The Universe:a Philosophical derivation of a Final Theory

Abstract

The reason for physics’ failure to find a final theory of the universe is examined. Problems identified are: the lack of unequivocal definitions for its fundamental elements (time, length, mass, electric charge, energy, work, matter-waves); the danger of relying too much on mathematics for solutions; especially as philosophical arguments conclude the universe cannot have a mathematical basis. It does not even need the concept of number to exist. Numbers and mathematics are human inventions arising from the human predilection for measurement. Following Aristotle, a single fundamental cause is proposed to explore the efficacy of using pure non-mathematical philosophy to explain the universe, contrary to current quantum physical views. The cause is taken as Time, which is then defined, surprisingly leading automatically to a definition of a three-dimensional space answering the question into what can a universe be placed (space before space seems non-sensical). This enables the philosophical arguments to derive a universal rule giving clear-cut descriptions (definitions) of force (both gravitational and electromagnetic), motion, energy, and particles. The formation of atomic nuclei and atomic properties together with an unexpected role for neutrinos follow. In particular, a Popper-test can be prepared by introducing the concept of measurement to allow the philosophy arguments to be tested in another discipline - mathematics. The solution agrees with human physical observations to a remarkable degree of accuracy, automatically explaining and predicting values for Planck’s and the fine-structure constants. Although mathematical, it is included as confirming the efficacy of philosophy in attaining a final theory.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

The Possible Universe.Jorge A. Tallet - 1990 - Houston, TX, USA: Univ Pr of America.
The Poetic Apriori: Philosophical Imagination in a Meaningful Universe.Raymond Barfield - 2020 - Stuttgart, Germany: ibidem/Columbia University Press.
The Non-unique Universe.Gordon McCabe - 2010 - Foundations of Physics 40 (6):629-637.
Pure Logic and its Equivalence with the Universe: A Unique Method to Establish the Final Theory.Kai Jiang - 2019 - International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 9 (1):45-56.
The Problem of a Final Theory in Physics.Igor Nevvazhay - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 43:145-150.
The Nature of the Laws of Physics and Their Mysterious Bio-Friendliness.Paul Davies - 2010 - In Melville Y. Stewart (ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 767--788.
Bell’s Theory of Beables and the Concept of ‘Universe’.Ian T. Durham - 2019 - In Anthony Aguirre, Brendan Foster & Zeeya Merali (eds.), What is Fundamental? Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 105-114.
The Idealistic Concept of a "Finite Universe" Must Be Criticized.Liu Bowen - 1988 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 19 (4):80-83.
The Tik-Tok Universe.Ilexa Yardley - 2023 - Https://Medium.Com/the-Circular-Theory/.
Einstein et l'univers-bloc.Joel Dolbeault - 2018 - Revue d'Histoire des Sciences 71 (1):79-109.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-04-12

Downloads
86 (#195,368)

6 months
86 (#54,740)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Frederick Thompson
University of South Africa (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references