We claim that the Universe’s fundamental structure is not discoverable through rationalism. The various frameworks studied are logic, mathematics, their application through theories in physics, and finally, the pivotally separate application of logic to historical evidence in formal religious belief. The basis of the prohibition is that rational structure has a limit for consistency that falls short of completeness in absolute terms. The limit of observability reaches only a framework in which correlated elements are formed paradoxically within a parent structure. (...) Apart from our advanced ability in human reasoning, we have the same fundamental sentience possessed by other living creatures. Beyond that limit of awareness, the Universe in its native form is immaculately nonordered. We examine the dimensional relationship between quantum and classical frameworks to justify the theory. Mathematics requires operational consistency across its elements. In contrast, the Universe incorporates a feature of inconsistency in its native form. The companion paper to this document examines in detail how complexity develops from a null condition across dimensional levels. The argument’s foundation applies a general framework of stationary action and self-organization principles to the theory and experimental data on Hardy’s paradox. The complementary format to the dichotomy of paradoxical elements is its sliding scale of uncertainty between their extremes. The argument extends that the root source of societal biases, conflicts, and bigotries is the fundamental and systemic mechanism of paradox. (shrink)

Is the mathematical description of the Universe quantum, classical, both or neither? The mandated assumption of rationalism is that if an argument is inconsistent, it is flawed for a conclusion. However, suppose the structural basis of the Universe is fundamentally inconsistent. In that case, paradoxes in the frameworks of logic and mathematics would not be anomalies. A geometric model with a counter-rational framework of inconsistent relationships is applied to analyze Hardy’s paradox, the fine structure constant, and the general relationship between (...) the correlated quantum and classical EPR-type structures. The model conjectures that the well-studied paradoxes found in theoretical arguments and empirically in EPR phenomena are not anomalies and instead point to a new framework for modelling universal structures that incorporates inconsistency. (shrink)

A geometric model previously developed to analyze the quantum structure of Hardy’s paradox and explore the generic structure of universal states is applied to the Moebius band. The Moebius band’s conformity to the model strengthens its hypothesis. The claim made is that universal states cannot be represented as singular structures without reference to a partition of entangled parts that do not share property with each other. In other words, universal states categorically incorporate a systemic feature of inconsistency within their frameworks. (...) In logic and mathematics, this is the prohibition to forming theoretical principles that are singularly fundamental as absolute truths. The Moebius band contains a dualism of two categorically separate formats. It has, firstly, two discrete and observable sides and secondly, a unitary path, in which the sides are entangled and indistinguishable. Quantum structures display a similar attribute of duality. However, unlike quantum structure, the Moebius band displays the full duality of its structure at the classical level. The geometric model demonstrates the common structural basis shared in the Moebius band and quantum structure. (shrink)