My latest views…

It has been now over three years since I put out the site you are looking at. Did I learn anything new since? Yes, a lot, and confirming the views I have described on this site. First of all throughout these years I kept going through scientific magazines, seeing many articles and reports that were confirming the position I laid out  in both phases of my thesis, only partially reflected in the main conclusions of my home page and in the “New Findings” page (I stopped adding things in there as they were becoming repetitive). For example, Halton Arp [1] has been back in the news recently (October 2002) with his “nearby quasars” and “intrinsic redshift,” as the Hubble telescope is confirming the bridges between galaxies and quasars he believes he saw years ago. The SN1a supernovae keep on giving us spread out redshifts where there should be no spread. Studies of the nervous system have shown many times, including recently, that glial cells are very much in charge of the function of neurons, even though we don’t have access to the physical process invoved, not being able to see quantum evolutions developing spaces of their own (as described in phase 2 of my work).

So where is the improvement from these years? Well, simply in the understanding of our world after explaining it to many people. This is a world computing itself in an eternal fashion. This is also a world without unity. The “Universe” is not a universe, it is an infinite assemblage of worlds that superpose onto each other, “space systems” as I called them, that come and go. They all come from relations between numbers, with such relations “updating,” “giving results” at a rate common to all (the base of the speed of light)as I address in phase 1 of my work. No wonder why there are “many worlds” in the very small as Everett saw from the Quantum: All the possibilities are being computed, and we see and are the constantly evolving result of this quantum computation. Yes, Plato’s Forms are there, “palpable” and our world implements them constantly, we can “kick them,” they ARE Reality. Spaces, as much as our minds, are a product of this computation among numbers, of which we see only the results, the shadows.

Someone asked: “What is the principle behind non-local Physics?” (As in the EPR experiments as well as in ourselves who are made out of trillions of cells forming a whole containing qualitatively much more than the parts.) If you see the eternal elements (the numbers and their relations) behind the transient phenomena, the creation of space will be “visible” through your imagination, and thereby the non-local base of Reality from space as a product of their relations. As to “Why is there a reality?” Well, why is there the concept of a circle? Numbers with unending strings of relations and results come up with Reality, that’s all. Truth is not in numbers, it is in-between numbers, as Qaballa put out centuries ago, in the "monadic relations," as I called this mysterious "in-between" of numbers.

Now, where are we in the question of formalizing Reality, the math question? (So we may be able to advance further through the tool of mathematics.) We did not improve much (3 years is nothing in the development of math, anyway). But a key approach may have been started with the work Jose Almeida has been pursuing with his “4-dimensional Optics” (4DO) [2] He has taken the approach of “recursive functions,” where numerical monadic relations in effect create a space, which in turn defines the assemblages of numerical elements (the quanta) evolving within that space, which in turn redefine the space, etc. A major problem with such an approach is that we don't know how to compute recursive functions at different “levels” of complexity. The information in them does not seem to be reducible. Nature being a giant computation has only limited ways in its reduction to logical a priori components. In other words, we may not be able to go faster than quantum computations, even to get generic features. Through 4DO we may be able to get back all the principles of Physics as we know them (Least Action, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s, Schroedinger’s and Dirac’s Equations) together with explaining the Standard Model, but we can’t jump to the size of a galaxy (where the speed of light is prominent in the effects), and logically deduce there the consequences of interacting, superposing “space systems” without in effect computing them as Nature does.

We can imagine our galaxy as an “observer space” looking at other space systems (other galaxies or larger spaces), but yet so far we can’t deduce from the original “elemental” recursive equations what we should see from our large scale vantage point. We still can’t prove that Dark Matter is a mirage of our observations, or that the Hubble Effect is indeed limited. We are in a situation worse than Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton's as, even though they initially had no telescope around to see the details, unlike us, they had the formalism to show the logic of solar systems, as only a classical computation was needed (done by hand of course). Now we do have new tools to see our distorted 21^st century observations, but we are lacking the method, the logical tools to show why they are distorted. The method is the key, and our classical computers (i. e. classical math) appear not able to cope any more. Can recursive equations from pure numbers give us more than our known Physics? That is indeed the key question we are facing these days.

The essential is that we don’t stop searching. We must check with each other until someone gets the workable idea. “A New Physics for a New Millennium” [3] for example is one of these searches started well before I did, but unfortunately (and like many other approaches I won't mention) it does not explain the “goo” that sustains the elements imagined by the Author, nor the action-at-a-distance from the “space-disturbance” photons. What is encouraging though in that approach is the prominence of the speed of light, and how seeing things all going at that speed may help in taking our world as a mere set of shadows from a computation, so we can make a decisive advance at last.

As to Life and our minds, the Consciousness Question, addressed in phase 2 of my work, nothing that I am aware of has changed my position in the past three years. We very much are whole space systems generated by infinite elements interfacing an external system (Descartes’ Dualism of mind and matter) through our microtubular quantum states, a necessity requiring us to grasp our world in a classical fashion, and this simply by eliminating the infinite aspect of Reality. The conundrum of how the Classical World appears (something many are still trying to tackle with classical math) is in our minds: We cannot see Reality as a quantum evolution because we ARE a world generating quanta! No wonder then, when the origin of Life itself is seen as resulting from a true quantum computation generating spaces, far from the lightning strikes we are still contemplating...

So Happy Reading for the ones who have not yet gone through my approach. I am of course still looking for helpers in the quest to be published, but the truth here is that I have been well rewarded through the Internet. It just would make more sense (for the sake of completeness at least) if this work ended the old fashioned way: in a published book on paper. But maybe going through that chore is now itself old-fashioned :-)

Roger Gouin

November 2002