introduces the hypothesis of the “One”: motion, for instance, would
be an illusion in this context. He is aware about the dominant role of language in
explaining the world:

Our interaction with objects in the world is only derivatively linguistic. We handle, manipulate, lift, collide
with, are struck by, ingest, move, reorganize, purchase, embrace, and observe objects. We also discuss
them. The idea that our only route to objects is a linguistic route is an artifact of a chronic philosophical
obsession with language. The thought is that either you can specify necessary and sufficient conditions for
what it would be to be a table (in particle terms, in terms of thickenings in the one, or what have you) or the
relation between talk of tables and the world is hopelessly indeterminate and mysterious. But this
misrepresents the connections of our words to the world. We use words as signs for objects to which we
bear intimate non-linguistic relations. (p. 502)

The next section “Truthmakers for Modal Predicates” is about language (and “truth” of
sentences), so I avoid to comment it. However, the first statement of the next section is
quite interesting: “My suggestion is that philosophers’ talk of modal properties is best
construed as a potentially misleading way of invoking constraints on the application of
substantival concepts.” (p. 505) Nevertheless, Heil works within the unicorn world, even
if he tries to move against dictatorial power of language over ontology. “Although our
table concept and swarm concept differ in their application and identity conditions, the
very same swarm of particles could, on occasion, satisfy both concepts.” (p. 507) I do not
offer more important details from Heil’s article, but I emphasize that, working within the
unicorn world, Heil could not dissolve the tyranny of language over ontology. His final
sentence reflects his image: “This is the linguistic tail waging the ontological dog.” (p.
508)

3
It is about Adler’s “complexity of inferiority/superiority” interpreted in my way: the complexity of
inferiority (at the sub-conscious level) is transformed in the “complexity of superiority” at conscious level,
at the level of writing and speaking. Ther result of specie evolution: in this world, all times, everybody on
thinks that he is “God” on Earth, he is the smartest living person in general (not in a particular domain).
When someone has no idea about the great debates in particular sciences, that person deals either with (1)
“investigation of language” or (2) “ethics”. In these cases, the philosopher deals either with “masturbation”
(first case) or “impotence” (second case) in thinking. (Recall Feynman’s idea about the relationship
between physics and mathematics…)

108
The only alternative to reject completely the tyranny of language/philosophy of
language/analytical philosophy/identity theory/Universe/world has been my discovery of
the existence of EDWs. I emphasize that until my discovery of the EDWs and my first
publications between 2002-2005 (2005, the article from Synthese), all (without any
exception) philosophical and scientific approaches and theoris have been constructed
within the unicorn world. Many (tens revelead by my self in my manuscript with
UNBELIEVABLE similarities) “professors” discovered the EDWs (other labels) in 2006;
an impossibile coincidence!1 With my EDWs perspective, I rejected the framework of the
unicorn world and in this way all theories and approaches constructed until me.

1
The strategy of certain groups from American and Germany (and other groups from other countries, not
“nations”) has been the following: since tens of “professors” plagiarized my ideas in 2006 (thousands in the
next 10 years), the important journals and publishing companies have published thousands of other people
having the same ideas. (This fact was IMPOSSIBLE to happen in USA or Germany or GB before 2005!!!)
In this way, the greatest discovery in human thinking (my EDWs) has become something banal, trivial...
everybody could think this idea. This movement has been to cover the great THEFT/robbery realized by so
many "academic professors"... I have been alone fighting against those who have PLAGIARIZED my
ideas... Almost NOBODY has sustained my efforts... almost nobody. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ijj_hheGEi0  “face it alone” in front of this world full of THIEVES and ENVY and PROUDNESS…
however, HISTORY does not forgive: none of those who have plagiarized my ideas will remain in the
history of human thinking. Because of their proudness, everybody from my generation (and closed
generations) have been totally “unlucky” to live in the same period with me who I realized the greatest
discovery until now in the history of human thinking….

109
III. Paradigms and Revolutions

110
Chapter 8

Kuhn’s “paradigms” and the EDWs hyper-paradigm1

Obviously, the EDWs perspective has been the greatest change in the history of human
thinking: this change has influenced all mainly particular sciences like physics, cognitive
neuroscience and biology, and the entire philosophy (ontology/metaphysics,
epistemology, philosophy of science, etc.). There have been small changes through
“development-by-accumulation” (Kuhn 1970, p. 2), there have been great changes
through “revolutions”, that is, the change of a large paradigm of thinking. But what does
it mean small or great change of paradigm? What is the difference between small and
great changes? This topic I want to talk about in this section.
We could assume that all “changes” have been “revolutions”, but obviously, this
idea would be totally wrong. In the history of human thinking, there are small and great
changes. I consider we have to differentiate between small or great changes/revolutions.
For me, it means, “revolution” would require a change of paradigm of thinking. Again,
we can believe there are different kinds of revolutions, but I consider only the change of a
paradigm of thinking is a revolution. What, then, does it mean a change of a paradigm of
thinking? “Copernicus’s revolution” has been considered as a paradigmatic case of
“revolution”, indeed. From my viewpoint, Copernicus’ change was indeed a revolution,
but we have to pay attention that he changed the paradigm of thinking for explaining
certain macro-phenomena belonging to the same EW, the macro-EW. Therefore,
Copernicus did not even deal with phenomena belonging to at least two EDWs, like
Descartes’ dualism (mind-brain duality) or Bohr’s complementarism (wave-particle
duality). Could we think the “identity theory” was a revolution?
It was a great change in human thinking (involving philosophy and even people
working in neuroscience and psychology, and later in cognitive science). However, I
believe, we cannot consider the identity theory as being a “revolution”. As I gave
indicated from 2002 until today, it was even a wrong movement, while Copernicus’
movement was not wrong, he was quite right. So, what does it mean a “paradigm of
thinking”? We can furnish many meanings for this expression; there are different kinds of
paradigms of thinking, greater or smaller. There is a paradigm for one subdomain or a
domain, there are larger paradigms, but nobody until me had identified the greater
paradigm of thinking, the unicorn world (universe/world). I do not want to deal here with
this idea. We return to Kuhn:

Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend all their time, is predicted on the
assumption that the scientific community knows how the world is. Most clearly than most other episodes in
the history of at least the physical sciences, these display what all scientific revolutions are about. Each of
them necessitated the community’s rejection of one time-honored scientific theory in favor of another
incompatible with it… And each transformed the scientific imagination in ways that we shall ultimately
need to describe as a transformation of the world within which scientific work was done. Such changes,

1
I mention here that in this chapter, I will investigate certain only some ideas from Kuhn’s work (1970)
who seem to be important for me. There are many more ideas that I should investigate, but I am not
interested in such work.

111
together with controversies that almost always accompany them, are defining characteristics of scientific
revolutions. (Kuhn, p. 5)2

We have to make a clear distinction between “scientific revolutions” and “revolutions of

paradigm of thinking”: in the first case, there has to be a “change” (smaller or greater)
within a particular science or (sub)domain. We can consider, for instance, the identity
theory a “philosophical revolution” within the “philosophy of mind”. Since ‘50s years
(with Place and Smart’s articles) of the last century until I published my first articles, the
great majority of philosophers and scientists had accepted the identity theory. The
problem was that many researchers knew that something was quite unclear (or even
fuzzy) with this approach, but they did not know exactly what had been wrong with this
approach. The majority of people had accepted the identity theory just because it was the
best approach until I published my work in 2005 at Synthese (USA, one of the best
journal of philosophy of science in that period). We have to recall that, in 1992, Searle
came with a new alternative on the market (the mind is produced by the brain, both being
something physically) but his approach was immediately rejected, almost nobody
accepted his view. So, we cannot consider Searle’s view a change of paradigm. This is an
example of not being a change of paradigm in a particular domain, philosophy of
mind/cognitive science.
Kuhn writes about one “anomaly” which appears within a paradigm of thinking or
scientific approach, and later, more and more anomalies are discovered, and these
anomalies inevitable produce the crisis. I repeat: many people had known something is
not good with the identity theory, but because there were no other viable alternatives,
many people had been working within this framework, the identity theory. So, when I
discovered the EDWs (in the winter of 2001-2002), the identity theory was the “paradigm
of thinking” which had dominated the researchers working on the mind-brain topic and
its related topics. I believe there are no standard routes for creating a new paradigm of
thinking. Obviously, there are some necessary conditions: the author has to work on an
important problem and its related problems, and she has to know the main alternatives to
that problem. Also, at least from my viewpoint, it would be much better if the author
knows other important problems from different but essential domains. I knew the mind-
brain problem and its related topics, I knew all alternatives for this problem, but also I
knew (not as good as regarding the mind-brain problem) the main problems of quantum
mechanics, for instance.
Regarding my approach, the EDWs perspective, I can mention that nobody
rejected it! (Maybe some totally ignorant people, but I do not talk about them…) Kuhn
clearly indicates that a “new theory, however special its range of application, is seldom or
never just an increment to what is already known”. (p. 7) Amazing, since 2005 until now,
I have not read something against my EDWs perspective (or against those thousands of
people who have plagiarized my ideas!). In the first year after 2005, i.e., 2006, tens of
people had already plagiarized my ideas. It means that my new paradigm of thinking, the
EDWs perspective had been immediately accepted by many people and nobody has
rejected until now… I can call my EDWs perspective a kind of “hyper-paradigm”, i.e., a
paradigm beyond all the previous paradigms and approaches.
2
“… ‘normal science’ means research firmly based upon one or most past scientific achievements,
achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledge for a time as supplying the
foundation for its further practice.” (p. 10)

112
Let me see exactly the meaning of “paradigm” for Kuhn in the second edition of
his book (1970):

A paradigm is what the members of a scientific community share, and, conversely a scientific community
consists of men who share a paradigm. (p. 176)

A scientific community consists, on this view, of the practitioners of a scientific speciality… they have
undergone similar educations and professional initiations; in the process, they have absorbed the same
technical literature and drawn many of the same lessons form it. Usually the boundaries of that standard
literature mark the limits of a scientific subject matter, and each community ordinarily has a subject of its
own. There are schools in the sciences, communities, that is, which approach the same subject form
incompatible viewpoints. (p. 177)

The paradigm of the “universe/world” had been accepted by everybody until I discovered
the existence of EDWs. There had been no scientist or philosopher who had rejected this
notion.1 Obviously, for the mind-brain problem and for entanglement/nonlocality had
been different “incompatible viewpoints” (from my viewpoint, it is about certain
“subparadigms” mostly, but not “paradigms” - see below), but all these approaches had
been constructed within the unicorn world.

The members of all scientific communities, including the schools of the “pre-paradigmatic” period, share
the same shorts of elements which I have collectively labelled ‘a paradigm’. What changes with the
transition to maturity is not the presence of a paradigm but rather its nature. (p. 179)

Here, we have a better pre-definition of “paradigm”. The nature of the unicorn world
paradigm, the “universe/world”, had been the strongest until I discovered it was quite
wrong. Until me, nobody had even questioned about this paradigm of thinking, the
unicorn world; everybody had been worked within this paradigm consciously or even
sub-consciously without even wandering or asking about the arguments which would
support it.
Kuhn indicates the heroes of scientific revolutions, among them being
Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein. (p. 6) Obviously, there are others scientists
in this list; but if we refer to the history of human thinking (not only to some “scientific
revolutions”), maybe we need to introduce some philosophers in this list or even artists,
don’t we? It would be about the human thinking, in general. It is, of course, much more
difficult to identify “revolutions” regarding the human thinking in general, but I start
writing this chapter having the idea that the discovery of the EDWs represents the
greatest challenge in the history of human thinking; therefore, the EDWs perspective is
not a scientific or philosophical revolution, but the greatest revolution in human thinking
and this is the reason I call it, the “hyper-paradigm”.2
How do we differentiate between a “scientific revolution” and a “revolution in
human thinking”? First of all, the Copernican revolution was, indeed, a scientific
revolution that it was not a change of “paradigm of thinking” since Copernicus did not
change an EW with EDWs: the entities and their relationships (the Earth and the planets
of our solar system) were belonging all to the same EW, the macro-EW. I believe

1
As I wrote many times in this work and in my previous works, Spinoza’s dual aspect theory and Everett’s
many worlds were constructed within the same wrong paradigm/framework, the unicorn world.
2
Obviously, this is the reason so many academic “professors” have plagiarized my ideas.

113
Descartes’ mind-brain problem was a much serious one since it were dealing with at least
two EDWs two centuries later. Copernicus’ new paradigm (scientific one, anyway)
indicated only that the Sun is in the center of our solar system and not the Earth, but the
entire solar system was placed within the same “universe/world”. Discovering the EDWs,
I indicated the “universe/world” does not exist. It was, indeed, the greatest challenge in
the history of human thinking since exactly because I replaced the “universe/world” with
the EDWs and, in this way, I have solved the greatest problems of different particular
sciences and philosophy.
Kuhn mentions some “paradigms” (related to normal science) like “‘Ptolemaic
astronomy’ (or ‘Copernican’), ‘Aristotelian dynamics’ (or Newtonian’), corpuscular
optics (or ‘wave optics’), and so on”. (p. 10) Except “Aristotelian dynamics”, all other
paradigms are “scientific paradigms” referring to certain phenomena from one another
science (physics, in general). The EDWs has been a new paradigm of human thinking
available for all main particular sciences (like physics, cognitive neuroscience and
biology), but also for philosophy. So, my perspective is not just a new “scientific
paradigm” or “philosophical paradigm”, but a hyper-paradigm for the human thinking in
general. I do not know such a change in the history of human thinking (including all great
changes in particular sciences and philosophy) which has represented such great
challenge of paradigm. In principle, the changes of paradigms have been in a particular
science or even in philosophy, but not in all sciences and philosophy! I emphasize again,
my theory does not indicate the “Truth”; it indicates certain real truths (which refer to
phenomena belonging to EDWs), but also indicates that all approaches, theories and
paradigms of special sciences and philosophy have been wrong. My EDWs perspective is
indeed a new hyper-paradigm of thinking for all scientists and philosophers 1, but it is not
an “absolute true perspective”. It has indicated that the greatest paradigm of thinking until
now (the universe/world) has been wrong, but also certain truths (referring to ED
phenomana belonging to EDWs). Quite interestingly, Kuhn indicates the problems for
scientists working in “normal science”:

wether historically or in the contemporary laboratory, that enterprise seems an attempt to force nature into
the preformed and relative inflexible box that the paradigm supplies. No part of the aim of normal sciences
is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those who will not fit the box are often not seen at all. (p.
24)

Kuhn is quite right referring to the “normal scientists” (scientists who do not even try to
discover or the explain something in their science, i.e., 99% of them… they work under
“normal or paradigm-based research”, p. 25). Nevertheless, there are some “great
scientists” who try to explain certain phenomena under a new approach/perspective or
even paradigm. For instance, there have been more than ten “interpretations” of
phenomena furnished by empirical data of quantum mechanics (indeed, “ten” is very
small compared to the number of physicists) of last century. There have been very few
“shifting paradigms” for the mind-brain problem during centuries even if many
researchers/philosophers like Spinoza-Velmans (against Descartes’ dualism) or Searle

1
It was not surprisingly for me, many physicists who have plagiarized my ideas, dealt in their works on
certain problems of physics, but for the first time, they furnished a new alternative to the mind-brain
problem even if they have never published something on this topic. Who would be so stupid to believe
them?

114
(against the identity theory), but their approaches had not been accepted: Descartes died
without being able to solve the interactions between the mind and the brain, while
Searle’s approach had been immediately rejected by many scientists philosophers).
Kuhn writes about three kinds of facts that “determine” a paradigm.
(1) nature of things
(2) predictions of theory
(3) the empirical work which supports the paradigm. (pp. 25-7)
The first point (mixed with third one) was very important for me to discover the
EDWs: I had to confirm Descartes’ main idea (coming from Plato and, even older, from
religion) that there are somehow two ontological different substances. However, I knew
that something has to be wrong with Descartes’ approach, identity theory or Spinoza’s
dual aspect theory, all approaches being constructed within the unicorn world. When I
discovered the mind being an EW, while the brain/body being an entity in an EDW, the
macro-EW, I also realized that this new paradigm of thinking could be apply to the main
problems of quantum mechanics or to dispute between Einstein’s general relativity and
quantum mechanics. I have realized the change of paradigm not in a particular science
(moreover, I rejected the fundamental role of mathematics in physics, recall Einstein’s
words about mathematics), neither in cognitive science, nor philosophy. My EDWs
perspective (a hpyer-paradigm) refers to the human thinking in the most general view. To
realize such jump, it was necessary for me to know the main problems and the
approaches from philosophy, cognitive science and physics. There have always been
scientific anomalies within one science or another (recall Ptolemaic epicycles or the fact
that Newton did not have a definition for “gravitational force”!). I do not know any
scientific theory or paradigm of thinking in which a person (or more) could explained
“everything”. Until I discovered the beginning of the EDWs (last year), there had always
been some problems/anomalies in a particular science or in philosophy. When I have
found the answer to the last problem (the beginning of the “universe”) last year, I could
claim that I have solved all great problems of the main particular sciences and
philosophy. Obviously, in the future (probable in 100 years), new phenomena will appear
as “anomalies” in relationship with my perspective and the scientists/philosophers will
start to check for a new paradigm of thinking. Probable, in 200 years, a new paradigm of
thinking will appear, even if, I am sure, the change will not be as great as I have realized
discovering the EDWs (so, I believe, that new paradigm will not be called a new hyper-
paradigm…)
Kuhn discusses about the “rules” and a “paradigm”. Scientists can

agree in their identification of a paradigm without agreeing on, or even attempting to produce, a full
interpretation or rationalization of it… Normal science can be determined in part by the direction inspection
of paradigms, a process that is often aided by but does not depend upon the formulation of rules and
assumptions. Indeed, the existence of a paradigm need not even imply that any full set of rules exists. (p.
44)

For elaborating the “hyper-paradigm of EDWs”, I needed to know the main approaches
of particular sciences (physics, cognitive science, philosophy) and their “sub-paradigms”
(rules, etc.) in order to identify the greatest paradigm of thinking, the “universe/world”
and to conclude that there had been the greatest mistake, a paradigm of thinking nobody
had identified it as being wrong; people did not identify it as paradigm of thinking,

115
everybody worked as believing the universe/world really exist (more exactly, nobody
even asked if it existed…).1 During three-four years, I had been working mainly on the
mind-brain problem in cognitive science (and philosophy of mind), but before this period
but also during his period, I had been working on certain problems from physics and
philosophy. I knew the main approaches regarding the mind-brain problem and the
entanglement/nonlocality in quantum mechanics. I also knew the great debates between
Einstein’s general relativity and quantum mechanics. I emphasize that I did not focusing
only on one main problem, the mind-brain problem, (even if most time had been
dedicated to this problem). I totally agree with Kuhn:

Paradigms may be prior to, more binding, and more complete than any set of rules for research that could
be unequivocally abstracted from them. So far, this point has been entirely theoretical: paradigms could
determine normal science without the intervention of discoverable rules. (p. 46, his italics)

Obviously, the most general paradigm of thinking, the “universe/world”, had dominated
completely (more powerful than any other paradigm) all the scientists and the
philosophers, it dominated human thinking, in general. Very important, until me, nobody
even had thought about the universe/world as being a “paradigm of thinking”!2

The transition from Newtonian to quantum mechanics evoked many debates about both the nature and the
standard of physics, some of which still continue… When scientists disagree about whether the
fundamental problems of their field have been solved, the search for rules gains a function that it does not
ordinarily posse. While paradigms remain secure, however, they can function without agreement over
rationalization or without any attempted rationalization at all. (pp. 48-9)

My EDWs perspective has been a new paradigm of thinking (a hyper-paradigm) without

“rules”; I have developed certain different rules for each particular sciences, but the
paradigm, the EDWs, remains the same. With my accomplishments in 20 years (from
2002 to 2023), I have “rationalized” completely my paradigm exactly because I have
answered all the great problems of particular sciences and philosophy. Again, until I
discovered and developed my EDWs, there had been quite many unsolved problems in
the main particular sciences and philosophy. I recall the title of Putnam’s article 2005
about quantum mechanics: “A philosopher look at quantum mechanics (again)” (some
authors have used the slogan “the mysteries of quantum mechanics”). Putnam
investigates four main interpretations of quantum mechanics from that time, he rejects
two of them (including Everett’s many worlds!), but he is aware none of alternatives
1
My position is very different than Karl Popper’s “falsification” (Kuhn, p. 146) or Nietzsche’s nihilism.
Discovering the EDWs has not been only the falsification of all previous scientific theories or philosophical
approaches/paradigms. The EDWs perspective has been a new paradigm of thinking, not just “falsification”
of the previous approaches. I suppose my theory will be rejected in 200 years, but it is a new paradigm of
thinking which, I suppose, will dominate human thinking for the next centuries. And even if, in the future,
it will be replaced with a new paradigm of thinking, it does not mean my movement has been only
“falsification” of something. Kuhn’s words mirror exactly my view: “But falsification, though it surely
occurs, does not happen with, or simply because of, the emergence of an anomaly or falsifying instance.
Instead, it is a subsequent process and separate process that might equally well be called verification since
it consists in the triumph of a new paradigm over the old one.” (p. 147) “Within the new paradigm, old
terms, concepts and experiments fall into new relationships one with the other.” (p. 149)
2
The reader has not to confuse my EDWs perspective with Everett’s many worlds or Spinoza-Velmans dual
aspect approach: both these approaches (and all rules, approaches, theories and paradigms) had been
elaborated within the unicorn world.

116
could be accepted without any doubt. In our days, many physicists have plagiarized my
ideas, none of them (no philosopher) have criticized my EDWs perspective since I
published my article in 2005 at one of the best journal of philosophy in US and the world.
It means, in our days, my approach (my hyper-paradigm) is the actual framework for the
entire humanity (except ignorant people who have not even heard about my EDWs yet).

The introduction to this essay suggested that there can be small revolutions as well as large ones, that some
revolutions affect only the members of a professional subspeciality, and that for such groups even the
discovery of a new and unexpected phenomenon may be revolutionary. (p. 49)

Obviously, there are small and great revolutions in particular sciences and philosophy. I
believe, it is quite wrong to use the same notion, “revolution” for “small revolutions”;
such revolutions are not real revolutions, but mostly some important changes. As I
noticed above, even the identity theory was not a “great” revolution in philosophy of
mind/cognitive science. Of course, it was an important change in these domains, but we
cannot call it as “revolution”. Not even Descartes’ dualism or Spinoza’s dualism could be
called “revolution” since the framework of these approaches had been the same, the
unicorn world.

If normal science is so rigid and if scientific communities are so close-knit as the preciding discussion has
implied, how can a change of paradigm ever affect only a small subgroup? … normal science is a single
monolithic and unified enterprise that must stand or fall with any one of its paradigms as well as with all of
them together. But science is obviously seldom or never like that. Often, viewing all fields together, it
seems instead a rather ramshackle structure with little coherence among its various parts… substituting
paradigms for rules should make the diversity of scientific fields and specialities easier to understand.
Explicit rules, when they exist, are usually common to a broad scientific group, but paradigms need not
be… And even men who, being in the same or closely related fields, begin by studying many of the same
books and achievements my acquire rather different paradigms in the course of professional specialization.
(p. 49)

Again, the problem had been that, during more than 2,500-3,000 years, nobody had
identified the “universe/world” as being a particular “paradigm of thinking”. There had
been “rules” in each particular science and in philosophy for different topics, but
everybody had been working within the same wrong paradigm without being aware about
this fact. Being the same paradigm for everybody can indicate how large the unicorn
world had been in sciences and philosophy. In general, researchers (usually old
researchers) cannot accept a new approach mainly because it could reject their entire
works. Recall Planck’s words about a new approach (one of the mottos of my Springer’s
book) of the document signed by 100 scientists who rejected Einstein’s relativity or the
dispute between Einstein and the physicists working on quantum mechanics. As I
remarked in my previous works, Einstein lost this battle; he died being aware he lost the
greatest battle of his life. The problem was that, working within the unicorn world,
Einstein and all the physicists have been, at least, partially wrong. 1 If a particular
approach of a particular science is much easier to be rejected 2, based on strong
1
I used “partially” taking into account Schrodinger’s wave equation and Einstein general relativity.
However, even if their equations were correct, both scientists worked within the unicorn world (spacetime
could not have any ontological status…)
2
Recall Seale’s approach was rejected by scientists and philosophers (like eliminativists) immediately after
being published in 1992.

117
scientific/philosophical arguments, when a new paradigm appears, it can be much more
difficult to be rejected. On the contrary, instead of rejecting it (because they would not
find any error), in our days with Internet, many scientists and philosophers would
plagiarize it.
Kuhn (p. 50) mentions that the physicists working on quantum mechanics works
on different paradigms, and a change of a paradigm could affect only a small group of
physicists accepting that paradigm, but that change would not affect other physicists,
(much less the scientists working on other topics/domains). “A revolution produced
within one of these traditions will not necessary extend to the others as well.” (p. 50)
Such “revolutions” were different “interpretations” of quantum mechanics or the mind-
brain problem, but from my viewpoint, we should not call such changes as “revolutions”,
not even “small revolutions”. Maybe we can call Copernicus’ change a “revolution”
(even if it did imply only the macro-EW), but we cannot call “revolution” any
interpretation of quantum mechanics (including Bohr’s “complementarity”, Copenhagen
interpretation and Everett’s many worlds) just because all of them had been wrong
(constructed within the unicorn world) and referring to two EDWs.1

What quantum mechanics means to each of them dependences upon what courses he has had, what texts he
has read, and which journals has studied. I follows that, through a change in quantum-mechanical law will
be revolutionary for all of these groups, a change that reflects upon only one or another paradigm
applications of quantum mechanics need to e revolutionary only for the members of a particular
professional subspeciality. For the rest of the professions and for those who practice other physical
sciences, that change need not be revolutionary at all. (p. 50)

Kuhn is quite right if we think of all changes (great or small) which had happened until I
discovered the EDWs. Nobody has realized such change as I did realize discovering the
EDWs. Because there had been different interpretations of quantum mechanics, there
have been different (sub)paradigms of working for different researchers. It was not the
same situation for scientists and philosophers working on cognitive science and
philosophy of mind: almost all had been working under the “umbrella” of the identity
theory (even if, many of them knew there were problems with this “umbrella”).
Obviously, the beginning of a creating a new paradigm is given by some anomalies which
indicates that

nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science. It then
continues with a more or less extended explaration of the area of anomaly. And it closes only when the
paradigm theory as been ajusted so that the anomaly has become the expected. (p. 52)

For me, the mind-brain problem did not have a clear solution; as many other researchers,
I knew the identity theory is not completely acceptable. Also, I knew that quantum
mechanics did not have an acceptable alternative. I discovered the existence of the EDWs
working on the mind-brain problem, even if I knew the main problems of quantum
mechanics (like “entanglement” and “nonlocality”) or the great dispute between

1
Maybe Kuhn is aware that a particular science (for instance, physics) does not exist in itself; there are
physicists, different people, each having her mind working under different paradigms, subparadigms, and
rules. We have to remark that if Copernicus’ revolution referred to the macro-EW, all interpretations of
quantum mechanics referred to two EDWs, the micro-EW and the field-EW. Therefore, the fact that a
“change” involves at least two EDWs, it does not that this change is indeed a revolution…

118
Einstein’s general relativity and physicists working on quantum mechanics. In general,
any great theory was not easily accepted by the others (especially by old people working
in the same domain). However, my EDWs perspective had been plagiarized by tens
(probable hundreds) of people in 2006 (one year after I published my article at Synthese)
and thousands in the next ten years! Amazing, isn’t it? This fact indicates exactly the
magnitude of my hyper-paradigm.
Kuhn mentions new “discoveries” as being the starting point for creating a new
paradigm of thinking. However, for discovering the EDWs, I did not need any new
“discovery”. “Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm.”
(p. 65) Kuhn mentions, explicitly, that new discoveries are not the “only sources of these
destructive-constructive paradigm changes.” (p. 66) The mind-brain problem or
entanglement and nonlocality had already been, somehow, “anomalies” in different
domains, even if there had been approaches/paradigms pretending of solving these
problems. There is, as Kuhn emphasizes, an overlap between scientific fact and theory,
discovery and invention. (p. 66) Moreover, in general, there have been different
competitors for explaining the same or different phenomena.
Kuhn furnishes different cases, one being the competition between Ptolemaic
astronomy and Newton’s alternative.

Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can
always be placed upon a given collection of data. History of science indicates that, particularly in the early
developmental stages of a new paradigm, it is not very difficult to invent such alternates.” (p. 76)

Discovering the existence of the EDWs, in our days, I do not have any other alternatives.
From the beginning, my EDWs hyper-paradigm has not been in “competition” with any
other alternative (paradigm/theory/approach); many people have accepted it, many have
plagiarized it, only few persons have quoted my name… This is the actual state of men
(scientists, philosophers, politicians, solders, policeman, etc.): they are full of envy,
proudness, hate, ignorance, many of them are just THIEVES and potential criminals, etc.
etc. Moreover, since I have solved all the great problems of main particular sciences and
philosophy, there would be quite impossible to appear a new alternative in this period…
Just in the next page, Kuhn indicates that “crisis are a necessary precondition for
the emergence of novel theories and ask how scientists respond to their existence.” (p.
77) “Though they may began to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not
renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis.” (p. 77) The problem is that none of
interpretations of empirical data from quantum mechanics had been accepted by the
majority of persons. Even if the identity theory had been accepted by the large majority
of scientists working in cognitive science, some of them were aware about the problems
of this approach… I repeat, having no other viable alternatives, the scientists and
philosopher had been forced, somehow, to accept the identity theory.
Essentially it is the following Kuhn’s statement: “But science students accept
theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence.” 1 (p. 80) I believe
1
“No wonder that textbooks and the historical tradition they [scientists] imply have to be rewritten after
each scientific revolution.” (p. 138) “Whitehead caught the unhistorical spirit of the scientific community
when he wrote, ‘A science that hesitates to forget its founders is lost.’… Fortunately, instead of forgetting
these heroes, scientists have been able to forget or revise their works.” (pp. 138-9) Except Darwin’s
evolution theory, I had to reject all the “great” scientific theories and philosophical approaches elaborated
until me…Rejecting, the “accumulation-by-data” alternative, Kuhn believes that “… science has reached

119
this sentence mirrors exactly the state of affair in any particular science and philosophy. 2
For instance, the (super)string theory dominated more than three decades the academic
environment mainly in US, the leader of international academic environment in the last
80 years (or so), but also the academic environment of other countries. However, with my
publication from 2005, some researchers suddenly gave up to their paradigm of thinking
and published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas even in 2006 and 2007…
Because of the Internet, the change of a (sub)paradigm of thinking for scientists and
philosophers has become much more easier than in the last centuries. Therefore, we have
to update Kuhn’s perspective regarding the change of a paradigm.

its present state by a series of individual discoveries and inventions that, when gathered together, constitute
the modern body of technical knowledge.” Obviously, he is totally right: “Earlier generations pursued their
own problems with their own instruments and their own canons of solution. Nor is it just the problems that
have changed. Rather the whole network of fact and theory that the textbooks paradigm fits to nature has
shifted.” (p. 141) With my EDWs perspective, I have indeed changed COMPLETELY the “whole network
of fact and theory” and this is the reason I call my perspective as being a hyper-paradigm… “A new
interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory, emerges first in the mind of one or a few
individuals.” (p. 144) But how about the fact that I discovered tens of people publishing UNBELIEVABLE
similar ideas to my EDWs perspective in the same year 2006 and many more in 2007???? Obviously, it
would be quite impossible the greatest change in the history of human thinking to appear in the minds of
tens or even hundreds of people in two years, and in the next 10-5 years, to appear thousands of people
(working in different sciences and philosophy) with the same ideas. Only somebody incredible
IGNORANT would believe these facts… “Few philosophers of science still seek absolute criteria for the
verification of scientific theories.” (p. 145) Indeed, as I mentioned above, the physicists of 20 th century did
not pay attention to any philosopher (I repeat: all the philosophers of 20 th century followed the worse
movement in the history of philosophy (Wittgenstein’s linguistic framework) just because they had been
unable to understand and to surpass the problems of quantum mechanics (and other problems from
particular sciences). However, many physicists from USA, Germany, Australia, etc. have plagiarized my
ideas referring to the great “mysteries” of quantum mechanics immediately after I published my article in
2005. I was lucky the article at that important American journal (Synthese) has been published in November
2005; if my paper were published in March 2005, I would be sure, many physicists, cognitive scientists and
philosophers would had been published the same ideas in the same year 2005. Nevertheless, I have
published two articles (in Romanian journals) with my EDWs perspective in 2002 and 2003. So, those who
have plagiarized my ideas have no chances…
2
“Both normal science and revolutions are, however, community-based activities. To discover and analyze
them, one must first unravel the changing community structure of the sciences over time. A paradigm
governs, in the first instance, not a subject matter but rather a group of practitioners. Any study of
paradigm-directed or of paradigm-shaterring research must begin by locating the responsible group or
groups.” (pp. 179-80) This paragraphs mirror exactly the relationship between the appearance of my EDWs
perspective and the reactions of different groups from different sciences/countries: many of them have
plagiarized my ideas, but nobody has contradicted my approach until now. This fact indicates that my
EDWs perspective is the largest paradigm (a hyper-paradigm) elaborated by somebody in the history of
human thinking (including the main particular sciences and philosophy). In fact, Kuhn deals mainly with
subparadigms or even theories and approaches or even with small paradigms, but not with what I do
understand through “paradigm” (see Kuhn notions of “paradigm”, “theory”, “disciplinary matrix”,
“symbolic generalization”, “shared examples”, “tacit knowledge and intuition” at pp. 181-97 ). I believe,
we cannot identify all these details in grasping the change of an old paradigm with a new one… From my
viewpoint, a change of a paradigm is phenomena that takes place quite accidentally, but we know sure, only
one person is involved in changing a great paradigm; only small changes, we can attribute to two (but not
three!) persons… Anyway, many points Kuhn emphasizes in these sections have to be reconsidered taking
into account the Internet.

120
… even a discrepancy unaccountably larger than that experienced in other applications of the theory need
not draw any very profound response. There are always some discrepancies. Even the most stubborn once
usually respond at last to normal practice.” (p. 81)

Kuhn investigates the anomaly of Mercury’s motion for Newton’s theory of gravitation:
nobody “seriously questioned Newtonian theory because of the long-recognizes
discrepancies between predictions from that theory and both the speed of sound and
motion of Mercury.” (p. 81) “It follows that if an anomaly is to evoke crisis, it must be
more than just an anomaly. There are always difficulties somewhere in the paradigm-
nature fit; most of them are set sooner or later, often by processes that could not have
been foreseen.” (p. 82) It means, we talk about humans, normal humans, and no human is
“God” (Newton was declared “God on Earth”!). I believe that, without any “anomaly”, a
paradigm produces no doubts at all. “All crisis begin with the blurring of a paradigm and
the consequent loosing of the rules for normal research.” (p. 84) I repeat: in general, all
approaches, scientific theories and philosophical frameworks had had problems; none of
them explained everything regarding human knowledge. On the contrary, last year I
found and published the answer regarding the beginning of all “universes” and EDWs. In
this way, during 20 years, I have solved all the great problems of main particular sciences
and philosophy. Actually, there remains no great problem in any main sciences and
philosophy. For changing my paradigm of thinking, it will be necessary certain
“anomalies” (scientific facts) to appear in the future. Actually, there is not any such
scientific fact as being an anomaly for my EDWs hyper-paradigm.1
Kuhn emphasizes that changing one paradigm with another is not given by the
accumulation of empirical and theoretical knowledge, but

it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals, a reconstruction that changes some of the field’s
most elementary theoretical generalizations as well as many of its paradigm methods and applications…
When the trasition is complete, the profession will have changed its view of the field, its methods and
goals. (p. 85)

Indeed, the change of paradigm of thinking I have realized with discovering the EDWs
have already produced “new fundamentals”, new methods and goals in particular
sciences and philosophy. Everything has been changed in human thinking since I have
discovered the EDWs.2 I did not realized this change through accumulation-of-data, of
course; it was just a discovery realized by myself. “Einstein wrote that before he had any
1
To indicate his position against the cumulative process, Kuhn mentions that new “sorts of phenomena
would simply disclose order in an aspect of nature where none had been seen before. In the evolution of
science new knowledge would replace ignorance rather than replace knowledge of another and
incompatible sort.” (p. 95) For discovering the EDWs, I did not need new phenomena: these phenomena
(like the mind-brain problem or entanglement or nonlocality) appeared long before my discovery. So, Kuhn
was right: the discovery of my EDWs was not the result of cumulative facts.
2
The confirmation of this fact is given by my dark list. There are many people on this Earth who have
known nothing about my EDWs perspective. They are the ignorant people; smarter people have plagiarized
my ideas, only few have quoted my name… I repeat, because of the Internet, the change of an old paradigm
with a new one is much faster than in the last four centuries. At page 88, Kuhn emphasizes the role of
philosophers in preceeding the apparition of a new paradigm; he mentions the periods before the
appearances of Newton, Einstein and quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, in the last 100 years, no scientist
working on quantum mechanics has paid any attention to any philosopher. However, after 2005, not only
philosophers but also many scientists (including physicists and cognitive neuroscientists) have plagiarized
my ideas.

121
substitute for classical mechanics, he could see the interrelation between the known
anomalies of black-body radiation, the photoelectric effect, and specific heats.” (p. 89) As
I mentioned above, the my framework of discovering the existence of EDWs had been
given by different problems (for instance, the mind-brain problem, entanglement and
nonlocality, the notion of existence, the paradigm of thinking for scientists and
philosophers) from different domains (cognitive science, physics, and philosophy).

… the new paradigm… emerges all at once, sometimes in the middle of the night, in the mind of a man
deeply immersed in crisis. What the nature of that final stage is-how an individual invents (or finds he has
invented) a new way of giving order to data now all assembled-must here remain inscrutable and may be
permanently so… Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm
have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they changed. And perhaps that point
need not have been made explicit, for obviously these are the men who, being little committed by prior
practice of the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see those rules no longer define
a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them. (pp. 89-90)

Kuhn is perfectly right: there is no key for changing an old “paradigm of thinking” with a
new one. And, I was not very young, but indeed I was quite new in the fields of cognitive
science/philosophy of mind and physics but my discovering of the EDWs solved,
instantaneously all the great problems of these domains. I was aware of all these great
problems and I agree completely with Kuhn, a very important aspect was that I had been
working alone on the mind-brain problem. The scientific revolutions (i.e., the change of
an old paradigm with a new “incompatible” one) are, indeed, “non-cumulative
developmental episodes”. (p. 92) Kuhn insists on the necessity of a preceding crisis for a
new paradigm to appear. (p. 92) When I discovered the EDWs (in the winter of 2001-
2002), there was no “crisis” in either cognitive science/philosophy of mind (scientists and
philosopher accepting the identity theory, even if many people knew there were some
great problems with this approach) or in physics (since second decade of 20 th century,
there were different “interpretations” of quantum phenomena, none of them being
accepted by the majority). Or, we can say these domains have always been in crisis since
nobody came with a new paradigm of thinking accepted by the majority of people from a
particular science or philosophy. Kuhn is, again, correct in writing that astronomers “for
example, could accept X-rays as a mere addition to knowledge, for their paradigms were
unaffected by the existence of a new radiation.” (p. 93) “… a new theory might be simply
a higher level theory than those known before, one that liked together a whole group of
lower level theories without substantially changing any.” (p. 95) My EDWs perspective
is, obviously, a higher level theory than all the previous paradigms/theories/approaches
from particular sciences and philosophy; it is in fact a hyper-paradigm. “The normal-
scientific tradition that emerge form a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but
often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before.” (p. 103) Indeed, we
cannot even “measure” any difference between my EDWs hyper-paradigm and any
paradigm/theory/approach elaborated within the unicorn world since my EDWs
perspective has changed completely the most general framework of human thinking until
me: “… through the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the scientist
afterward works in a different world.” (p. 121)1 With my EDWs hyper-paradigm, I have
1
“Practising in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the
same point in the same direction. Again, it is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are
looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas, they see different things,

122
indeed worked in “a different world”, but I have also changed the “world/universe” itself,
for the first time in the history of human thinking. Kuhn inquires if the sensory
experience is “fixed and neutral”, and his answer is obviously negative. (p. 126)
Nevertheless, with my EDWs hyper-paradigm, I have changed completely the
relationship between the observer and the observed (or better, empirical) data. For me,
the measurement apparatus lost its great importance given by some physicists (Bohr, for
instance) working in quantum mechanics. “Observation” became similar to “interaction”,
therefore, I rejected Bohr’s idea (influenced by Kant’s view - see my article 2005 and my
PhD thesis 2007) referring to the role of measurement apparatus in the physical status of
observed phenomena. Our different observations just reveal certain ED entities and their
ED interactions and nothing else.1 Even Kuhn (p. 126) is somehow on Bohr’s side
regarding this aspect, even if he claims that the scientist have employed different
measurement apparatus, she looks at the same “world”. (This idea sends directly to
Kantian phenomena-noumena distinction…) However, his attack against philosophy of
language is quite acceptable: “Philosophical investigation has not yet provided even a
hint of what a language able to do that would like to be.” As I indicated in my previous
works and this work, philosophy of language (initiated by Wittgenstein and followed by
Carnap and all the majority of philosophers of last century) has been the greatest disease
in the history of philosophy.
Kuhn is again right writing that “The claim to solve the crisis-provoking problems
is, however, rarely sufficient by itself. Nor it can always be legitimately be made.” (p.
154) I claimed, even in my first publication (2002) that my EDWs perspective is a
solution to the greatest problems of particular sciences and philosophy. Usually, every
researcher thinks he is “God” on Earth, especially when he discovers something
important in his domain, but, normally, except one person per century (at least), all the
others researchers are quite wrong in their “new” approaches/theories. I have received a
great confirmation of my EDWs hyper-paradigm discovering so many “academic
professors” who have plagiarized my ideas.

and they see them in different relations one to another… Equally it is why, before they can hope to
communicate fully, one group or another must experience conversation that we have been calling the
paradigm shift. Just because it is a transition between incommensurables, the transition between competing
paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch,
it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all.” (p. 150) These paragraphs fit
perfectly the appearance of my EDWs hyper-paradigm of thinking for all human beings… “All at once” for
tens of people in 2006 or for thousands in ten years? How stupid could be some researchers… Few
paragraphs later, Kuhn quoted famous Planck’s slogan that I wrote as motto to my book published at
Springer (Germany). I repeat: because of the Internet, I did not need to wait old professors to retire or to
die. On the contrary, many “academic professors” have plagiarized my ideas just in two years!
INCREDIBLE, isn’t it? Such a confirmation of a theory/approach could not be identified in the history of
human thinking at all since nobody has realized as great change of a paradigm as I accomplished
discovering the EDWs. I repeat: I were American or German, I would have already received Nobel without
any doubt… but maybe I had been lucky I was not American or German since, because of my “dark list”, I
have continued to develop and to apply my EDWs perspective to all the great problems of human thinking.
“Individual scientists embrace a new paradigm for all sorts of reasons… Even the nationality or the prior
reputation of the innovator and his teachers cans sometimes play a significant role.” (pp. 152-3) So, do I
need to thanks those who have plagiarized my ideas or to some of my chief-colleagues who did try to take
my job many years of my career?
1
Therefore, we do not need to include our measurement apparatus in the definitions of ED entities… The
ED entities really exist without our measurement apparatus.

123
Kuhn is right in writing that at the beginning, a paradigm solves few problems
with solutions far from being perfect (p. 56). Firstly, I solved the mind-brain problem but
I wrote also about the great problems from quantum mechanics. Later (during 20 years), I
developed the metaphysical framework of my perspective, I introduced principles and
rules, I applied my hyper-paradigm to many problems of different domains. With the
appearance of my perspective something happened which it have never happened in the
history of human thinking: nobody have criticized it during 20 years, but many have
plagiarized it! This fact indicates the greatness of my discovery (it is a “discovery”, not a
theory). Again, the Internet has had a huge role in transmitting information in our days.
Therefore, many ideas elaborated by Kuhn have to be rewritten… “At the start a new
candidate for paradigm may have few supporters, and on occasions the supporter’s
motives may be suspect.” (p. 159) Without Internet, in my “village” 1 (university, city, not
even country), nobody would accept my theory. However, because of the Internet, my
ideas had already been plagiarized by tens of people (from different domains/countries)
even in 2006! Why this amazing process has happened? Because my EDWs perspectives
has changed EVERYTHING in human knowledge and such extraordinary scientific and
philosophical revolution (I can call my EDWs perspective as being the first “hyper-
paradigm”) has never happened in the history of human thinking.
Regarding the “progress in science”, Kuhn writes that there are two conditions for
a new paradigm to be accepted by more and more researchers from a particular domain:
- the new paradigm has to solve a great problem of one important science
- the new paradigm “must promise to preserve a relatively large part of concrete problem-
solving ability that has accrued to science through its predecessors.” (p. 169)
Obviously, even at the beginning, my EDWs perspective solved great problems of
particular sciences (cognitive science and physics) and philosophy preserving concrete
problem-solving ability of these sciences. However, as I mentioned above, for me,
“progress” is a fuzzy concept when it refers to science; exactly the same thing we can say
about philosophy: nobody claims there is progress in philosophy. Nevertheless, there are
changes of (sub)paradigms in both areas. So, if we cannot talk about “progress” in
science and philosophy, we can talk about the rejection of wrong (sub)paradigms and
theories. Does this kind of rejection push the researchers closer to “truth”, so could we
talk about “progress”? I consider we cannot claim that a new accepted paradigm is closer
to “truth”. Since “spacetime” does not have any ontological status, and “infinity” could
not even exist, I am sure some “truths” surely exist, but because of our status of existence
and because of the existence of many EDWs (we do not know how many, but not infinite
number), we cannot have access to the “last/first truth”. Maybe in tens of thousands of
years (or more) the human beings will reach this “first truth”, I have no idea… So,
according to Kuhn, the “progress” of science have occurred “without the benefit of a
goal”. (p. 173) I agree again with Kuhn: religion had been excluded from science in 18 th
century; in the next century, Darwin introduced the notion of “accident” in the evolution
of species. Last year, in my article from Timpul, I introduced the same principle,
accidents, in the appearances of the EDWs. My opinion is that, excluding “God” and
“goal” from equation, we cannot talk about “real progress” in science. In the future, there
will be discovered quite many “scientific anomalies” against my EDWs perspective, and
step by step, probably in 200 years, a scientist or a philosopher will introduce a new
1
Jewish proverb: “You cannot be a prophet in your village.”

124
paradigm of thinking (it is quite improbable to be a new hyper-paradigm) which will
replace, somehow, my hyper-paradigm.1 I mention again that the new paradigm will be
possible only because of the existence of my EDWs perspective. 2 I end this chapter with
Kuhn’s last paragraph:

Scientific community, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a community or else nothing
at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that created and used
it. (p. 210)

My main ideas of my EDWs perspective have been plagiarized my thousands of people

(that I have discovered, but I am sure there are much many…). The special characteristic
of all groups (all human beings on this Earth) is that each individual considers he/she is
the smartest living person on Earth. (Every person living recognizes that the death
scientists/philosophers/composers/artists are greater in their creativity, but not in
intelligences.) Therefore, many arrogant (quite smart) people have plagiarized my ideas
(many “limited” people did not even hear about my EDWs perspective, even I have
published that article at Synthese - one of the best journal of philosophy in USA and
entire world in 2005 and a books at Springer, Germany in 2015!). Those who have
plagiarized my ideas and those who have ignored my ideas (quite many) could not accept
somebody from “Africa” (myself) has realized the greatest change in the history of
human thinking.

As I emphasized in my manuscript regarding the “UNBELIEVABLE similarities” (and in

this work), in the last years, I have discovered, in 2006 (!) tens of “professors” from USA
and other countries publishing the same ideas that I published in my article 2005! This
process was possible because of the Internet.
In this quite absurd situation (tens of people to publish a new paradigm of
thinking (the greatest) in the same year (!!!); therefore, the strategy of certain groups
from American and Germany (and other groups from other countries, not “nations”
since, because of the Internet, we cannot talk about “nations” when we refer to
“knowledge”) has been the following: since tens of “professors” plagiarized my ideas in
2006 (thousands in the next 10 years), the important journals and publishing companies
have published articles and books written by thousands of other people having the same
ideas in the next 10-15 years. (This fact was IMPOSSIBLE to happen in USA or Germany
or GB before 2005!!!) In this way, the greatest discovery in the human thinking (my
1
“Art would be useless if the world were perfect…” (Andrei Tarkovsky) Philosophy is meaningless if there
are no anomalies in the main particular sciences. With discovering the EDWs, I have solved ALL great
problems of sciences and philosophy and I have furnished a new “vision of the world”. In order to think
about a new paradigm of thinking, the future philosophers have to await until new anomalies will appear in
the main particular sciences… If there are no anomalies, a new “philosophical system” is meaningless. It is
for the first time in the history of human thinking when a person has understood everything (the beginning
and all the phenomena) in this “universe”/world excluding “God” and “infinite” from equation.
I have always looked in the future, I was not afraid to forget the past. Anyway, the longer we go into the
past of humanity, the worse scenes we can see. Forget about the “eternal return”/“eternal recurrence”, just a
religious notion used by priests and politicians for manipulating people…
2
Even I have rejected all the scientific theories/approaches (except Darwin’s species evolution) and the
philosophical “paradigms”/approaches, it has to be clear that without Descartes’ dualism, Spinoza’s dual
aspect or Kant’s transcendentalism (and many others approaches and ideas elaborated by scientists and
philosophers), I would not been able to elaborated my EDWs hyper-paradigm.

125
EDWs) has become something banal, trivial... everybody could think and publish these
ideas. It has to be very clear: this movement has been made in order to cover the great
THEFT/robbery realized by so many “academic professors” (different domains, many
countries)!
In this context, I have always been fighting alone against those who have
PLAGIARIZED my ideas... Except the editor of Synthese who published my article (2005)
and my editor who helped me published my book at Springer (2015), NOBODY else has
sustained my efforts... nobody. Therefore, I have to “face it alone”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijj_hheGEi0 in front of this world dominated by
ENVY and PROUDNESS but full of THIEVES … However, HISTORY does not forgive:
none of those who have plagiarized my ideas will remain in the history of human
thinking. Because of their “proudness” and their ENVY (the “imperials” like Americans
and Germans could not accept a “nobody from Africa” has changed completely the
entire framework of human thinking), everybody from my generation (and closed
generations) has been totally “unlucky” to live with me in the same period since I have
realized the greatest discovery in the history of human thinking until now. In fact, being
Romanian (and being attacked by my some of colleagues (in general, those having
positions of “chiefs”), instead of helping me - envy is one of Romanians’ main features),
it was quite impossible for imperials like Americans and Germans to recognize I have
changed EVERYTHING in human thinking; they were to envy regarding my discovery
and its apcations to all the great problems of particular sciences and philosophy…
One of my very good ex-students told me once time: “On this Earth, everybody is
envy, in general, for a great realization; the problem is when envy is transformed in
HATE!” He has been perfectly right. 1 Some of my colleagues and the majority from my
“dark list” really hate me for discovering the EDWs and for publishing, on different
Internet sites, my manuscript regarding the UNBELIEVABLE similarities between my
ideas and the ideas published by those from that list (and many others I have not
discovered yet their publications)…

1
I emphasize again, this message is not against any nation. In actual globalization (Internet), when it is
about knowledge, “nations” do not exist. There are only “groups of interests” in different places on this
Earth dominated, as usually, by “money” and “fame”.

126
Conclusion

The EDWs perspective and some truths

I have applied the EDWs perspective to the main topics of different particular sciences
and philosophy:
- cognitive neuroscience (and philosophy of mind): mind-brain problem, emergence,
supervenience, mental representation, cognition, mind-reading (fMRI, EEG, etc.
- physics: quantum mechanics (entanglement, nonlocality, etc.), Einstein’s both
relativities); cosmology (dark matter/energy), spacetime, Big Bangs, origin of “universe”,
etc.
- biology: new definition of life and its relationship with organism
- philosophy (ontology, philosophy of science, etc.): existence, entities and processes,
etc.1
In this work, I furnish more details about the hyperontology of Hypernothing (the
EW0) and hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and the EW1a-n. It is for the first
time, I have completely explained the appearances of “somethings” (the EW1a-n) in
hypercorrespondences to “nothing” (the EW0). Using the EDWs perspective, I rejected
the existence of “antimatter”, I rejected the existence of EW-1 and the anti-field-EW from
my previous works. In this new updated framework of EDWs, I do not need any kind of
“antimatter”. The first EW is the EW0, the Hypernothing which has no ontology, but
mostly a kind of hyperontology: together, all EW1a-n represent/are “nothing”. So, before
the EW1a-n, it was nothing. With the existences of EDWs, I rejected the existence of any
kind of “God” (see my article free at my webapge) and also the regress ad infinitum. Al
the ED entities and/or EDWs really exist/are, but before their existences it was nothing
(i.e., the EW0). In hypercorrespondences to Hypernothing (the EW0), the EW1a-n
accidentally appeared in different/same “places”, in different “periods”. Other EDWs
appeared later, EW2a-l, EW3, EW4, etc. until the appearances of the pre-Big-Bangs-EW
(there were many Big Bangs, not only one, in order to avoid Guth’s inflation). In
correspondences to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW, the field-EW, followed by the micro-EW, the
macro-EW and finally many life/mind-EW. This is the “chain of EDWs” that we really
have knowledge. I believe there are many other “chains of EDWs”, but we do not have
any knowledge in our days. I am convinced, in the future, many information will appear
about EDWs that we have no idea about in our days.
Why there have been these EDWs and not others? Meaningless question: it is like
asking why you are you and not Leonardo da Vinci. All EDWs appeared accidentally, no
more. Some EDWs (the EW1a-n) appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW0; other
1
James T. Farrell: “Our century is the century of ideas. But there are ideas and ideas…” Indeed, 20th
century was the century of ideas in main sciences (and art). However, there were many contradictory
scientific theories (in main sciences). However, the only philosopher who will remain only in the “history
of philosophy” will be Wittgenstein who drawned the line of all philosophers of 20th Century: in front of
difficult theories of physics (and later biology and CNS), the philosophers have been refugees within the
“philosophy of language” and “analytical philosophy”. Only with the EDWs perspective, I have changed
not only the entire philosophy but also the entire framework of thinking for particular sciences. All
scientific theories of physics and CNS have been destroyed by the EDWs since my approach has changed
everything (except Darwin’s evolution species). The EDWs perspective has been the greatest change in the
history of human thinking.

127
EDWs appeared in correspondences to EDWs. In this explanation, the EW0 is included:
since the EW0 is nothing (no ontology), I do not need to explain its appearance since
nothing does not exist (has no ontology), therefore, it has no “appearance”. In this sense,
I do not need “God” or regression ad infinitum in explaining the appearances of all
EDWs. Again, the EW1a-n accidentally appeared in hypercorrespondences to
Hypernothing, all EDWs appeared in correspondences to the EW1a-n and
correspondences between them. Nevertheless, after the Big Bangs, the macro-EW could
appeared. However (excepting the plasma-EW), the field-EW (the first EW) have
appeared after the Big Bangs because of the properties of electromagnetic field:
continuity, speed of light, and not “strong force”. So, the greatest possibility for an EW to
appear after the Big Bangs was for the field-EW since the electromagnetic field has the
closest features to “nothing”. We have to take into account the “possibilities of
appearances” for certain EDWs immediately after Big Bangs. The same is true for the
macro-EW which had the greatest possibility to appear in correspondence to the micro-
EW. But in this case, the appearance of the macro-EW was pure accidentally, exactly as
the life-EW appeared on Earth. Also, the apparitions of EW1a-n were just accidentally: in
hypercorrespondences to the EW0 did not appear just one EW (it would be need to
introduce “God” in this equation), but there were many EDWs (the EW1a-n) that
appeared accidentally in “epistemologically” different places/periods. Each of some of
these EDWs had to be included in a “chain of correspondences”. Surely, not each of these
EDWs (EW1a-n) was in “correspondences” to an EDW. However, in correspondences to
one of these EDWs, appeared the EW2 and in the correspondence to this EDW appeared
an EDW and so on until the Big Bangs happened in correspondence to the pre-Big-Bang-
EW. 380.000 years after the Big Bangs, the field-EW appeared and very soon the micro-
EW also appeared in “our universe”. Later (after less than one billion years) the macro-
EW appeared. Much later, the life/mind-EW appeared on Earth. Obviously, there have
been EDWs in different places/times, but we have no ideas (yet) about them. I am
convinced, in the future, the scientists will discover new EDWs that appeared long time
ago or very recently…

I need the hypothesis there were many EDWs after the EW0 just to increase the
possibility of appearance of our “universe” (i.e., the Big Bangs, the field-EW, the micro-
EW, the macro-EW and the mind-EW). Without this hypothesis, the probability our
“universe” to appear would be extremely low.

There have been many EDWs and not only those which we have already known that
appeared after the “Big Bangs”: the plasma-EW, the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-
EW and the life/mind-EW. But we have to admit that all EDWs appeared in
hypercorrespondences to the EW0, Hypernothing. So, “everything” appeared in (directly
or indirectly) hypercorrespondences to the “nothing”… It was “nothing” (not God, nor
regress ad infinitum) as the (direct/indirect) “origin of everything” (“everything” being
all ED entities/processes which have belonged to all EDWs that have appeared or will
appear anywhere, in any “time”).1 With my EDWs, I indicate certain truths that will
remain “truths” forever like

1
The reader, when you will die (inevitable), your life will “return to nothing”, i.e., it will become “nothing”
and nothing else.

128
- The existence of a pain in a self (the mind-EW) which corresponds to the human body
or the “image of a green tree” which really exists in the mind-EW as a mental
representation (it belongs to the mind-EW/self-EW).
- Gravitation among planets (the macro-EW) or the existence of brain/body as macro-
entity.
- Microentities and their interactions.
Anyway, these and many other truths elaborated within my EDWs perspective
will remain truths forever. With my discovery (EDWs), I indicate that the main paradigm
of thinking (the world/Universe) has been completely wrong during the last 2500 years.
This paradigm of thinking has dominated the human thinking (in sciences like physics
and cognitive neuroscience, and philosophy) until my discovery.1 I am convinced that:
- in 30-50 years, certain great “anomalies” will appear regarding the existences of well-
now EDWs.
- in the next decades, there will appear quite small “scientific theories” referring to the
ED phenomena which belong to EDWs.
- after 150-200 years, the hyper-paradigm of EDW will be replaced with a new paradigm
of thinking (not as large as my EDWs perspective).
My main contribution regarding the “paradigm of human thinking” has been that,
with my discovery, I have indicated that almost everything in human knowledge has been
totally wrong (usually constructed within the unicorn-world framework). Also,
discovering EDWs, I have indicated certain truths that will remain truths forever for the
entire human knowledge. Discovering the each human mind is an “universe”/world
means that “God” is eliminated from this equation and each human mind is also its own
“God”. Therefore, through my EDWs, I reach Nietzsche’s goal: each man is a “Super-
man”. Each mind is not “alone” (wrong expression), it is a world-in-itself and its own
God. With my EDWs, each man is a Superman! And the most exciting detail is that each
Superman (a world-in-itself) hypercorrespond to nothing, i.e., the Hypernothing. In
reality, the Hypernothing is the “Absolute Truth”, and you, the reader, are an
Universe/world who hypercorresponds to this absolute truth. This hypercorrespondence
represent Nietzsche’s “Superman”.
On his death-bead, Tycho Brahe said (several times): “May I not have lived in
vain.” Discovering the EDWs, I am sure “I have not lived in vain”; in reality, I have
1
“We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find
progress.” (Richard Feynman) We cannot talk about real “progress”: according to Popper’s failibilism, a
new theory indicates mainly that the previous theory in explaining certain phenomena was wrong… For
instance, we can not consider that the appearance of QM and its “interpretations” being a real progress. On
the contrary, the negation of the existence of macro-entities (planets, etc.) was not a progress at all
(according to my EDWs perspective). Moreover, quantum mechanics had its own problems like
entanglement and nonlocality (with my EDWs perspective, in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006, I solved these
problems). As I indicated in this work, it would not be about the “progress in science” but just about the
rejection of previous “scientific” theories. However, my EDWs perspective is not just a denying of all
previous theories; it is a new paradigm of thinking, not just a rejection of a previous paradigm. For
instance, with the EDWs perspective, I rejected all the interpretations of quantum mechanics and I re-wrote
Einstein’s general relativity without spacetime. Could we consider this change a kind of “progress”? It
depends on what do we understand by “progress”. The motto of this work is: “Every transformation
demands as its precondition ‘the ending of a world’ - the collapse of an old philosophy of life.” (Carl Jung)
Discovering the EDWs, I have realized the greatest “transformation” in the history of human thinking; this
transformation represents, indeed, the “ending of a world” (the “universe”/world) and the “collapse of an
old philosophy” not only” of life”, but “of everything”…

129
realized the greatest discovery and ”philosophical approach” until now in the history of
human thinking since, with my EDWs perspective, I have solved all the greatest
problems in physics, cognitive neuroscience, biology (the relationship between “life” and
“organism”) and philosophy.1 Evidently, nobody has solved so many and so important
problems from these main sciences and philosophy since Ancient times until now. 2 With
my article December 20220, I have solved the last and most difficult problem: the
apparitions of “something” (the EW1a-n) from “nothing” (the EW0 or Hypernothing). 3
Obviously, since I have realized the greatest change in the history of human
thinking, in the main domains of sciences and philosophy, on so many topics, it would
certainly mean I have not lived in vain… I repeat for everybody: discovering the EDWs, I
have realized the greatest discovery in the human thinking. Many researchers
(philosophers, physics, cognitive neuroscientists) were aware about the essential
problems of their main topics within each domain, but they had been working within the
unicorn world. Nobody become aware that in fact the largest framework of their thinking,
the “universe/world”, had been wrong. Except me, NOBODY discovered the EDWs, all
the others (who published the same ideas since 2006) have just plagiarized my ideas,

1
This is the reason so many “professors” (from so many countries/domains, on so many topics) have
plagiarized my ideas… “No battle is ever won. The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and
victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.“ (William Faulkner) Indeed, discovering the EDWs, I did
not discovered the “absolute truth”. However, within the actual state of knowledge, with my EDWs
perspective, I have reached the greatest hill toward that “absolute truth”.
2
Nelson Mandela: “After climbing a great hill, one finds that there are many more hills to climb.” To me, it
happened this fact in the past. After I have climbed the last and greatest hill (“origin of Universe”), I have
reached the sky…
3
Obviously, until now, nobody has furnished a similar solution to this problem. Since so many “professors”
have plagiarized my ideas, I am convinced, there will be people who will publish “unbelievable similar
ideas to my ideas” from this work… Anyway, in history will be written not the names of those who have
plagiarized my ideas (they have been just thieves, nothing else!), only the fact that so many “professors”
from so many universities have plagiarized my ideas just because I have changed everything in the human
knowledge. All these people (who have plagiarized my ideas) “have lived in vain”: they have been
“academic” thieves and nothing else.

130
nothing else.1 It is quite impossible two persons to discovery the greatest challenge in the
history of human thinking in the same century (what about “in the same 10-15 years”??).2
I end this book repeating Heil’s verdict (2005) which would perfectly mirrors the
“language disease/tyranny” (the worst “disease” in philosophy of all times), in fact, the
general framework of human thinking (including the philosophy of 20 th century +
philosophy + physics + cognitive neuroscience) since everybody had been working
within the unicorn world (until I discovered the existences of EDWs):

This is the linguistic tail waging the ontological dog.

John Heil

In reality, Einstein was more correctly (even if he also worked within the unicorn
world…):

All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the
question, “What are light quanta?” Of course today every rascal thinks he knows
the answer, but he is deluding himself. Every Tom, Dick and Hary thinks he knows
it. But he is mistaken.
Albert Einstein

1
As I emphasized in my manuscript regarding the “UNBELIEVABLE similarities”, in the last years, I have
discovered tens of “professors” from USA and other countries publishing the same ideas in 2006! The
strategy of certain groups from American and Germany (and other groups from other countries, not
“nations”) has been the following: since tens of “professors” plagiarized my ideas in 2006 (thousands in the
next 10 years), the important journals and publishing companies have published thousands of other people
having the same ideas. (This fact was IMPOSSIBLE to happen in USA or Germany or GB before 2005!!!)
In this way, the greatest discovery in human thinking (my EDWs) has become something banal, trivial...
everybody could think this idea. This movement has been to cover the great THEFT/robbery realized by so
many “academic professors”... I have been alone fighting against those who have PLAGIARIZED my
ideas... Almost NOBODY has sustained my efforts... almost nobody. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ijj_hheGEi0 “face it alone” in front of this world full of THIEVES and ENVY and PROUDNESS…
however, HISTORY does not forgive: none of those who have plagiarized my ideas will remain in the
history of human thinking. Because of their proudness (the imperials like Americans and Germans could
not accept a “nobody from Africa” has changed completely the entire framework of human thinking),
everybody from my generation (and closed generations) has been totally “unlucky” to live in the same
period with me who I realized the greatest discovery until now in the history of human thinking…. In fact,
being Romanian (and being attacked by my some of colleagues (in general those from positions of
“chiefs”), instead of helping me - envy is one of Romanians’ main features), it was quite impossible for
imperials like Americans and Germans to recognize I have changed everything in human thinking; they
were also to envy on my discoveries… One of my very good ex-students told me once time: “On this Earth,
everybody is envy, in general, for a great realization; the problem is when envy is transformed in HATE!”
He has been perfectly right. (My message is not against any nation! In actual globalization (Internet),
“nations” ceased to exist... there are only groups of interests in different places on this Earth dominated, as
usually, by “money”.)
2
What about tens of persons in the same year 2006, and thousands in 10-15 years? It is like a composer of
this century composes a symphony having an UNBELIEVABLE similarity to Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony
and insisting in telling us that he has never listened this symphony… Only a stupid person would accept
this argument. The reader has to think that NOBODY discovered the existence of EDWs during 3,000 years
and, in 2006, tens of “professors” published the same idea and later (during the last 20 years) thousands of
other professors from different “universities”/countries…

131
132
Bibliography
Admin (2022), “Astronomers discover Largest known Spinning Structures in the
Universe”,
https://www.astronomynewreporter.com/2022/09/astronomers-discover-largest-
known_28.html?fbclid=IwAR3C13pqftuHFnSffhIx7FDJoRaK0_
wOevzDzRbXgGJDj9yUOXupvDJrSLA
Admin (August 2022), “This X-Ray View of The Night Sky Reveals a Whole New
Way of Seeing The Universe”,
https://www.astronomynewreporter.com/2022/08/this- x-ray-view-of- night-
skyreveals.html?fbclid=IwAR0VZKswD5XTOPcXTilkgzzGz681p0t0AL6bb
G2X z1 NVXrgm4By7JfRadco
Al-Khalili Jim (2020), The World According to Physics, Princeton University Press
Arian Marie (2022), “Massive Structures That Link Galaxies Together Have Started
pinning Leaving Experts Baffled”, Astronomy October 6, 2022
https://fancy4work.com/massive-structures-that-link-galaxies-together-have-
started-spinning-leaving-experts-baffled-marie/
Barnes A. Luke and Lewis F. Geraint (2020) The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook
(Or: How to Beat the Big Bang), Cambridge University Press
Bennett O. Jeffrey, Donahue O. Megan, and Schneider Nicholas (2010), The Cosmic
Perspective, 6th Edition, Addison-Wesley
Barrow John (2002), The Book of Nothing – Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about
the Origin of the Universe, Vintage Book
Close Frank (2009) Nothing - A very short introduction, Oxford University Press
Devereux Carolyn (2021) Cosmological Clues - Evidence for the Big Bang, Dark Matter
and Dark Energy, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group
Friedman Michael (2012) “Kuhn and Philosophy”, Modern Intellectual History,
Cambridge University Press
Friedman Michael (2009), “Einstein, Kant and relativized a priori”, in Michel Bitbol,
Pierre Kerszberg, Jean Petitot (eds.), Constituting Objectivity. Transcendental
Perspectives on Modern Physics, Springer
Friedman Michael (2001), Dynamics of Reason, The University of Chicago Press
Gell-Mann Murray (1994), The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the
Complex, Eighth Printing 2002
Greene Brian (1999), The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and
the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, W. W. Norton & Company
Heil John (2005), “Real tables”, The Monist, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 493-509
Iida Takashi (2013), “Towards an ontology of the rainbow”,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261252691_Towards_an_Ontology_of_t
he_Rainbow
Kaku Michio (2016), “Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?”,
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing
Kuhn Lawrence (2017 from 2013), “Levels of nothing”,
https://www.closertotruth.com/articles/levels-nothing-robert-lawrence-kuhn
from Skeptic Magazine Vol. 18 No. 2 September 2013 pp. 34-37 (I
downloaded it on 10.09.2017)

133
Kuhn S. Thomas (1970), The structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of
Chicago Press
Kroupa Pavel and Haslbauer Moritz (2023), “Our model of the universe has been
falsified - The cosmological standard model is wrong”, https://iai.tv/articles/our-
model-of-the-universe-has-been-falsified-auid-2393?_auid=2020
Muniz (2019), “What Is the Rainbow Color Order? Understanding ROYGBIV”,
https://blog.prepscholar.com/rainbow-color-order
Murphy Paul Austin, “Murray Gell-Mann on Reductionism (1) [To follow: 'Murray
Gell-Mann on Complexity'.],
https://www.academia.edu/39335364/Murray_Gell_Mann_on_Reductionism_1_
Presura, Cristian, (2014) Fizica povestita, (The Physics told as story), Humanitas
Putnam Hilary (2005), “A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics (Again)”, Brit. J.
Phil. Sci. 56 (2005), 615–634
Röhl Johannes (2013), “Ontological categories for fields and waves”,
https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/20618/1866.pdf?sequence= 1&i
sAllowed=y
Sanne de Boer (2015), Complete History of the Universe Vol. 1, Single Issue
Magazine – January 1
Siegal Ethal (2022), “Ask Ethan: Did our Universe really arise from nothing?”,
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-nothing/
Siegal Ethal (2021), This is why physicists suspect the Multiverse very likely exists,
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/physicists-multiverse-exists/
Singh Simon (2005), Big Bang - The Most Important Scientific Discovery of All Time
and Why You Need to Know About it, Harper Perennial
Smith Adam (2020), “Another universe existed before ours - and energy from it is
coming out of black holes says Nobel prize winner”,
https://www.independent.co.uk/life- style/gadgets-and-tech/black-holes-
universe-big-bang-roger-penrose-nobel-prize-b881031.html?amp
Sorensen, Roy, “Nothingness”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer
2015 Edition and 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/nothingness/
Stok Glenn (June 17, 2017), “What Is Nothingness in Physics and the Universe?”,
https://owlcation.com/stem/origin-of-nothingness, (I downloaded it on
13.09.2017)
Tchakarov Vladislav (2021), “Massive Structures That Link Galaxies Together Have
Started Spinning Leaving Experts Baffled”, https://curiosmos.com/massive-
structures-that-link-galaxies-together-have-started-spinning-leaving-experts-
baffled/?fbclid=IwAR0FvTxd1WvyfM4hulrruTJp8gbWrOcXWXg6yCyIENtGgC
JE73vQb8cEGI0
Tchakarov Vladislav (2021b), “Study Reveals What Happened a Microsecond After
the Big Bang—10 Things You Should Know”, https://curiosmos.com/study-
reveals-what-happened-a-microsecond-after-the-big-bang-10-things-you-should-
know/?fbclid=IwAR0jy-
E4c0_qExCwjesZCnDq6vZKj4ByPNFTwm8piPZdP2GoKoIQ0aksOvE
Terhesiu D., and Vacariu G. (2002), “Brain, mind and the perspective of the observer”,
Revue Roumanie de Philosophie, 46, no. 1-2

134
Turner Ben (2023), “Galaxy-size shock waves found rattling the cosmic web — the
largest structure in the universe”, https://www.livescience.com/galaxy-size-shock-
waves-found-rattling-the-cosmic-web-the-largest-structure-in-the-universe
Tyson Neil deGrasse (2017), Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, W. W. Norton
Tyson Neil deGrasse and Donald Goldsmith (2004), Origins: Fourteen Billions Years
of Cosmic Evolution, W. W. Norton Company
Vacariu Gabriel (2022b), “Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs) versus “nothing”,
Big Bang, anti-matter, dark matter/energy, spacetime”, Timpul journal
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2022), “A New Philosophical Paradigm of
Thinking for Particular Sciences: Physics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and
Biology” in Thinking: Bioengineering of Science and Art (Nima Rezeai and
Amene Saghazadeh, editors), Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Vacariu Gabriel (2022), Could be ‘Nothing’ the Origin of ‘Everything’ (The
metaphysics of Hypernothing), Amazon https://www.amazon.com/s?
k=gabriel+vacariu&crid=PHCQGSZT2VDJ&fbcl
id=IwAR3eKCU9Q1EnQz6FT5SEMkfGGCLqCWhPHWxEUGdFKx0-
XdE9tfAKYXp9Mb4&sprefix=gabriel+vacariu%2Caps%2C169&ref=nb_sb_
nos s_1
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Gabriel (2020) “Rethinking ‘dark matter’ within
the epistemologically different worlds (EDWs) perspective”,
in Cosmology 2020 – The Current State, (ed.) Michael Smith (CEO,
IntechOpen, United Kingdom) 
https://www.intechopen.com/search?term=cosmology%202020
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2020), Physics overwritten in a new
perspective: ”Epistemologically Different Worlds”, Meridiane Print
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2019), The Metaphysics of Epistemologically
Different Worlds, Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2017) From Hypernothing to Hyperverse: EDWs,
Hypernothing, Wave and Particle, Elementary Particles, Thermodynamics,
and Einstein’s Relativity Without “Spacetime”, Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2016), Dark matter and Dark Energy, Space and
Time, and Other pseudo-notions in Cosmology, Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (2016) Illusions of Human Thinking: on Concepts of Mind, Reality,
and Universe in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Physics (English and Germany),
Springer Publishing Company (This book has been published in Romanian in
2014: Lumi epistemologic diferite – Noua Paradigma de Gandire (in
engl.: Epistemologically Different Worlds - The New Paradigm of Thinking),
Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (2021), “Nothing” (the origin of “everything”?), energy, matter and dark
energy within the Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs)
perspective”, Timpul Journal
Vacariu Gabriel (2014) More Troubles with Cognitive Neuroscience. Einstein’s Theory
of Relativity and the Hyperverse, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel and Mihai Vacariu (2010), Mind, Life and Matter in the Hyperverse,
(in English), Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti

135
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2009), “Physics and Epistemologically Different
Worlds”, Revue Roumaine de Philosophie, vol. 53, 2009, no. 1-2 (ISI)
Vacariu Gabriel (2008) Epistemologically Different Worlds, (in English) Editura
Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2007) Epistemologically Different Worlds (Ph.D. thesis) (EIPRS and
UIPA scholarships). The thesis was submitted at Graduate Centre, UNSW on
06.09.2007 and posted on the internet by the staff of University of New South
Wales (Sydney, Australia) on 21.09.2007 and then on 29.04.2008,
https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo- explore/fulldisplay?
vid=UNSWORKS&docid=unsworks_5143&context=L
Vacariu Gabriel (2006), “The epistemologically different worlds perspective and some
pseudo-notions from quantum mechanics”, Analele Universitatii Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2005), “Mind, brain and epistemologically different worlds”, Synthese
Review: 143/3: pp. 515-548
Velmans Max (2000), Understanding Consciousness, Routlegde, Taylor and Francis
Group
Velmans Max (2008), Reflexive monism, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15 (2), pp. 5-
50

136