Could Be “Nothing” the Origin of

“Everything”?

[The Metaphysics of the Hypernothing]

2022

1
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein

Truth... is much too complicated to allow for anything but approximations.

John von Neumann

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.

Niels Bohr

What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics.
Nikola Tesla

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more
progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.
Nikola Tesla

The discovery of metaphysical truth will benefit mankind.

Kurt Gödel

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last
analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are
trying to solve.
Max Planck

Be not troubled about Metaphysics. When the true Physics have been discovered, there
will be no Metaphysics. Beyond the true Physics is divinity only.
Francis Bacon

To destroy is the first step in any creation.

E. E. Cummings

The true Physics has been be discovered in the EDWs perspective, therefore, in the entire
human knowledge, Religion = Philosophy = Science.

2
Content

Introduction: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Chapter 1 The principles of “Epistemologically Different Worlds” (EDWs) perspective
concerning existence and interactions of “material” objects
1.1 The principles concerning existence and interactions of objects
1.2 The principles concerning the brain/body and the corresponding I (the Self/Mind)
1.3 Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs)
1.4 The chains of EDWs
1.5 The relativization of EDWs
Chapter 2 The Hypernothing and its hyperontology
2.1 The Hypernothing (epistemologically different then “something” and “nothing”)
2.2 The principles of hyperontology of Hypernothing
Chapter 3 More details about the hyperontology of Hypernothing-EW
3.1 The ED “aspects” of Hypernothing
3.2 Porphyry’s and Damascus’ nothing
Chapter 4 Immediately after many Big Bangs: the “anisotropies” from Cosmology within
the EDWs
Chapter 5 Rosenblum and Kuttner’s work (2006) on quantum mechanics “for everybody”
and the EDWs perspective
Chapter 6 An interrelated explanation of some irreversible thermodynamics processes,
quantum nonlocality and dark energy
6.1 The correspondences between some thermodynamics processes (temperature and
heat), quantum nonlocality and dark energy
6.2 More details about dark energy
Chapter 7 “Nothing” (the origin of “everything”?), energy and matter within the
Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs) perspective
7.1 “Everything from nothing”
7.2 Energy
7.3. The Big Bangs and matter
7.4 The “history of the Universe”
Chapter 8 Self and the Hypernothing
Conclusion
Bibliography

3
Introduction

“Why there is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’?”

The Presocratic philosopher Parmenides (and later Lucretius) indicated that “Nothing could
appear from nothing” (“Ex nihilo nihil fit”) and from this reason he was forced to
introduce “God” in his “equation of reality”. Another alternative for reality would be the
regress ad infinitum, but in our book from 2019, I indicated that God, “infinite” and
“nothing” cannot even exist. Anyway, in this work, we want to develop a new framework
about “nothing”. I would indicate how everything that existed at the beginning of our
“universe” appeared from “nothing”. In other words, in this work, I would answer to this
question: “Was ‘nothing’ the origin of ‘everything’?” with an affirmative answer.
Obviously, this answer will be constructed within my EDWs perspective.
“Why there is something rather than nothing?” is an eternal question in
philosophy, but within the unicorn world (the Universe/world), it is a meaningless
question. Nobody could have correctly answered to this question in the old framework of
thinking, the “Universe”/“world”. I will try to answer also to this question in our work,
obviously, in a new framework of thinking, the Epistemologically Different Worlds
(EDWs) perspective.
My principle of working as philosopher has been the following: “The man who asks
a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life.” (Confucius)
I started my career as philosopher questioning the mind-brain relationship.1 This problem
did not have an answer generally accepted in science and philosophy; on the contrary,
this problem have had various solutions but none of them being generally accepted by
the majority of philosophers and scientists. Anyway, only rejecting all the answers to this
problem elaborated by different scientists and philosophers, I was able to discover the
EDWs. “To discover” is written using italics just because I emphasize that he discovered,
not invented, the existence of EDWs. It would mean that the EDWs really are! Having
knowledge about the mysteries of quantum mechanics (being different scientific
1
I rejected completely the framework of philosophy which have dominated the entire 20 th Century,
introduced by Wittgenstein and promoted by the majority of theoretical philosophers (for instance Carnap
and the “Circle from Vienna”) during the entire century: “conceptual analysis”. “Philosophy aims at the
logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity.” (Wittgenstein) Why
did happen such linguistic turn? Just because, the philosophers have been defeated by the developments of
special sciences like Physics, Neuroscience and Psychology, and Biology at the end of 19th Century and the
beginning of 20th Century. Without to be able to read and understand the development of various theories
in these special sciences, the philosophers turned toward “words, words, words” and nothing else.
Obviously, the scientists of these sciences did not take into account such philosophical “conceptual
analysis” in the entire 20th century. As a consequence, philosophy disappeared from the scientific market in
the last two centuries... During my career as philosopher, I have considered the job of a philosopher would
be to solve the greatest problems of the special sciences and mainly to furnish a new image of the
“world”/”Universe”/of everything, but based on the scientific data. 90% from my lectures during my career
have been scientific books and articles, only 10% philosophical works. If there were no problems in
particular sciences, there would not be possible for a philosopher to create a new philosophical system
which explain “everything”… Anyway, the great problems from particular sciences are usually not
scientific but philosophical problems which require, with necessity, the change of a paradigm or a sub-
paradigm of thinking. When the scientific problems disappear, philosophy (or better, philosophical systems
which furnish a new image of the entire “world”) will disappear completely from the academic market!

4
answers, but none generally accepted - exactly as the mind-brain problem), I rejected all
the answers to quantum “mysteries”2, but I inquired also even the problem itself, exactly
as I did with the mind-brain problem. So, my solution to discover the EDWs was to
inquire all the questions in main science, in general. I could have done this alternative
just because all the great problems from Philosophy, Physics, and Cognitive
Neuroscience (CNS) have been wrong problems constructed within a wrong framework,
the unicorn world (or the Universe, the world). After I discovered the existence of the
EDWs for the mind-brain problem, I applied the same perspective to the existence of the
EDWs for the problems of quantum mechanics and I noticed that my perspective works
perfectly for all these “mysteries”. In our next step (2016b), I indicated that “spacetime”
(or “space” and “time”) could not have any ontological status. Therefore, later, I rewrote
Einstein’s special and general relativity without spacetime. (2017 and 2021) In my book
from 2020, I rewrote the entire Physics (the main theories) within my EDWs perspective.
Why have I been so sure to apply my perspective to the great problems from Physics,
CNS and Philosophy? Since so many people from all these domains have plagiarized my
ideas, I am convinced my approach will become something quite accepted by almost
every scientist and philosopher, in the future.3
In this book, I deal with the first EW, the Hypernothing or the EW0. I emphasize
that I do not have any idea about that EW0 since I have no knowledge about the EW1.
Even having certain knowledge about an EW, it is quite difficult to draw something
about the previous EDW because of the main rule of this perspective: one EW does not
exist for any EDW. I emphasize here that I will introduce certain rational speculations
about the EW0. Within the EDWs perspective, the answer to the question “Why there is
something than nothing?” depends on the viewpoint of answering. (See the answer to
this question in this work, below)4

2
“When Newton worked out the laws of gravity and mechanics, that set into motion what eventually
became the Industrial Revolution, which lifted humanity out of agrarian misery and poverty. When
Maxwell and Faraday worked out the laws of electricity and magnetism, that set into motion the Electric
Revolution, which gave us electricity, radio, TV, dynamos, and generators. When Heisenberg and
Schrödinger worked out the laws of the quantum and the atom, that gave us lasers, transistors, computers
and the internet. So, every time physicists explain a force of nature, it alters the destiny of the human race
and the world economy.” (Kaku 2021 Interview) With the EDWs perspective, I did not unify all forces or
entities. On the contrary, this perspective is against any kind of unification from physics! Many physicists
(Kaku among them) unified all forces with the String Theory, but in our book 2010, I indicated this theory
is a pseudo-theory. Moreover, in our book 2016, I indicated space and time (spacetime) could not have any
ontological status. Therefore, the string theory is, indeed, a pseudo-theory. “As Princeton physicist Freeman
Dyson once said, the road to the unified field theory is littered with the corpses of failed attempts… The
leading (and to my mind, only) candidate is called string theory, which posits the universe was not made of
point particles but of tiny vibrating strings, with each note corresponding to a subatomic particle. If we had
a microscope powerful enough, we could see that electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. are nothing but
vibrations on minuscule loops resembling rubber bands. If we pluck the rubber band enough times and in
different ways, we eventually create all the known subatomic particles in the universe. ” (Kaku 2021, p. 9)
Amazing, Kaku did tell nothing about 10, 11 or 26 dimensions, the main concept from the String theory!
Talking just about “vibrating strings” in “correspondence with subatomic particles”, Kaku moves from real
String theory (with 10, 11, 26 dimensions) to the EDWs perspective without writing a word about the
EDWs perspective! Only in this framework, Kaku would be able to consider that this theory is the basis of
the research for the world’s leading teams.
3
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” (Einstein) Time has
changed: because of the Internet, now there are not only oppositions but also quite brutal PLAGIARISM!

5
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 and to the self in the second section. All
information encapsulated within 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 the 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 Bang5,
4
There are many people who have published UNBELIEVABLE similar idea to our ideas: in this sense, see
this manuscript I , “(April 2020 to 2014) The UNBELIEVABLE SIMILARITIES between the ideas of
some people (2011-2016) and my ideas (2002-2008) in physics (quantum mechanics, cosmology),
cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and philosophy (this manuscript would produce a
REVOLUTION in right international academic environment!)” here (the LIST is BELOW) I (May 2022 to
2014) The UNBELIEVABLE SIMILARITIES between the ideas of some people (2011-2021) and my ideas
(2002-2008) in physics (quantum mechanics, cosmology), cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and
philosophy (this manuscript would produce a REVOLUTION in right international academic
environment!) here (the LIST is BELOW)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
360609472_0May_2022_2014_Gabriel_Vacariu_UNBELIEVABLE_similarities_Microsoft
https://www.academia.edu/79098661/May_2022_2014_Gabriel_Vacariu_UNBELIEVABLE_similarities
https://philpapers.org/rec/VACMT-9
https://www.scribd.com/document/571468435/February-2022-2014-Gabriel-Vacariu-UNBELIEVABLE-
Similarities-Microsoft
5
Obviously, from the classical view accepted by the majority of cosmologists, the Big Bang was not an
explosion, it was just the appearance of matter and space which has extended in “nothing”: Powell
considers that “the Big Bang was not an explosion of the kind any person has ever witnessed… The Big
Bang is a description of how the universe began, not an explanation of why it began. It does not assume
anything about what (or who) made the universe, and it does not assume anything about what (if anything)
came before. To modern cosmologists, the Big Bang is a model describing how the universe expanded from
an extremely hot, dense early state into the reality that we see today. The evidence for this interpretation is
overwhelming… The most famous evidence for the Big Bang comes from ‘redshifts’ the observed
stretching of light from distant galaxies, but that’s hardly the only source of support. The spectrum and
distribution of the cosmic microwave background exactly matches expectations of the hot Big Bang. The
evolution of galaxies testifies to the finite age of the universe, and the observed ages of stars exactly match
up with the age of the universe deduced from the cosmic expansion. The large-scale distribution of galaxies
displays a subtle rippling pattern that corresponds to the inferred rippling of acoustic waves in Big Bang’s
primordial soup of particles and radiation. The observed abundances of hydrogen, helium and deuterium in
the universe exactly align with models of the nuclear reactions that occurred in that soup. Could that entire
Big Bang framework of interpretation be wrong? I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but I will call it

6
there was the quantum plasma (made of quarks and gluons), which had an extremely high
temperature.6 As the plasma became less and less hot, the first microparticles (photons)
escaped from that plasma.7 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 the ED
(epistemologically different) objects and, therefore, these EDWs appeared. I will
introduce the five 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 the EDWs share the same objective reality, even if one EW
does not exist for any other EDW.

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)
… inconceivable…
At the same time, it is important to be open about how much we don’t know. It is not only
possible, it is absolutely certain that our understanding of the Big Bang is incomplete. Cosmic inflation is a
widely accepted theory about what happened during the first fraction of a second during the Big Bang, but
it is not proven. The current dispute over the cosmic expansion rate may be a reflection of our ignorance
about that early era. Why and how the Big Bang occurred are complete mysteries. You may have heard
cosmologists speculate about the “multiverse,” or about the idea of an oscillating universe with many
beginnings, or about a collision between two membranes of reality that created our universe. Nobody
knows which of these ideas, if any, is correct… Was there a time before the Big Bang? Will the universe
expand forever? Will there be another Big Bang? Is the universe finite or infinite? Do other universes exist?
These are all exciting, wide open questions.” (Powell 2019)
6
“After the big bang, the main agenda of the cosmos was expansion, ever diluting the concentration of
energy that filled space. With each passing moment the universe got a little bit bigger, a little bit cooler, and
a little bit dimmer. Meanwhile, matter and energy co-inhabited a kind of opaque soup, in which free-range
electrons continually scattered photons every which way. or 380,000 years, things carried on that way.”
(Tyson 2017, p. 71)
7
“… in the very early universe, perhaps during one of the splits between different types of force, endowed
the cosmos with a remarkable asymmetry, in which particles of matter outnumbered particles of antimatter
by only about one part in a billion—a difference that allows us to exist today. That tiny discrepancy in
population could hardly have been noticed amid the continuous creation, annihilation, and recreation of
quarks and antiquarks, electrons and anti-electrons (better known as positrons), and neutrinos and
antineutrinos.” (deGrasse Tyson and Goldsmith 2004, p. 59)

7
 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 the
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 the 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
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

8
appeared in the “Universe” were a “fire” very hot in which all four forces were unified.8
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)9; 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 nuclei10; 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.”11 (p. 45) So, in this “scientific” picture, there were the
microparticles, the the corresponding electromagnetic waves (which belong to the
field/field-EW), and the planets12 - formed later when, due to gravity, a huge amalgam of
microparticles became unified. Therefore, can we say that the microparticles “form” a

8
“In the beginning, nearly fourteen billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of
the known universe as contained in a volume less than one-trillionth the size of the period that ends this
sentence. Conditions were so hot, the basic forces of nature that collectively describe the universe were
unified. Though still unknown how it came into existence, this sub-pinpoint-size cosmos could only
expand. Rapidly. In what today we call the big bang.” (De Grasse Tyson 2017, p. 15)
9
About the “Planck era” (10-43 seconds), the separation of those four forces, the appearances of photons and
other microparticles during the reduction of temperature of the “Universe”, see deGrasse Tyson and
Goldsmith 2004. The extremely dense state of the “universe” during “Planck era” is quite related to the
singularity of black holes. From my viewpoint, these two points are related to the EDW before the Big
Bangs, the pre-Big-Bangs-EW. Anyway, I don’t believe the entire “mass” of the “universe” was
concentrated in an infinitesimal point, immediately after the Big Bangs. From my viewpoint, the entire
mass belonged to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW, and all this matter and energy appeared, until a new form of
matter and energy after many Big Bangs (to avoid Guth’s inflation). More exactly, there were not really
“Big Bangs” but just the appearances of matter in different places which created the beginning of our
“Cosmos”. With the existence of EDWs, I do not need “infinities” in my EDWs perspective. (Against
infinity, God, and old version of “nothing”, see our last chapter in our book from 2019) (more details about
inflation, horizon and flatness problems, dark matter/energy and other pseudo-problems in Cosmology, see
Vacariu and Vacariu 2016)
10
“As the temperature drops, particles move more and more slowly. And so right about then, when the
temperature of the universe first dipped below a red-hot 3,000 degrees Kelvin, electrons slowed down just
enough to be captured by passing protons, thus bringing full-fledged atoms into the world. This allowed
previously harassed photons to be set free and travel on uninterrupted paths across the universe.” (Tyson
2017, pp. 72-3)
11
Tyson indicates that some people introduce “God” (obviously, a “non-scientific” hypothesis) in this
equation.
12
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
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 the 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
to the EW of microparticles, the micro-EW. Of course, without the existence of
microparticles, I 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 the 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 I 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 the 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 the object. However, this explanation about color is quite wrong, from the
EDWs perspective. A physical entity (the 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!), but, in this case, she has a
“mental representation” (part of the mind) of the 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

10
century philosopher Locke called “first-order” traits), while other traits are “different”
(“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 the cave, for instance, exist both for the bats and for the humans,
even if the second-order traits greatly differ. Because the EDWs really exist or, more
precisely, they are, the question “Which world truly exists?” has no sense, because all the
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 the 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
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”. On
the contrary, if we accept that in such cases both levels exist (for instance, Searle’s view
in 1992), certain strong ontological contradictions would appear. 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 the “levels” with the 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 the
entities/processes that belong to two EDWs cannot have any ontological status.
Therefore, the notion of “causality” between the ED entities which belong to the EDWs is
a completely wrong concept.

Working within the unicorn world, the scientists and the 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 the entities
which belong to the EDWs has been often used in the past, but this causality is

11
completely wrong since one EW does not exist for any EDW. How can we attribute the
causality (a law or something similar) between the entities which belong to the 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 the brain (which has a “surface”) and the 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
perceptual images produced the illusions of “space” as a feature of 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 the
ED entities which belong to the EDWs (for instance, to different certain electromagnetic waves which
belong to the field-EW).

Again, such correspondences have produced many illusions in the human minds. The
same process happened with the notion of “time” given by the correspondences between
the neuronal processes which required motion “inside” the body/brain and the illusion of
“time” in the mind. Due to such correspondences, the human being (the mind) had the
“feeling” of the “passing time”, but time could not have any ontological status. That is,
space and time do not have any ontological status. But such “feelings” have been just
implicit, unconscious notions/ideas created by our mind. These “feelings” correspond to
certain neuronal and more general body processes, but in reality, they are nothing more
than the “implicit knowledge”. Ontologically, time does not exist (see Vacariu and
Vacariu 2016), there is only the implicit knowledge which corresponds to the neuronal
processes (that require motion). Such motions, for instance, create (through
correspondences) the illusion of “time” inside the human mind.
Anyway, inside the mind, there is neither time, nor space, not even “extensions” or
“duration”. Inside the mind, there are only “mental images” and “processes” (sequences
of images or abstract notions in our minds) which create the illusions of “space” and
“time”. Kant’s intuitions of space and time do not fit my EDWs perspective even if these
intuitions have no ontological status in the Kantian transcendental philosophy. (About
Kant’s philosophy, see Vacariu 2008) The human mind creates the idea of “space” and
“time” (or “spacetime”)13, so we have to be aware of the fact that even in our mind (in the
13
What does it mean a 2D space? A space that has longitude and latitude, but not altitude. However, we
cannot even think such a real space! Any object that has those two dimensions, with necessity, it has the 3th
dimension. There are no objects with 2D, there cannot be created objects with 2D. (The same argument is
true for objects with 1D.) Space is exactly in the same situation. Moreover, the status of 3 dimensions do

12
Kantian sense), “space” and “time” do not really exist as “intuitions” (or whatever
alternative we can think of). It has to be very clear: we do not have any kind of spatial
and temporal “intuitions”. The human mind associates “nothing” with “space” and
“time”, which are just “implicit notions/ideas”, nothing more or less. Indirectly, the
human mind forms the mental representations of two macro-objects and the “nothing”
between them, for instance, but this “nothing” corresponds to some parts of the brain
(mainly some areas, eventually the entire brain) and body, on one hand, and to the
electromagnetic wave which corresponds to that “nothing”, on the other hand. Through
such correspondences, the brain and the entire body indirectly “pushed” our mind to
believe in the “existence” of space and time. In fact, there are only the motions of certain
entities in “nothing” (which correspond, in general, to something) and nothing else.
Precisely these motions within the brain created, through correspondences, the illusion of
the existence of space and time.
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 internal
“realities”. (See our work 2016 in which I indicate that spacetime cannot hava any
ontological status14) 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
not have an ontological status. 1D, 2D, 3D are just human mind’s creations, in reality there is just the
electromagnetic field and nothing more. So, from my viewpoint, space does not exist at all, i.e., it does not
have any ontology.
14
This idea is related to the title of Einstein’s article published in 2005 about special relativity: “On the
electrodynamics of movies bodies” (2005).

13
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-EW15 (probable, many pre-EDWs, not only one).
(b) the mega-EW16.
(c) the Hypernothing-EW (with its hyperontology).
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 the ED phenomena until our
discovery of the EDWs.
Let me return to the quite problematic distinction between the parts and the whole17
by analyzing some examples. Surprisingly, perceiving for example two objects which
appear to be different, people think that those objects are placed in the same “spatial-
temporal” framework (in fact, the unicorn world) and thus seek the relationship
(causality) between them. However, if two entities belong to the EDWs, then those
objects do not even exist for each other, so there cannot be any relationship between them
(not even one of “identity” like the wrong idea about the mind is identical with the brain
or an amalgam of microparticles is a macro-table). Obviously, the causalities between the
entities belonging to the EDWs cannot be explained through generally accepted scientific
theories. Why? Because those “causalities” do not even exist. Again, such anomalies have
been created because of the wrong single-viewer perspective of human beings: one
observer, one “world”. Within the EDWs perspective, when we try to grasp the
relationship between the entities which belong to the EDWs, in some cases, we have to
replace causality, identity and other linguistic notions with “correspondences”. Below, I
will give some examples.
(1) The example concerning the microparticles and a table (or a planet). As we know, the
table (or the planet) and the microparticles exist in the EDWs, but the table does not exist
for the microparticles, nor the other way round. However, with the EDWs framework, we
can say that the table corresponds to that set of microparticles. As we have seen above,
we cannot claim that the microparticles “form/compose” the table because the table does
not exist for the microparticles, nor the other way round, so the notion of
“forming/composing” is meaningless in this case. I would like to emphasize that the
“identity” of an object is given neither by its “essence”, nor by what it has “inside” (its
“composition” or other related metaphysical concepts, which are just empty notions
constructed within the unicorn world), nor by the perceptual-constitutive mechanisms of
human beings (as Kant and some people working in quantum mechanics believed).
Again, imagine that someone sends an electron “towards” a table. The question is the
following: “What does the electron perceive”? A microparticle (the electron for instance)
does not “perceive”, but in this case, “perception” is equivalent to “interaction”. I will ask
the reader to imagine that he/she is the electron sent towards the table. So what does the
15
I believe that there were “many Big Bangs” (not only one), more exactly, there were not Big Bangs, but
just the appearances of different matter which corresponded with matter from a pre-Big-Bangs-EW.
16
There are some EDWs (that we know about them) in certain order: the 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.
17
I investigated this relationship in my previous works.

14
electron interact with? Most people would answer that “the microparticle interacts with
the table”. But this answer is completely wrong because it represents a wrong human
being’s “point of view”. The correct answer relies on the “point of view” of the electron,
not on that of any human observer: the electron interacts with (“perceives”) a huge
conglomerate of microparticles (which, only for the human observer, represents the
table). If we replace the table with a planet, we get the same question and the same
answer: the planet, and therefore its “gravity”, does not exist for an electron (there is no
“quantum gravity”18, since no graviton has been discovered). The electron
“perceives”/interacts with only a huge conglomerate of microparticles (which, for
humans, represents a planet).
The well known “four physical forces” (the gravitational force, the strong and weak
forces and the electromagnetism19, which are, in my perspective, equivalent to
“interactions”) belong to the EDWs, and the trend to unify them is a huge error which has
dominated physics for the last six-seven decades. The understanding of the
correspondence between the entities which belong to the EDWs will lead us to the
rejection of the much-used notion of the identity between the mind and the brain or
between the microentities and the macroentities, and the very mysterious (unexplained)
relationships between the waves and the particles in quantum mechanics. Consequently,
other essential notions from the various fields of human knowledge have to be rejected:
emergence (of all kinds), non-locality and non-spatiality (from quantum mechanics), the
relationship between Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum mechanics etc. (For all
these topics, see our previous works) It seems that it was easier for the philosophers and
many scientists to play with certain notions/concepts (let us consider merely the
Ptolemaic epicycles or “linguistic games”, which are often “the only game in town”)
within an ideal (or better said, ultimate) framework than to recognize the imperfection of
their theory. All these concepts were created within the unicorn world, therefore these
notions have been “empty words”. Without this rule (proposition), certain amazing
Ptolemaic epicycles would continue to dominate science and philosophy.
(2) An automobile and its components: the same rules are true for the relationship
between the car and the microparticles, which are also “components”, but the
microscopic ones: if we consider that both exist (in the same EW), we break the
ontological rule of parts vs. whole. However, in this case, the whole (the car or the table)
and the parts (the microparticles and their micro-forces) are in the EDWs, not in the same
EW (as the car and its macroscopic components). For the relationships between a
macroscopic object and a set of microparticles (and also for the parts-whole relationship),
we have to replace the notion of “composition” with that of “correspondence”: an
18
It is presupposed that immediately after Big Bang, the matter was very heavy but very small, so, it is
necessary to unify Einstein’s theory of general relativity with quantum mechanics. However, in such a
small place, we could not place certain microparticles and the Higgs bosons. So, we cannot claim that we
have to unify these two theories.
19
“At the end of the Planck era, gravity wriggled itself loose from the other, still-unified forces of nature,
achieving an independent identity nicely described by our current theories. As the universe aged past 10-35
second, it continued to expand and to cool, and what remained of the once-unified forces divided into the
electro-weak force and the strong nuclear force. Later still, the electro-weak force split into the
electromagnetic and the weak nuclear forces, laying bare four distinct and familiar forces—with the weak
force controlling radioactive decay, the strong force binding together the particles in each atomic nucleus,
the electromagnetic force holding atoms together in molecules, and gravity binding matter in bulk.”
(deGrasse Tyson and Goldsmith 2004, p. 55)

15
automobile is not “composed” of its parts, because the automobile does not exist for its
parts (and vice-versa). A table is not “composed” of microparticles, because it only
corresponds (ontologically) to a set of microparticles (and their micro-forces), since the
table (and other macro-objects and their force, the gravity) and the microparticles (and
their micro-forces) belong to the EDWs. This distinction between the parts and the whole
is a philosophical distinction which has led to many metaphysical (linguistic) games that
have nothing in common with “nature” (i.e., the EDWs). What really exists in the EDWs
and what we have believed to exist are very different things. Again, the human
language/thought have had a dictatorial status in establishing the dominance of the
“unicorn world”.
The conclusion of investigating all these examples is that the parts and the whole
exist (a) in some cases in the EDWs: for instance, the microparticles and the
macroparticles; (b) in other cases, in the same EW, but not at the same time: the whole
does not exist for its components and vice-versa. For instance, if a table and its
components (its legs and its top) existed at the same time, there would be an ontological
contradiction: two (sets of) entities exist in the same place, at the same time. In principle
(5), when I claim that “all the EDWs have the same objective reality”, I use the Kantian
expression of “objective reality” with almost the same meaning that Kant intended. The
“conditions of observation” are replaced by the “conditions of interaction” and thus the
Kantian epistemological notion of constitution (even if “ontologically loaded”) becomes
a true ontological-epistemological concept available to the EDWs. The first part of
principle (5) is “any EW is”. An EW does not “exist” (i.e. “it does not exist in a spatio-
temporal framework”), but “it is”. Only certain epistemologically different objects (and
their interactions, but an EW does not interact) “exist” within an illusory “spatio-
temporal” frameworks (which, in many cases, correspond to the ED entities from the
EDWs). So, an EW is, an object exists. Using different conditions of observation (our
eyes or an electronic microscope, for instance), we see that the macroparticles and the
microparticles exist in the EDWs. All the epistemologically different entities and their
epistemologically different interactions, that is all the EDWs, have the same “objective
reality”. Let me summarize the parts-whole relationship:
(1) The whole and the parts can belong to the EDWs. For example, a table (the whole)
and its corresponding microparticles (the parts) belong to the EDWs. As we know, the
interactions between the entities are essential to each EW. In this case, the table
interacts with other macro-objects, but the microparticles do not exist for the table.
The microparticles interact with other microparticles, but the table does not exist for
the microparticles.
(2) The whole and the parts belong to the same EW, but the whole does not exist for the
parts, neither do the parts exist for the whole. More precisely, we cannot speak about
the ontology of the table at the same time with the ontology of its components. At any
given moment, either the table exists, or its parts exist, but not both. For example,
either the table exists (the whole), but the parts do not (the legs and the top), or the
parts exist, but the table does not. If both the table and the parts existed in the same
place, at the same time, I would reach an ontological contradiction: two objects (or
sets of objects) cannot exist in the same place, at the same time.
Let me apply this framework of thinking to the situation of cars and their
components. We see a car going down the street. At that moment we cannot claim to

16
 see certain parts going down the street. (We are not referring here to functionalism...)
For us, the car exists as a whole. If the parts exist, then I would reach an ontological
contradiction. If we saw that one of the rear-view mirrors is broken, we could say that
a part of that whole does not exist, however we do not refer to a component of the car.
The car and its parts exist in the same EW, but not at the same time. If I discussed
about the components and the whole, I would reach, again, an ontological
contradiction. The same rule applies to the brain as a whole and its components.
(3) The mind and the brain are or exist in the EDWs. In other words, the mind is an EW,
the brain belongs to the macro-EW. (see our works 2002–2016 and the following
section)
At the end of this section, I introduce a very important principle referring to the
explanation of the ED phenomena which belong to the EDWs: “the Epistemological
Principle of the EDWs” (the EP of the EDWs):

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

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

In my research, the entanglement problem20 and the nonlocality from quantum mechanics
are exactly in this situation: only appealing to the EP of the 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.

1.2 The principles Concerning the Brain/Body and the Corresponding I (the
Self/Mind)
In this section, I will explain the principles referring to the body (to the organism in
general, brain included) and the corresponding self (i.e., the I or the mind). Generally, the
body/organism exists in the macro-EW along with other macroparticles. For instance, our
bodies exist in the same macro-EW with the tables and the planets. As we saw in the
previous section, the microparticles do “not compose” our bodies, but they correspond to
them, since they belong to the micro-EW. What are the relationships between a body and
its cells, between an organism and its life, between a cell and its life, between a human
body and the mind? Until now, within the unicorn world, it has been mistakenly claimed
that the organism “has life”, and since biologists consider that the smallest living entity is
the cell, therefore a cell also “has” life. What, then would it be the relationship between
the life of the organism and the lives of billions of cells? From my viewpoint, the
body/cell and the life belong or are the EDWs. There are people who consider that there
are at least strong similarities, if not an identity, between life and mind. (See I 2016)
Therefore, seeing the situation from that perspective, the statement “An organism has

20
For Schrödinger, the entanglement was “the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that
enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought”. https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/erwin-
schrodinger-misunderstood-icon/ Using the EDWs perspective, I explained very well the entanglement long
time ago (in 2006, 2007, etc.): the wave is in the wave-EW, the particle is in the particle-EW, and the
electromagnetic wave (a single wave) is in the wave-EW.

17
life” is quite similar to “the brain has mind”. In biology, after 100 years of research,
nobody could describe the true relationship between an organism (or a cell) and life.
Cognitive neuroscience has been unable to solve this problem after many decades of
working, despite the efforts of many scientists (neuroscientists, psychologists, computer
scientists etc.) who have used various apparatuses to scan or “read the mind”. Therefore,
ontologically speaking, within the EDWs perspective, there are no great differences
between “life” and “mind”: both refer to the “living beings”. So, from my viewpoint, life
is mind, therefore the mind-EW is the life-EW.
As we have already seen in the previous section, the human entities are not the only
“observers” within the EDW framework. Each entity has its own “point of view”, or,
better said, it “interacts with” other entities which belong to the same EW. Even in the
unicorn world, certain animals have “points of view” that are more or less different than
the human viewpoint. More precisely, many animals (for example the bat) perceive the
external world quite differently from the human organisms. From the status of animals,
we can move to less and less complex “living beings”, such as bacteria, both multicellular
and unicellular, whose perspective differs even more strongly from the human one. If we
accept the postulate that the smallest entity that “has life” (or life “emerges” from cells) is
the cell, we can wonder how a cell “perceives” its surrounding environment. While some
people may find this question ridiculous, we have to remember that, within the EDWs,
even an electron or a planet “perceives” (i.e., interacts with) other entities from the same
EW. So, if we consider that a bat perceives its environment, then we can also consider
that a unicellular organism “perceives” its surroundings or a cell interacts with/perceives
its external environment. However, in this context, the question is “What is the
‘environment’ of a life?” (we do not refer to the organism). As I will see below, I repeat
that the concept of “living being” is quite similar or even identical to that of the “mind”,
therefore, “life” is an EW. Again, from my viewpoint, I consider that the notions like
“life” and “mind” refer to the same entity, life or mind. The principles regarding the I/self
and the body (organism/cell) are the following:

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).
Various instruments of observation (or measurement) simply allow the “I” to perceive
indirectly (i.e. through correspondences) the EDWs. However, there are no relationships
between the body and its micro-entities (or its cells): each microparticle interacts with an
amalgam of other microparticles (which belong to the micro-EW) and they all correspond

18
to the body (which belongs to the macro-EW). Moreover, the body/brain (which belongs
to the macro-EW, where we can find planets, tables, and other macroparticles) and it does
not exist for the self (the I), which is an EW. The self (the living being) requires the
existence of the corresponding brain (body). Without this correspondence, the I/mind
cannot be. The I (the self) is an entity and an EW at the same time. This is the only case
in which we encounter the paradoxical situation in which something is both an entity and
an EW. Obviously, since the self (the mind) corresponds to an organism/cell and the self
is an EW, then like any EW, the self appears from and disappears into “nothing” (or it
comes from nowhere and returns there).
To exist means to disappear, to live means to die. It is quite impossible for
something to exist forever, as well as, it is quite impossible for something to live forever.
Any entity exists for a period of “time” and it will disappear, with necessity, in the future.
With necessity, an entity lives for a period and it dies in the future. So, for us, it is
compulsory to introduce “disappear” in the definition of existence and “death” in the
definition of “life”. Otherwise, the definition of “existence” and “life” would not be
complete.
One of the essential features of the correspondence between the I and the
body/brain is that, in the absence of the corresponding self, the body (which includes the
brain) would be unable to survive in its environment (even if the self does not exist for
the body, the body does not exist for the self). We cannot continue to maintain, as we
have done so far, that the biological functions (which are the results of evolution) “are
enough” for an organism (a body) to survive in its environment. An organism has no
“knowledge” about its external environment, even if the body strongly interacts with the
entities which belong to that environment. Such interactions do not represent knowledge:
a planet interacts with another planet, but could we consider that planets have/possess
knowledge because of that? Also, the body (brain) has no knowledge at all. Does a
neuron perceive color or illusory space? Does a neuron “feel the pain”? The neurons (and
the white matter and all other components of the brain) do not possess any kind of
knowledge at all. There are only electrical and chemical (and other kinds of) reactions,
but not what we call “knowledge”. However, all chemical, neuronal and body processes
correspond to the mind-EW (or the self-EW) and knowledge is the self.
Within the unicorn world, the coordination of all the biological functions of an
organism are thought to be the result of evolution. The evolution of an organism is
explained through this coordination. From the EDWs perspective, the coordination of all
biological functions needs a unity that is impossible to find within the biological
mechanisms of an organism. Only the self (the I or the mind) has this kind of unity, which
it corresponds21 to some biological mechanisms, but it does not exist within an organism.
Even if there is a correspondence between this unity and the neural and body
mechanisms/functions of an organism, this “unity” is nothing more or less than the I/self.
Moreover, this unity corresponds to the development of an organism and the evolution of
a species in a particular environment. I return to my analogy: can I find the unity of a
table (i.e. for the standard table, its rectangular surface placed on four legs) within its
microparticles? Obviously, there is no such surface (with certain features like area, color
etc.) within the EW of microparticles (the micro-EW).

21
Obviously, the unity of the mind is given exactly by its correspondence with the entire brain/body.

19
 I believe that many scientists working in the field of cognitive neuroscience realize a
major mistake in avoiding the essential role of development and evolution when they
analyze the relationship between the mind and the brain/body (especially using brain
imaging with fMRI and PET). For instance, when we use the fMRI for the brain imaging
(for scanning or reading the brain), we cannot grasp the corresponding results in the
development of an organism and in the evolution of the species. These corresponding
results would represent the I/self/living being. Many mental and behavioral functions
appear during the development of the corresponding organism. After a period of training
(which can last for weeks, months or years), many neural areas get activated less but
better when they perform certain functions. In an EDW, the mind-EW, in psychological
terms, the explicit knowledge (the conscious or declarative knowledge) is transformed
into the implicit (unconscious or procedural) knowledge in order to perform certain tasks
(such as speaking a foreign language, riding a bicycle etc.). After the training, the set of
tasks are accomplished better, so more training leads to better accomplishments. The
problem is that when we scan the brain of an adult, we cannot observe the activation of
all these neural processes, of chemical and electrical reactions, of neural waves etc.
However, the required mental functions are performed without any problem. Certain
neuronal patterns (which had been the most activated at the beginning of that task) seem
to be inactive, or at least they are much less active. Most probably, because of their
habitation (training), the neural patterns are less activated, but not completely inactive,
since the task is accomplished more efficiently. We have to understand the same
processes in relationship with the evolution of the species. Therefore, in order to achieve
a task, many parts of the brain are involved, but we are unable to observe all of them.
One of our major mistakes is that we correlate some mental functions only with
certain neural functions which we observe using fMRI and PET. In reality, if we go back
in time (to the development of an organism and the evolution of the species), I will notice
that many other neural areas are involved in performing a certain mental function; in fact,
the whole brain and body participate. Under these circumstances, it is futile to try to
“correlate” certain oscillations, chemical reactions and many other processes (not only
activation of neuronal patterns, which can be seen using fMRI) from the brain with each
mental functions/tasks. Why many researchers believe that, when we use the fMRI, we
can actually “read the mind/brain”? Using an fMRI, we read only the top of the brain
processes that are activated for that mental tasks, but I introduce some labels (i.e., we
correlate the activation of some neuronal patterns with some mental tasks that belong to
the I) and we claim that we “read the mind”. For instance, if we could scan the brain of a
child during its first months of life, I would probably observe the activation of numerous
parts of the brain even for the simplest movements of the arms, the legs, or even the eyes.
After a period of training, many parts of the brain will cease to be activated as strongly as
at the beginning for these actions. Nevertheless, because of the training, those tasks are
performed better and better. Consequently, using fMRI and PET, we can find only certain
neural areas, maybe the most activated ones, but not all of those which are correlated
with particular mental functions. Moreover, we cannot observe the activation of some
neurons and their oscillations with the same apparatus. Also, for these correlations, we
have to introduce not only the role of the neuromodulators and the neurotransmitters that
take place at any neuronal activation but also the electromagnetic oscillations which

20
surround the brain at any moment. The state of affair becomes quite complicated, doesn’t
it?
Each mental function (each mental representation) belongs to the unity of the I/self.
This unity represents the indeterminate individuality of the I/self, or better said, the I is an
indeterminate individuality. This means that the I/self/mind (which is also life, see the
next chapter) has no spatial framework, only a “temporal” (illusory) one. In this sense,
we cannot identify the life or the mind as being placed within an “illusory spatiotemporal
framework”. No matter what conditions of observation we choose, I will not be able to
identify the “individuality” of the life/mind/self. Therefore, this individuality is
indeterminate (but not “non-determinate”). Trying to reduce the indeterminate
individuality to a completely determinate individuality (which would presuppose at least
an “illusory spatio-temporal framework”), it would mean a mixture of the EDWs.
Just a thought against the existence of “spacetime”: we can talk about color or
surface only when we refer to the entities placed within “such a framework”, but can we
consider that the mental states (for instance, emotions or beliefs) have “spatial
dimensions”? If we were able to perceive certain determinations (within an “illusory
spatio-temporal framework”) of the I/self, it would mean that we could determine the
individuality of the self. As I will see below, it is impossible to construct instruments to
observe/perceive the mind/self (or its unity) as a whole. Once more, within the brain (or
the body), we cannot find a unit which corresponds to the self/mind. In reality, the
situation is even worse: actually, we cannot “identify” (or better said, correlate) any
mental task with a certain neuronal pattern. Within the brain (body), the “indeterminate
individuality” is meaningless. Any brain/body (or its parts) has certain “illusory spatial”
(and obviously “illusory temporal”) determinations, but the self/mind is an
“indeterminate individuality”. The “living being” (the self) cannot be identified through
any kind of perception (or its extension) because all the human perceptions are the
I/mind. The fact that all the perceptions are the I is required by the unity of the self/mind.
If all the perceptions were not the I or, in other words, if the I “had access to” or
“perceived visual input”, for example, then I would lose the unity of the I/self and I
would need to introduce the notion of a homunculus (a “tiny man” situated in the brain)
or an “internal eye” which both would lead to the regression ad infinitum. If all the
entities (except for the self/living being, or any EW as a whole) can be perceived, then we
might imagine a “sixth sense” which perceives the I. Can we hope that, in the future, the
humans will create special instruments to achieve this perception? If that were the case,
the I would be an entity with certain (spatial) determinations. Would this be at least
theoretically possible? From the EDWs perspective, having a sixth sense which perceives
the I/self is an ontological contradiction and, moreover, the self would lose its unity.
Therefore, the corresponding organism would not be able to survive in its environment. I
can conclude that the construction of such an instrument is impossible, because, as we
have said above, “the I is” (“the mind/self is”), or “the I is an indeterminate individuality”
(this can also be rephrased as “the mind/self is an indeterminate individuality”).
I can explain certain neuronal phenomena only using the EP of the EDWs principle.
For instance, the correlation between a particular mental state and certain neuronal
patterns can be explain only using the EP of the EDWs. With the help of EP of the
EDWs, we can avoid the unicorn world paradigm. Only within the unicorn-world, we
could say that a biological organism “has” knowledge. Within the EDWs perspective,

21
however, we have a correspondence between any brain/body (a human biological
organism or cell) and the self/living being. However, knowledge has nothing to do with
the organism, obviously, but only with the I/self/living being. In this case, it is wrong to
use the sentence “A being has knowledge” for at least two reasons: the first reason is that
it is impossible to refer to a being but only to the being/self/mind, since one
being/self/mind does not exist for any other being/self/mind (they belong to the EDWs).
The second reason is that it would imply a difference between the being and its
knowledge. This linguistic difference is very wrong, indeed, because it would make us to
lose the identity of the self/life. Another related observation: there is nothing inside or
outside of the self/the I. The proper way of phrasing this situation is this one:
“Knowledge is the self”. If we say “the self possesses knowledge” or “the self perceives
something internal to the body”, then the self does not have the unity required (through
correspondences) for the development of an individual (and for the evolution of the
species). I repeat: without this unity, the self would not survive during the development of
an individual, so the organism would not survive the evolution of the species. Moreover,
there are different types of knowledge (declarative and procedural, implicit and explicit,
conscious and non-conscious etc. – see Vacariu 2008 or 2016), but these types of
knowledge do not form/compose the I (i.e., they are not “parts” of the self). All types of
knowledge are the self /mind/life. The entire knowledge of human beings does not belong
to the self/life, but “it is the self”. Otherwise, I would be faced with the highly
problematic difference between knowledge and the I, namely that the self would be
decomposable (it would have no unity), which, as I have already stated, it would allow
neither the proper development of an individual, nor the evolution of the species. Without
this unity of the self, I would need to find the spatial dimensions of the self/mind/life, but
obviously these dimensions do not exist. We have to remember the paradoxical status of
the I: it is an entity and an EW, at the same time.
I introduce a thought experiment which will help the reader to understand this idea
through an analogy: that of the “subjectivity of a planet”. Imagine that you are a planet
which is unable to observe itself. Let us suppose that your “perception” is somehow
restricted to the microparticles alone. Consequently, you as a macroscopic object cannot
observe any macroscopic object. Such entities simply do not exist as far as your body is
concerned. This situation is similar to that of the I/self: the I cannot observe/perceive
itself. Let me suppose that you are a reductionist and an empiricist, so you believe that
only the microparticles exist. However, there are some phenomena (for instance, those
that correspond to the gravitational forces of macroscopic objects such as planets) which
cannot be explained through the microparticles and their interactions. The gravitational
force is related only to the macro-objects, not to the microparticles, since nobody have
discovered the “gravitons”. Not being able to explain gravity (a real phenomenon) by
using the microparticles and the micro-forces, you (the planet) will introduce “dark
matter” and “dark energy”22.
The I (the living being) is similar to the planet from this thought experiment. We can
perceive indirectly, through correspondence, a planet (or a table) with the corresponding
eyes which belong to the body situated within the corresponding EW (the macro-EW),
22
“Ordinary matter is what we are all made of. It has gravity and interacts with light. Dark matter is a
mysterious substance that has gravity but does not interact with light in any known way. Dark energy is a
mysterious pressure in the vacuum of space that acts in the opposite direction of gravity, forcing the
universe to expand faster than it otherwise would.” (Tyson 2017, p. 89)

22
but we cannot perceive the self/mind/life because each of them is the self/I. However, a
self does not exist (more correctly, it “is not”) for any other self (since the self is an EW)
so, linguistically, it is meaningless to talk about a self. It is better to refer to “the self” and
not to “a self”. All mental perceptions (which correspond to the functions of certain
biological mechanisms) are the I. Therefore, the I/self cannot perceive itself. It is like
“asking an eye to see itself”. In such a situation, it is impossible to think of a sixth sense
which would perceive the being. Such intentions lead directly to a contradiction. I will
name this inconsistency, the “being-perceiving” contradiction, which it leads to this rule:

The I/the self/mind/life cannot perceive.

Nobody considers that the “life” perceives something, but many people believe that the
mind perceives the external world. However, the mind, just like life, does not perceive
anything (anyway, life is identical with mind). There are two arguments to support this
rule:
(1) The I/self/mind does not perceive itself or any entity from any EW, since the self
(the I) would need a biological mechanism to perceive something, and this fact would
imply a mixture of the EDWs (this is, again, an ontological contradiction). A biological
mechanism and its activities merely correspond to the mental perceptions which are the
I/self (all mental states, including perceptions, are the I). The biological mechanism
cannot perceive itself, otherwise I would be faced with the being-perceiving
contradiction. Therefore, the I/self is an “indeterminate individuality” (it has no “illusory
spatial dimensions”). All mental perceptions are the I, but there are no “mental
representations” for perceiving the I. Any mental perceptual state is the I, it appears
spontaneously and it corresponds to the neuronal and the biological (the eyes, cortical and
subcortical areas) mechanisms, but also to the processes involve in the interaction of the
brain/body with the external objects (all objects and bodies/organisms are situated within
the same environment, the macro-EW).
(2) As an EW, the I/self/living being obviously cannot “perceive” anything else. For
instance, as an EW, the mind cannot perceive another mind, because the mind is an EW
and the interaction between two EDWs would lead to a mixture of the EDWs (an
impossible status). The mind cannot perceive any macro-object or micro-object because it
would lead to a mixture of the EDWs (the mind as an EW and the macro-EW, where the
macro-object is situated). Expression like “inside my mind” or “what is on your mind”
are just “non-regimented linguistic slogans” created within the framework of the unicorn
world. The interaction of two minds/lives would automatically represent an ontological
contradiction. More precisely, a living being cannot observe another living being because
every living being is an EW and there are no “pluralities of living beings”. As it has
already been mentioned, one living being does not exist for any other living being, just
like a mind does not exist for any other mind: the mind or life or living being is an EW
and one EW does not exist for any EDW. There are organisms (bodies) which can interact
within the same macro-EW, but the minds do not even exist for one another, so how
could a mind/life interact with another mind/life?
I can analyze another example which further clarifies this contradiction: “I perceive
my hand”. As we already know, the I is an EW, the hand is part of an organism that
belongs to the macro-EW. What does the sentence “I perceive my hand” actually mean?

23
With the help of light, the eyes (which are extensions of the brain) interact with the hand.
The eyes, the brain and the hands are all body parts (pay attention to the “parts-whole”
ontological contradiction). The I is an EW, while the body (brain) belongs to the macro-
EW. So, the interactions between the external objects, the hand, the light waves, the eyes
and the brain/body is possible since all of which belong to the macro-EW, but they only
correspond to the mental perceptual states that appear spontaneously in the mind-EW
(they are the mind-EW or the self/the I). This leads to the conclusion that it is impossible
for the self/living being to perceive anything. It is wrong to consider that “the I perceives
a macro-object situated in its surrounding environment”. The I does not perceive
anything, since perceptions are the self/living being that is an EW and cannot interact
with/perceive objects that belong to another EW. I strongly emphasize that, from the
EDWs perspective, the notion of “perception” is quite incorrect. Nothing can be
perceived because it would presuppose “an entity which perceives”, as well as “an entity
which is perceived” but “perception” would be the I (an EW) and an EW cannot be
perceived.
Perception is the I/living being that is both an EW and an indeterminate individuality
(mainly, it is not “surrounded” by something). Various “perceptions” (and feelings) are
parts of a living being, which is an EW, but their individualities/identities are
epistemologically and ontologically different than the individuality/identity of objects or
organisms. The main difference is caused by the status of being, the indeterminate
individuality. Every type of perception is the self/living being which is an indeterminate
individuality. However, a perception has a kind of individuation different from that of any
object or organism. Generally, the individuation of objects or organisms are placed within
a spatio-temporal framework, while the perceptions are spontaneously different in time,
but not in their relationship with the whole self (which has no spatial dimensions, only a
temporal one). These perceptions are not “internal” perceptions of the I/mind; instead,
they are the I. I emphasize that the self perceives, indirectly through correspondence, the
macro-EW just because the brain, the eyes and the body are all macro-entities. This is the
main reason, the self cannot perceive the electromagnetic waves or the microparticles
(which belong to the EDWs). However, the unity of the mind is given by its
correspondence not only with an unitarian brain, but mainly with the electromagnetic
field (which it is an unitarian entity). So, we can reach the holism and the unity of the
mind just because of the last correspondence.
There is an atomism for the micro-entities and the macro-entities, but a holism for
the electromagnetic field and the mind. The mind and the electromagnetic field have no
“borders”, but the micro-entities and the macro-entities have particular borders which
represent the delimitation of these ED entities within an illusory spacetime. We can
consider that the microentities and the macroentities as multiple entities in the same EW,
while the mind and the electromagnetic field (not the waves) are unique entities which
cannot even be regarded as “single entity”. To name an entity as single entity you need to
be able to notice a relationship between that entity and other entities, but we cannot
compare, directly, the mind with other entities. In this context, I emphasize that the
Hypernothing-EW is beyond the distinction between “one-multiple” or “atomism-
holism”. Otherwise, I will reach a regression ad infinitum with these distinctions. This is
the reason the Hypernothing has a hyperontology (not an ontology like all the micro-
entities or the macro-entities). Moreover, it is obvious that the mind/life has a unity due to

24
the evolution of species: each living cell corresponds to “life” (an unitarian entity as an
EW), and the organism corresponds to life (again, an unitarian entity as an EW). The
brain/organism has always corresponded to an EW, (the mind-EW or life-EW).
Perceptions correspond to certain neuronal patterns of activation (the most
activated ones) and to the patterns of the rest of the brain and the body, but we have to
take into account the fact that the brain has the property of superpositional storage (Clark
1997 or see Vacariu 2008), exactly like a various knowledge are for a neural network:
various kinds of information overlap over the same network. If we accept the identity
theory, this superpositional storage would not allow us to make the individualization of
mental perceptions in the mind. Only the idea that the mind and the brain/body are an EW
or belong to an EDW gives us the possibility to explain the individualization (in a
“temporal”, non-spatial framework) of perceptions (which are the mind). As an EW,
certain entities (mental states and processes) are the I/mind. It is completely wrong to
consider, as many people do, that the I “has” certain feelings or perceptions since, from
our point of view, all the visual representations or emotions are the I.
If we accept that the biological mechanisms “produce” (cause) “perceptions”, we
infer that the mind is the product of the brain. In this way, we return to Searle’s
“Rediscovery of the mind” (1992). This rediscovery is actually a complicated Ptolemaic
epicycle constructed within the unicorn world. (For details about Searle’s philosophy, see
Vacariu 2008) This production would require the causality between the brain and the
mind which it would involve a mixture of the EDWs. In this case, as in many others, we
have to replace “causality” with my “correspondence”. Understanding this replacement is
a step towards accepting the EDWs perspective: it is about accepting the EP of the EDWs
as the main rule of explaining certain phenomena which could not have been explained
within the previous paradigm, the unicorn-world. Again, it is meaningless to look for any
direct relationship between the I (mind or life) and the human body/brain, or for any
interactions between the I and the external world. According to the EP of the EDWs, only
using certain correspondences, I will be able to explain certain processes which belong to
a particular EW.
I get the idea to identify all mental perceptions with the self (the I) from Kant’s
transcendental philosophy. However, the great problem for Kant was the noumena-
phenomena distinction, a distinction imposed by the unicorn world. Using the EDWs
perspective along with Konrad Lorenz’s idea (1941) regarding the adaptation of the
organism to its external environment during the evolution of the species, the problematic
Kantian noumena-phenomena distinction is completely avoided. Moreover, the brain and
the body evolve together in a strong relationship (see Sporns 2006) during their
interactions with the external environment. Nonetheless, the mind (the I) corresponds to
the body (brain), so the famous Kantian distinction between the “pure” and the
“empirical” intuitions of space and time is meaningless, too. The empirical intuition,
which is a part of perception, presupposes interactions taking place between the I and the
world, which we have already seen do not exist. All the elements of perception, including
the intuitions of space and time, are the I, while the corresponding biological mechanisms
evolved within the macro-EW. Within the unicorn world, it was not possible for Kant to
construct a better philosophy. Nonetheless, the noumena is meaningless within the
EDWs, just like Newton’s “absolute space” and “absolute time” are meaningless for

25
Einstein’s theory of relativity, in which “spacetime” is always relative.23 Moreover, we
have to discard the strong differences between the ontological statuses of mental
representations and the external objects: all entities, whether objects or mental
representations, have the same ontological (more correctly, epistemological-ontological)
status, but all these entities belong to the EDWs.
The perceptual representations do not reflect the characteristics of the external
objects precisely, but nevertheless, the similarity between these perceptual mental states
and the external objects in question is quite strong because of the correspondences
between some neuronal phenomena and some mental states. This similarity mirrors the
similarity between a TV screen (“2-dimensional coordinates”) and the images on the
retina (also “the bidimensional figures”), but as I noted above, there are no images on the
retina, exactly as there are no real images/photos (a bird flying, for instance) on the TV
screen. The screen only has certain activated pixels (not a real “bird” is on the screen,
neither a “representation” of a bird is there). The same situation is true in the case of the
retina which has only certain photoreceptors activated or the brain which has only certain
neuronal patterns activated accompanied by different chemical reactions and
electromagnetic oscillations. Also, within the occipital lobe, there are no “images” of
particular scenes (as claimed by Kosslyn et al. one time ago), but only certain neuronal
patterns are just activated, and this situation is available for the activation of all neuronal
and biological mechanisms: all “perceptual images”, “perceptual movies” and “internal
ideas” are not parts of the brain (given by the activation of particular neuronal patterns of
the brain/body, an entity which belongs to the macro-EW), but they are the I (the self-
EW). It should be clear that there is no representation of that bird anywhere inside the
head (body/organism). Such “representation” only exists in the mind, and this is the
reason I call it “mental representation” and not “brain activation”. More precisely, any
such mental representation is the self/mind. However, the mind has memory (more
exactly, the memory is the self). Can we consider that memory has spatial dimensions? In
other words, when we remember the name of a city (for instance, “Prague”), is it spatially
placed in our mind? Does the word “justice” have spatial coordinates? When we recollect
the image of a dog, is it like a “photo” in our minds? Does this photo have colors, size
and borders? Obviously, the answers to all these questions are negative because the mind-
EW (the I) is an EW which has not even illusory “illusory spatial” dimensions (that is,
“nothing” within the macro-EW or the micro-EW, for instance). Certain neuronal
processes correspond to the illusion of “feeling” the mental processes of “time”. We can
ask similar questions not only concerning memory, but also concerning other functions of
the human mind (perception, language, imagining, abstract thinking etc.) and the answer
will be the same: no mental function is situated in “space”.
Let me analyze another case in more detail: a human perceives a house.

How do we know where the objects are located in the world? When we look at the world, the image that
strikes the back of our eye is essentially two-dimensional, similar to the image that would be taken by a
camera. This two-dimensional map of the world projected onto the eye is preserved in the early visual areas
of the cerebral cortex, which provides a map of where objects are located relative to the center of gaze. The
brain is also able to figure out the missing third dimension and estimate how far away objects are in space.
(Baars and Gage 2010)

23
I have been quite surprised that after Einstein unified “space” with “time” and relativized “spacetime”,
very few people could thought that even “spacetime” could not had any ontological status.

26
The light is reflected by the house, then it reaches the eye. It crosses through the lens of
the eye and hits the retina, which leads to the activation of certain photoreceptors (rods
and cones responding to different kinds of light). They say that the image of the house is
reverted on the retina. In reality, we cannot talk about the real images on the retina. Those
images on the retina (which is a part of the eye, which is a part of the body) are active
patterns of photoreceptors whose display corresponds to the proportions of the signals
produced by the photons (which correspond to the wave-light) reflected by the house,
which has a certain size. There is no reversed image of that house on the retina. The
activation of photoreceptors are just biological processes and nothing more. Does the
brain interpret the activation of some photoreceptors of the retina and some neuronal
patterns of cortical areas as being “images”? This is the wrong question. Moreover, we
cannot talk about the bidimensional images, since space does not exist and, even it would
exist, on the retina and early visual cerebral cortex would not be “bi-dimensional
images”, but tri-dimensional images. Anyway, the “bidimensional image” on the retina is
sent, through the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) and through other sub-cortical areas, to
the visual cortical area. Can I believe the images from the retina are still preserved in the
visual cortical area? There is no image of that house either on the retina, or in the LGN,
or in the visual area. These neuronal processes are just neuronal processes and not mental
representations! Those mental images exist only within the mind-EW. Working within the
unicorn world, many specialists (Kosslyn 1997) have made huge mistakes referring to
these mental images. The answer to the question: “Where can we find the 3D mental
representation of that house?” is that we cannot, neither in the eye (it does not exist on the
retina), nor anywhere else in the brain. This representation, like all other mental visual
representations, is the mind/the I. Obviously, certain neural processes and states of the
entire brain and body simply correspond (with a high degree of approximation) to those
perceptual mental images.
Let me shortly analyse another example: one person perceive a house or a table that
is green. Do we have the green color in the brain? Obviously not. The color green is only
represented in the mind, or more precisely, this representation is the I/mind. An organism
would not be able to survive in its environment, the macro-EW, without the
corresponding self/mind/living being. The mental representations of the objects in the
macro-EW are approximately correct, because otherwise the organism would be unable
to survive in that environment. Because of this, the noumena is replaced with the EDWs,
and the Kantian phenomena are the objects and the processes which exist in the macro-
EW in the same way in which microparticles exist in the micro-EW.
Searching for the real entities (for the thing-in-itself or noumena) or for the real
world is meaningless. The living being/the I corresponds to an organism that could not
survive in an environment without this correspondence. The great English philosopher
Hume (who awaked the great German philosopher Kant from a “dogmatic sleep”) would
be quite right in denying any causality between the being (the I/self, mind, intentionality,
subjectivity, will, etc.) and the organism. However, the EDWs theory states that
causalities are possible between the objects which exist within the same EW, but not
between the entities which belong to the EDWs just because the objects which belong to
one EW do not exist for the objects from an EDW. All mental knowledge are the I which
corresponds to the union between brain and body situated in an environment within the
macro-EW.

27
 I ought to consider the case of Ramachandran’s patient, who had a missing arm.
(Ramachandran and Blakeslee 1998) The unconscious (implicit) knowledge (that is the
self) corresponds to the movement of the physical arms. The self acquires this knowledge
during the development of the corresponding body in the first years of life. After the arm
was amputated, that part of the body was missing, but the knowledge corresponding to
that arm has been still part of the mind (it is the I/self). The pain (which is the I) reveals
the unity of the self, a unity that does not exist within the body. (For more details, see
Vacariu 2016) For instance, the brain corresponds to different types of neurons and their
relationships, and to the white matter that surrounds the neurons and their synapses, as
well as to certain oscillations and chemical reactions etc. We cannot find any unity inside
the brain composed of so many different neuronal entities and process.
I return to my analogy: a table has this type of unity (it has a continuum surface),
which cannot be found anywhere else within that huge amalgam of microparticles. The
same observation is valid not only for this unity, but also for other features: for instance,
the pain is the self/living being. The “internal sense” or the “internal feeling” of a body or
a mind is a Ptolemaic epicycle, since there is no “external and/or internal” parts/side for
the I. Instead, there are certain processes of brain and body which correspond to the pain
(which is the I/self). The pain does not exist “inside body” or “inside brain”. These
notions have been created within the unicorn world and have entailed either the identity
(the identity theory in the philosophy of mind) or the causality between mind and body
(Searle 1992). From my EDWs perspective, both the identity theory (mind is identical to
brain) and any kind of causality between mind and brain are completely wrong
approaches. Many thinkers (including Kant) used the notion of “internal feelings”.
However, all feelings and thoughts do not exist “inside” the body; they are parts of self.
Why are they called “internal feelings”? Internal to what or to whom? What is the
criterion which makes the distinction between the “internal” and the “external” feelings?
Certainly, if a stimulus is external to the body, it produces a neuronal and bodily reaction
which is not “internal” to the self, but internal to the body. However, any pain does not
exist either inside the body, or the brain, but it is the I, and it just corresponds to certain
neuronal and bodily processes. These processes take place “inside” the body, but not
“inside” the I/self/mind/life. The mind has no inside-outside or internal-external
processes. In principle, we cannot talk about the inside or the outside of an EW.
Almost everybody uses phrases like “in my mind”, but nobody uses “in my life”.
Why does it seem absurd to say “in my life”, but it is acceptable to say “in my mind”?
From my perspective, “mind” is identical with “life” (see the next chapter), so “in my
mind” is identical with “in my life”: they are both completely wrong, since they mix
information belonging to the EDWs. Let us suppose you have a head-ache. Can you
claim you have a “pain” in your brain? Remember color: there is no green color in your
brain. Therefore, there is no pain in your brain. Pain is the I/self, not even “part” of the
self. (Which part of the self could we claim as having the pain?) Pain (that is the self)
corresponds to the activation of particular neuronal processes, certain chemical reactions
and neuronal oscillations. Pain is neither in the brain, nor in the body. Eliminating the
“internal-external” distinction in relation to the I, in our previous works, I showed that all
feelings (like perceptions or pains) should be the self. All feelings are the so-called
unconscious (implicit) knowledge, while our conscious thoughts are the explicit

28
knowledge. Our conscious thoughts appear spontaneously, not “in our mind”, but are the
mind, the I. All conscious and unconscious knowledge is the self.
On the same line, we cannot “reduce” our body (for instance, the movement of our
right hand) to the laws of quantum mechanics. You move your right hand to take the
mobile phone. Can you “reduce” this movement to the quantum laws and the quantum
entities? Can we consider that your hand does not exist? In this case, from my
perspective, there is a relationship between brain and hand (in the macro-EW), and
another relationship between the self and “part of it” (the image of the hand) (in the self-
EW). Obviously, it is quite impossible to reduce your body (the movement of our hand,
for instance) to the movement of quantum microparticles. There is just a correspondence
between the movement of your body and quantum entities, but not a reductionism. Can
you reduce a “thought” that you have in your mind, at one moment, to the quantum
microparticles and the quantum laws? Obviously, we cannot… If the reader is a
reductionist, then her name refers to an amalgam of microparticles, therefore, all her
documents (passport, ID, etc.) would be false documents. Moreover, her body would not
exist, therefore, pain would be a false feeling. Anyway, we cannot reduce the mental
states to the brain/body reactions. In fact, within the EDWs perspective, we have to reject
all kinds of reductionism. We saw that the parts-whole relationship would be a very
problematic association even for an organism. The existence of a thing depends on the
“point of view/interactions” which we take into account. A feeling or a visual
representation is not “perceived” by any internal eye (homunculus) since all feelings and
mental states are the I/self. If we specify the point of view/interactions, we can determine
which objects or organisms/cells really exist in the EDWs. Again, since any living being
(the self or the I) is an EW, it is meaningless to consider that the “I” interacts with the
external environment. Only the brain/the body is placed within an external environment
(the macro-EW) and there are interactions between the body and the objects which
belong to the macro-EW, but they do not involve the I (or any living being or life). Since
the I (or life) is an EW and it is not situated in any illusory “spatio-temporal” framework,
we can say that “the I/mind/self is”, but it would be wrong to say that “the self/mind
exists”.
The idea of “internal perceptions” is strongly related to the great contemporary
debates between the supporters of mental imagery (again, a leader being Kosslyn) and
those who claim that the mental images have no spatial dimensions (very few proponents,
Fodor and Pylyshyn, the leaders). Even before trying to answer this problem, we have to
wonder how the mind represents the visual (not imagery) “space”. Until now, nobody has
had any doubts about this statement: “the mind perceives the external space”. This rule
contradicts our rule of “being-perceiving”, so it is a false supposition. In reality, it is the
organism which interacts (but not “perceive”!) with the external “space”, not the self/the
I. Again, this is because all “perceptions” are the living being/the I (an EW), while the
organism (the brain has no images about the external environment, but only neuronal
activities) is an entity which belongs to the macro-EW.
Because of the appearance of life and because of the evolution of the species, the
space has to be somehow represented in the mind, but such mental representations are a
kind of “virtual space”. In the exact same way, we can speak of the representation of the
green color in our mind (not in our brain) even if the objects do not have color as such:
colors exist only in our minds and correspond to the frequencies of light-waves reflected

29
by the corresponding “entities” and “received” by the eyes, which are parts of the
brain/body, the objects and the bodies of all beings situated in the macro-EW. We cannot
find any “empty space” within the mind or life, just as we cannot find any green color in
our brain. The correlation between “space” (in which the brain/body is situated) and the
mind (in which the “space” is just “represented”) is quite wrong. Many people consider
that the mind has certain “spatial features”, but nobody inquires about the “spatial
features” of life. In reality, mind and life are the same thing, and we call it as “mind/life”.
From the perspective of classical notion of objectivity, we have to accept Kant’s
unproved postulate that the self really is. Extending the notion of the I, we reach the
living being or life itself. Nevertheless, since the I has no “spatio-temporal”
determinations, Kant needed to postulate the existence of the I within the unicorn world.
Within the EDWs perspective, we can take this assertion beyond the level of postulate:
the I has no spatio-temporal dimension, and we can prove its existence in other ways. The
“space” of the macro-EW (in reality, the “nothing”) is always determined by its objects.
According to Leibniz (a very famous German philosopher contemporary with the famous
physicist Newton), “space” exists as a “relationship between objects”. Newton believed
that space does not depend on the presence of objects, and that it can exist in the absence
of any object, therefore describing the “absolute space” and “absolute time”. However,
Einstein showed that the “absolute space” and the “absolute time” are meaningless,
everything (including space and time) being relative to something and not existing
independently of everything (absolute existence). I repeat that Einstein’s relativization of
spacetime was an indication for us of rejecting completely the ontology of spacetime. We
do not have a representation of “empty space”, “void of all entities”. We can have mental
representations of objects and certain relationships between them (and these
representations are the I), but these representations simply correspond to certain
biological mechanisms of an organism that interacts with a specific external environment.
Even if the macro-EW has “illusory spatial dimensions” (i.e., nothing with no ontological
background), “space” has to be suspended in the mind, where it is merely “pseudo-
represented”. If the mind (self) had a spatial aspect, it would be decomposable. This
decomposition is not possible (can you decompose yourself (?), is life decomposing?), so
the mind/life has no spatial dimensions. Again, I mention the example of a person
watching a TV screen: the eyes receive certain electromagnetic waves that are
transformed into certain electrical and chemical signals in the sub-cortical and cortical
areas. There is a “representation” of that TV in the mind, but there is no image of the TV
in the brain. The neurons, the white matter, the whole body are situated in “space” (i.e.
nothing), but there is no “space” in the mind. It is believed that the TV screen has 2D (it
has two spatial dimensions), but through correspondences the I perceives the scene from
the TV set as being in 3D. The mind has a kind of “representation of space” (virtual
space) necessary for the corresponding organism to survive in its environment. Many
people argue that the space exists in the mind because the brain has a “spatial” extension.
From my viewpoint, the spacetime cannot have any ontological background, therefore, it
does not exist something having 1 dimension (D), 2D, 3D 4D or 5D. (For more details,
see our work Vacariu and Vacariu 2016) There is only the electromagnetic field (the EW-
field) spreads everywhere and the corresponding entities (the EDWs), so in the macro-
EW, between two buildings it is “nothing” (no ontological status) which cannot have any

30
ontological status in this macro-EW, and this “nothing” corresponds to the
electromagnetic field (the field-EW).

1.3 Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs)

The 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.
Epistemologically, using no more than one set of conditions of observation, the human
beings are unable to observe (indirectly, through correspondence) the entities from more
than one EW at one moment (this is due to the nature of attention/consciousness, which is
a serial process). We have to keep in mind the fact that all perceptions/observations are
indirectly for at least one reason: any mental perception is the I, which is an EW in itself
– and no EW exists for any EDW. For instance, any mental representation or mental
image of a macro-table (which belongs to the macro-EW) is the mind-EW. This mental
representation corresponds to the physical processes taking place in the eyes and the
brain (as reactions to the light-inputs received from the table, for instance), which
similarly belong to the macro-EW.
In order for the Hyperverse to have an ontological status, there needs to be an entity
which can interact with (observe) several entities from the EDWs at the same “time”. I
will call this entity a “hyperentity”. Does such a thing exist? The human beings are not
hyperentities: a person cannot observe (either through correspondence, or through direct
access) the entities which belong to two EDWs at the same time. Even if it were possible
for our consciousness/attention to run parallel processes, we are unable to be in two
different conditions of observation, using two types of mechanisms of perception, at the
same time. We cannot do multiple observations which involve multiple
apparatuses/mechanisms of observation/perception. In reality, a hyperentity would need
two conscious minds to observe two EDWs. Since the mind is the living being/the I that
is an EW, a hyperentity would need to be two EDWs at the same time, which is clearly a
hyperontological contradiction. Moreover, from a Kantian viewpoint, the self cannot
observe any entity “outside” it, since the self is an EW. When a human being perceives a
table in front of her body, this perception is not directly: from a Kantian viewpoint, all
representations of entities placed outside the body (not the self!) are the self.
In order to observe (indirectly, through correspondence) the entities in a particular
EW, we need certain conditions of observation. For instance, with the help of an
electronic microscope (a macro-object), a researcher observes (indirectly, through
correspondence) an electron which belongs to the micro-EW. The electron does not
“observe” or interact with the brain/body or with the mind of that researcher. For the
electron, neither the human brain/body, nor the human mind exists; the electron interacts
with an amalgam of microparticles which corresponds to the human body (which
corresponds to the human mind). Moreover, an electron does not observe/interact with
the electronic microscope, which is a macro-object, but only with an amalgam of
microparticles which corresponds to the electronic microscope. The processes of human
being uses to observe the ED entities which belong to the EDWs are always indirectly
and happen through correspondence, even in the case of macro-objects, not just for the
micro-objects. Again, the rule has to be very clear: in order for two entities to interact (to
“observe” each other), they have to belong to the same EW. Each entity can

31
observe/interact with another entity only if they both belong to the same EW. With the
exception of the human organism, no entity can change its conditions of
interaction/observation. Except the human beings, all entities have their
ontological/epistemological limits imposed by their conditions of interaction. However, it
is the organism which can change its conditions of observation, not the self which it is an
EW and cannot change its condition of observation. This is the reason, the self observes
indirectly all the entities which belong to the EDWs. Even if we change the conditions of
observation, or if we use the same conditions with modified parameters, I will still
(indirectly) observe different entities belonging to the same EW. To change our
conditions of observation, we need to cross an “organizational threshold” (see Vacariu
2008), so that we may shift our powers of observation from the entities which belong to
one EW to the entities which belong to an EDW. We have to keep in mind the fact that in
order to observe the entities which belong to a new EW, we have to construct the
conditions of observation which will allow us to interact, indirectly, with the entities from
those EDW. Following the idea of the great physicist Bohr (see Vacariu 2005, 2008), any
new apparatus of observation is a macro-tool constructed and manipulated by our
hands/body (including the brain) which correspond to the mind. In the Kantian terms,
within the EDWs perspective, the conditions of possibility for our tools of observation
should reflect, at least in part (in certain determinations), the conditions of possibility for
the interaction of a set of organisms (and/or objects) which belong to an EW (see Vacariu
2008). We can become aware of the EDWs only through the “hyperontologization of
epistemology”. Within the EDWs perspective, the ontologies of EDWs have become
epistemologies and vice-versa. Nonetheless, these ontologies are not “different
ontologies” but “epistemologically different ontologies” which all represent the
hyperontology of the Hyperverse (this is an abstract expression since one EW does not
exist for any EDW).
I emphasize here that we do not focus on the existence of several EDWs that we
have discover, but on the framework of the EDWs. The EDWs perspective is really the
new framework of thinking that requires a new language. As an abstract notion, the
Hyperverse creates the semantic framework necessary for the understanding that the
EDWs are but not exist (only the objects/entities exist). Each set of interactions
constitutes the surface of the entities which belong to an EW. Thus, the surface mirrors
the EW in which there are certain interactions which constitute the object/entity. The I
indirectly “represents” the “external environment” which is external only to the
brain/body, but not to the I (since any mental representation is the self-EW). Ontological
speaking, there are no “entities inside an object”, because that would break the whole-
parts rule: certain parts correspond to the object. It is an ontological contradiction to
consider that the parts of a car (as independent entities), and the car (as a whole) exist in
the same place at the same time. Again, there are no two sets of objects that ontological
exist in the same place, at the same time. Either the car, or the set of its parts can exist in
a certain place at a certain time. Therefore, the phrase “inside an object” is merely an
abstract notion. I emphasize here that the EDWs are not only those that we already know.
There are EDWs (everywhere) that we do not have any idea yet, exactly as the Greek
philosophers did not have any idea about the electromagnetic wave/fields.
What does the expression “epistemologically different” actually mean? Obviously, it
does not mean the same thing as “ontologically different”, which refers to the

32
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 the 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 the EDWs (indirectly, through
correspondence). In other words, the threshold is an epistemological-ontological one
between the ED entities which belong to the 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, the 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 the entities, however,
the 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 the classes of the
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 the 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” (the self with its unity) is able to discover the being (existence) of EDWs.

33
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.
Based on the implicit/unconscious knowledge, any conscious/explicit thought
appears spontaneously in the mind. (see Vacariu 2008) Let me suppose that you are in a
conversation with a friend and that you talk uninterruptedly for two minutes. You are not
reading anything, you are simply telling the other person what you think about the
corruption in your country. Being quite involved in that conversation, you speak rapidly
and even make a few grammar mistakes in your native language. The questions I have for
you are: Do you mentally perceive each sentence that you pronounce before you actually
pronounce it? Do you have internal eyes reading the sentences that you pronounce? Are
you aware/conscious of each sentence before you pronounce it? Clearly, the answer to all
these questions is negative. Generally, any sentence appears spontaneously in your mind
(it is the I), whether it is pronounced or not. The notion of spontaneity (which is essential
for Kant) creates the place necessary for the living being (the I) and representations
(which are the I) to appear. It reflects the unity of representation and the unity of the
mind. Spontaneity is just a determination of the I. It corresponds, mostly, to the most
active neural patterns/processes that passed a certain threshold of activation. The unity is
Kant’s essential notion of synthesis necessary for thinking (which includes perception).
If, for Kant, the synthesis is a transcendental process, for us “synthesis” is the
implicit/unconscious knowledge, it is the conditions of possibility for the
explicit/conscious knowledge, it is the I. If Kant writes “Even for space as an object, we
need the unity of the combination of the manifold of a given intuition”, for us, space does
not exist either in the mind/the I or in the macro-EW, for instance. “In the mind” (we
have mentioned that this expression is a wrong notion), the “color” is in the same
situation: it does not exist as such, but it is merely “represented”, it is the mind. As a
whole, the I is an indeterminate individuality (the implicit knowledge), but the
spontaneous appearance of an explicit/conscious representation determines the I to be in a
certain state. Thus, I have to make another distinction for the I between the explicit and
the implicit states. Spontaneity is indeed “a determination of my existence” (see the
footnote below), but this determination has to be explicit, since “the I is” and might or
might not have determinations. More precisely, these determinations are the I/living
being. The spontaneity explains the explicit/conscious knowledge. The thoughts could
not appear out of nothing, they are parts of the implicit/unconscious knowledge (memory,
etc.) which become the explicit/conscious thoughts. Only an EW (including the living
being) appears “out of nothing”. The conscious/explicit thoughts appear spontaneously
from the unconscious/implicit knowledge (that is the I). The indeterminate individuality
(of the living being) would be the condition of possibility for this type of spontaneity. The
Kantian transcendentalization that is ontologically loaded in the “immanent thinking”
becomes the “immanent interactions”. 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 the body are the I. Kant wanted to construct the philosophical fundamentals of

34
Newton’s theory24 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 “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 the 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) the entities within a “spatio-temporal
framework” (more exactly, nothing) and the rigidity of physical objects is just their
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
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 the 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 BB did
not happen in one point but in many points simultaneously. In this way, we can avoid
24
“Newton had figured out that the force of gravity pulling ripe apples from their orchards also guides
tossed objects along their curved trajectories and directs the Moon in its orbit around Earth. Newton’s law
of gravity also guides planets, asteroids, and comets in their orbits around the Sun and keeps hundreds of
billions of stars in orbit within our Milky Way galaxy. This universality of physical laws drives scientific
discovery like nothing else. And gravity was just the beginning.” (Tyson 2007, p. 49)

35
Alan Guth’s empty notion of “inflation”25. (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”26). 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 the 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-EW27 (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. 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
the EDWs. We can stop this infinite chain of the EDWs by assuming that, in this chain of
the EDWs, there was the first EW, let us call it the EW0. It is possible for this EW0 “to
be” because there is the 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 the EDWs?” is rendered
25
“The inflationary era lasted from about 10-37 second to 10-33 second after the big bang. During that
relatively brief stretch of time, the fabric of space and time expanded faster than light, growing in a
billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second from one hundred billion billion times smaller than the
size of a proton to about 4 inches. Yes, the observable universe once fit within a grapefruit. But what caused
the cosmic inflation? Cosmologists have named the culprit: a “phase transition” that left behind a specific
and observable signature in the cosmic background radiation.” (deGrasse Tyson and Goldsmith 2004, p.
255) I don’t believe in “inflationary era” in which certain physical processes surpassed the speed of light. I
replaced Guth’s inflation with many Big Bangs in different places at the same time.
26
Immediately after BICEP2 results, both Guth and Linde indicate that idea of “multiverse” has to be taken
into account. With his “eternal chaotic inflation”, Linde believes that if our universe is one of the bubbles,
there must be many other bubbles in the “cosmic space”. (Kramer and Writer 2014) From the EDWs
perspective, Everett’s many worlds, superstring theory, and many other suppositions are simple human
inventions created because of their wrong framework of thinking, the unicorn world. (About multiverse,
superstring theory, see Vacariu 2008, Vacariu and Vacariu 2010) However, we can accept the existence of
the multiverse but it remains just a simple idea, the possibility to discover other “universes” is quite small.
Moreover, when I will discover other universes, those universes will become just parts of our “universe”,
no more.
27
“2. It is believed that this particular type of plasma was present in the first 0.000001 seconds of the Big
Bang. 3. Their results showed that QGP was previously liquid and differed from other matter by a constant
change in shape. Then the plasma disappeared, as it was “spaced” into several parts… 7. The results
showed that QGP in the first microsecond of the Big Bang was liquid and had a smooth structure… 8.
According to the scientist, the plasma, made up of quarks and gluons, disintegrated when the universe
expanded during the Big Bang. Then the pieces of the quark joined together and formed the so-called
hadrons. 9. The hadron, consisting of three parts of a quark, in turn, formed a proton, which is part of the
nuclei of atoms. These nuclei have become the building blocks of all life. It was they who helped shape the
Universe, as well as our Earth and all life on it.” (Tchakarov 2021b)

36
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 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.28 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 the photons that belong to the micro-EW. The microparticles cannot be reduced to the
waves. There are completely different set of properties that cannot be reduced one set to
another just because there are EDWs.29 Moreover, the accumulations of the microparticles
corresponds to the 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. 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 the macro-
entities to the 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

28
“As the universe expanded, the energy carried by each photon decreased. Eventually, about the time that
the young universe reached its 380,000th birthday, its temperature dropped below 3,000 degrees, with the
result that protons and helium nuclei could permanently capture electrons, thus bringing atoms into the
universe.” (deGrasse Tyson and Goldsmith 2004, p. 87)
29
Related to the spaces of particles and wave, Albert considers that “the space in which the wave function
undulates here is in some essential way about the space in which the corpuscles move around, and the
various coordinate axes of the space in which the wave function undulates here are built (as it were)
directly out of the axes of the space in which the corpuscles move around.” (Albert 2015, p. 126) From my
viewpoint, there are EDWs with their entities (wave and particle), but not space. The entire electromagnetic
field corresponds to the particles and the “vaccum” between them which is considered to be the “real
space”. In reality, it is “nothing” (vaccum) between the particles which corresponds to the electromagnetic
field. Albert continues writing that “to learn to think of the wave function as something merely nomic—
something along the lines of a law, or a rule, or a disposition— that connects the configuration of the
corpuscles at any time to their velocities at that time.” (idem) However, I consider that the electromagnetic
waves/fields really exist. “And all of that (I take it) is why people like Bell have famously announced that
the Bohmian-mechanical wave function is “a physically real field, as real here as Maxwell’s fields were for
Maxwell.”2 (footnote 2: Quoted from “On the Impossible Pilot Wave” in J. S. Bell, Speakable and
Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

37
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.
“The Hypernothing hyperis”, that means, it is beyond the following dualities:
(a) “To be or not to be”: all the EDWs are.
(b) To exist or non-exists: all the ED entities exist.
(c) Material-spiritual (material-immaterial): the mind is (not material), the 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 the ED entities which belong to the EDWs (except the mind-EW and the
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) The beginning-the end: it is meaningless to talk about the beginning or the end of the
Hypernothing. Time does not exist, anyway, but the EW0 has no processes/entities which
can be 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-relationship (hypercorrespondence) between the EW0 and the EW1.
More clearly, “the EW0 hyperis”, while “all the EDWs are”.

1.4 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 EWa’, (followed by the EWb’, the EWc’, 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 let us 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 the 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 the 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
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

38
Bangs, there were the electromagnetic waves which belong to the field-EW. How many
chains of the EDWs are? I have no idea. What are the rules of formation for these chains
of the EDWs? These rules are “accidentally rules”, therefore, the number of these chains
is also accidentally. 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 the EDWs really are, but many
chains of the 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 the
EDWs, we can accept also “the chains of EDWs”, but why do we need to stop here? Why
don’t I introduces “the chains of the 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 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 the chains of the chains of the chains of EDWs?
Yes, we can. The main idea that arises from “the chains of the chains” of the 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 the
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 or 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 the 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

39
available for the relationship between the field-EW (field-EW) and the micro-EW, for
instance. Let us call this dependence the “chain-dependence”.30 We can notice without
any problem that there are some dependence (correspondences) in the EDWs. I believe
we cannot reduce all the EDWs only to these particular kinds of dependence, therefore, I
believe there are other chains of the 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
30
I mention here that the chain of EDWs view is quite different than the “cycle model of the Universe”
proposed by Steinhardt and Turok (2002): “We propose a cosmological model in which the universe
undergoes an endless sequence of cosmic epochs each beginning with a ‘bang’ and ending in a ‘crunch’.”
(Steinhardt and Turok, 2002) Anyway, Steinhardt and Turok emphasize, at the beginning of their paper that,
they have no explanation for the “beginning of time”, and the “initial conditions of the universe”. (p. 2)
Form my viewpoint, they are correct in rejecting Guth’s “inflation”, but they do not offer of the “beginning
of time” since they “present a new cosmology consisting of an endless sequence of cycles of expansion and
contraction. By definition, there is neither a beginning nor an end of time, nor a need to specify initial
conditions. We explain the role of dark energy, and generate the homogeneity, flatness, and density
fluctuations without invoking inflation”. (p. 2) I believe that such models moves the “Big Bang” problem
(i.e., the “beginning of time”) from one point to another. Moreover, their “universe” is “infinite and flat”,
but I indicated, in our book 2016, the infinite cannot have any ontological background. “Steinhardt says a
number of problems arise with the inflation model, which itself expanded and corrected previous models
that arose from Big Bang theory. The inflation model was supposed to explain why, for example, the
universe appears so homogenous on a huge scale without the same initial conditions. But, Steinhardt says,
there are so many possibilities that arise from an inflationary model that it makes the model itself less
useful.” (Putka, 2021) “A cyclic model of the universe is designed to solve some of the seemingly
unsolvable problems of the Big Bang and inflation models. ‘It allows us to go beyond the Big Bang, but
without any kind of magical philosophical issues,’ says Stephon Alexander, a professor of physics at Brown
University, and the co-inventor of an inflation model of the universe based on string theory. ‘Because time
has always existed in the past.” (Putka 2021) “Scientists have proposed a cyclic model that could work
mathematically in a few ways. Steinhardt and Turok’s model of a cyclic universe is one of them. Its core
principles are these: The Big Bang was not the beginning of time; there was a previous phase leading up to
it, with multiple cycles of contraction and expansion that repeat indefinitely; and the key period defining
the shape of our universe was right before the so-called bang. There you would find a period of slow
contraction called the Big Crunch.” (Putka 2021) This Big Crunch model represents a causal line of
different Universes. This model is totally different than the EDWs, since all these “Universes” can be
included in one and the same EW. (The EDWs paradigm is different than any causal chain of Universes, for
instance, the EDWs is quite different than the “cyclic Universe” proposed by Salah et. all (2017): “In our
cosmological model the universe did not start with the big bang, but there was a phase transition from one
phase of the universe to another.” “In any case, I do not believe in a God of gaps, with big bang being a big
gap, but in a God who made the mathematics describing reality so perfect that there are no gaps, not now
and not at big bang.” (Mir Faizal in Administrator 2021) However, not only any God has to be rejected, but
also the notion of “Universe” which cannot even exist. Also, Roger Penrose (and his collaborators)
introduced the “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC) approach which presupposes that there have been a
cyclic of Universes (aeons), one followed by another: “According to CCC—the conformal cyclic
cosmology proposal—the universe consists of a (perhaps infinite) succession of aeons, where each aeon
originates with its own big bang and has an unending exponentially expanding future…”. (Penrose 2017)
Interestingly, Penrose claims that the energy from the previous Universe is coming out of black holes! “Sir
Roger argues that the existence of unexplained spots of electromagnetic radiation in the sky – known as
‘Hawking Points’ – are remnants of a previous universe. It is part of the ‘conformal cyclic cosmology’
theory of the universe, and it is suggested that these points are the final expulsion of energy called
‘Hawking radiation’, transferred by black holes from the older universe.” (Smith 2020) Anyway, Penrose’s

40
(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 the EDWs that we know, will eliminate certain unsolved problems like the
“Big Bangs”.
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 anti-matter). As I indicated in my previous works, dark matter and anti-
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 the
EDWs hypercorrespond to the EW0. What is the EW0? It hyperis the 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 the
Hypernothing “hyperis”, but not “is”. Moreover, the Hypernothing cannot have the same
mysteries that we have associated with the “Big Bang” or “God”: the 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 the
Hypernothing, we have to eliminate all the possible characteristics/features that are
common to all the ED entities that belong to the 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, the 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 the
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”. The
Hypernothing is something natural, not something supernatural, even if the EW0 hyperis.
I talk here about the 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 based on anti-matter 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 the
epistemological-ontologies that we know today. We are sure, in few hundreds year or

CCC are totally different than my EDWs. In fact, all these Universes are parts of the same EW, the macro-
EW. Quite probable, Penrose’s approach is correct. However, in my previous works, I indicated that before
the Big Bang, it was possible another Universe existed, but from the EDWs perspective, I suggested that an
EDW existed (the pre-Big-Bang-EW) and maybe that EW has existed until our days... However, as I wrote
in my previous works (2008, for instance), I indicated that the black holes could represent the relationships
(without any ontology since one EW did not exist for any EDW) between the EDWs and not between those
“aeons”…

41
maybe more, the humans will discover other kinds of substances - different than all the
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 the EDWs. My argument is the following:
nothing can stop us thinking there are different chains of matter. Within the EDWs, it
would be quite absurd to think that all that exist are the ED entities which belong to the
“first chain of matter”. Since there are the EDWs, there are “different chains” of matter.
We know that after the Big Bangs, there was 380,000 years of an huge
temperatures.31 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 dependence (i.e.,
correspondences) between some or even all the 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) the microparticle and the life
needed (trough correspondence) the macroparticles. There have been the EDWs created
based not through the correspondences with “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 the EDWs (1), but also other chains of the 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
accidentally “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 the 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
31
“Detailed maps of the cosmic background radiation have demonstrated that dark matter must have existed
during the first 380,000 years of the universe. We also need dark matter today in our own galaxy and in
galaxy clusters to explain the motions of objects they contain.” (deGrasse Tyson and Goldsmith 2004, pp.
140-1)

42
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
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 the 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/wave32) 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.
The 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.
I furnish more details about the hypercorrespondence: the EW1 and the EW-1
hypercorresponds to the Hypernothing. EW-1 + EW1= EW0. It means that in the same
32
The Casimir effect indicates, indeed, that the fluctuating electromagnetic waves are present everywhere at
the quantum level. “ These waves come in all possible wavelengths, and their presence implies that empty
space contains a certain amount of energy--an energy that we can't tap, but that is always there.” (What is
the Casimir effect? - Scientific American) In fact, the Casimir effect indicates the presence of energy
everywhere within the electromagnetic field-EW. This energy corresponds to the electromagnetic
microparticles from the micro-EW.

43
place, in the same time, there is the EW-1 and the EW1 which both (nothing)
hypercorrespond to the Hypernothing. My body exists in the macro-EW, it corresponds to
certain microparticles (the micro-EW), to an electromagnetic field (the field-EW) and to
something from the EW1, but maybe there is another chain of the EDWs, from the EW-1
to the EDWs. EW1 + EW-1 = Nothing, therefore, both these EDWs hypercorrespond to
the Hypernothing. I exist, but it does not mean there is an “negative I”. We do not need
this equation. For my framework, it is enough, EW1 + EW-1 = Nothing. (I recall, the
EW1 does not exist for the EW-1.) So, I furnish here a kind of Parmenides’ viewpoint (in
opposition with Heraclitus’ viewpoint): the EW1 hypercorresponds to the Hypernothing,
the EW-1 hypercorresponds to the Hypernothing, but from the viewpoint of the EW0,
together the EW1 and the EW-1 are “nothing”. We have to understand that the EW1 and
the EW-1 are placed in the same place33, in the same time, and therefore, together these
EDWs are “nothing” for the EW0. Obviously, each EDW does not exist for the EW0, but,
from a “neutral viewpoint”, together the EW1 and the EW-1 are “nothing” for the EW0.
In other words, “nothing” has changed inside the Hypernothing. The changes happened
only inside the EW1 and the EW-1, but not inside the EW0. I emphasize again, the
appearance of the chains of the EDWs in correspondence to “previous” EDWs, have been
accidentally, exactly as the appearances of new animal species on Earth.
The self is always the same self, i.e., in each day each of us has the feeling as
being the same self, even if in one day, a person can accumulate quite a lot of knowledge.
However, the self (self-EW) corresponds to the brain/body and even the brain has been
changing continuously, these daily changes are not dramatic, i.e, large parts of the brain
remain the same, and these large parts of the brain/body correspond to the same self.
Even if in seven-eight years the brain changes quite a lot, the information is transferred
from old parts of the brain to the new parts of the brain during many years. These parts
are quite small, and the transformation has happened in a long period, therefore, the
corresponding self remains the same entity. Therefore, in relationship with the changes
that take place within the brain, the self remains the same. I can transfer the same
explanation to the relationship between the EW0 and the EW1 and EW-1. These EDWs,
the EW1 and the EW-1 can change (not very dramatically), but for the corresponding
EW0, nothing happens. So, for the EW0, not even the illusory “time” really exists.
The “curvature of spacetime” (the gravity for Einstein’s general relativity) is a
wrong notion, since “spacetime” has no ontology.34 However, in order Einstein’s general
relativity to be correct, I needed to replace “spacetime” with something else: “nothing”
33
“Place” has an Ancient Greek meaning, it does replace “space”.
34
“It should be noted, however, that an observer in the strong gravity experiences time as running
normally. It is only in relation to a reference frame with weaker gravity that time runs slowly. To a person
in strong gravity, time appears to pass normally, while a clock in weak gravity runs fast. While to the
person in weak gravity, the clock appears to run normally and the clock in strong gravity runs slowly. Of
course, there is nothing wrong with the clocks. Time itself is slowing down and speeding up because of the
relativistic way in which mass warps space and time. The faster one moves, the slower time passes in
relation to a static observer's perception… As we saw from Einstein's quote, he believed that time is an
illusion, that both the future and the past are unchangeable, and will play out exactly the way they were
meant to.” (Trosper 2021) From my viewpoint, “times” (spacetime) cannot have any ontological status,
there are only those physical objects (like any “clock”) which moves faster or slower depending on the
gravity. Therefore, it is not “time” which movement depends on gravity. Einstein was quite right, but his
relativization of “spacetime” involved the rejection of any ontology of spacetime! (In my work from 2016,
using only “motion”, I re-wrote Einstein’s both relativities without “spacetime”.)

44
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
Newton35 and Einstein. So, there is an order of the appearance of EDWs, even if one EW
does not exist for any EDW, that is, there is no causality between them. Between the
EW0 and the EW1, there is a hypercorrespondence. We return to the relation between the
Hypernothing and the EDWs. There is no passing from the Hypernothing to the EW1 or
the EW2.

When considering cosmic scales, on the other hand, the consequences of relativity become immense. Time
is no longer rigid, as it was for Newton, but is influenced by matter in the universe. In extreme situations,
this can, according to general relativity, imply that time itself comes to an end. The influence of matter on
space-time is then so strong that time stops or space reaches an unsurpassable limit. Following relativity,
this is supposed to have happened at the big bang (when we consider the universe in its backward
evolution) or in black holes, where gravitational forces become so large that spatial or timelike distances
shrink ever more and eventually vanish completely. Without timelike separations between events, time
itself must die, and with it everything that happens. This dreadful conclusion applies to all material bodies
as it does to the universe itself: Nothing can reach beyond such a point, a singularity. (Bojowald 2010, p.
39)

Let me interpret these ideas within the EDWs perspective. It is possible these “extreme
situations” to “exist” just because the world/Universe does not exist, but only the EDWs
are. The “influence of matter on space-time” is possible to reach an “unsurpassable limit”
just because the “space-time” has no ontology. It is “nothing” (no ontology) which
corresponds to something (which belongs to the EDWs) and it is about the movement
from an EW to an EDW. “Without time-like separations between events” means that
“everything” is the electromagnetic wave and inside this field-EW, there is no
“spacetime”, i.e., there is no “nothing” (so no “spacetime” like between the

35
I agree with Kaku that “Isaac Newton is perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived.” (Kaku 2021, p.
14) “As physicist Steven Weinberg has written, ‘It is with Isaac Newton that the modern dream of a final
theory really begins’.” (Kaku 2021, p. 14) I repeat that the EDWs perspective is totally against such
unification.

45
microparticles or the macroparticles), but only the electromagnetic fields (i.e., “without
time-like separations between events”).
Obviously, without the EW0, the EW1 would have 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 EW), that is, the
hypercorrespondence between the EW0 and the EW1. 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 EW1 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 EW1, but “hyperis”. The EW0 is beyond the distinction “nothing-
something”. “Outside”, there is that “thing-in-itself” (the Hypernothing) which
corresponds to the ED entities which belong to the 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 the 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 the “Hyperverse” (all
the EDWs, except the EW0) and the Hypernothing. I introduce four premises and the
conclusion:

The Hypernothing is the EW0, or better, the Hypernothing hyperis, while all the
EDWs are.
The Hyperverse would represent all the EDWs, except the Hypernothing.
All the EDWs correspond to the Hypernothing.
One EW is not for any EDW, so ontological speaking, the Hyperverse is not.
Conclusion: The Hyperverse hyperis the Hypernothing.

It would be quite wrong to consider all the EDWs as a “hologram”, since one EW does not
exist for any EDW. One EW is for itself, but not for any EDW. The Hypernothing “is” not for
itself, but hyperis.36 It has to be very clear the difference between the “ontology” of any
EDW, and the “hyperontology” of the Hypernothing. The Hypernothing is nothing (it does
not exist) in relationship with the EDWs, it is nothing in itself, but it is hypernothing (through
correspondence, no ontological status) with all the EDWs. In this way, we have an
“Unmoved motor”, but we avoid any ontological contradiction. It is absolute necessary the
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 “time”, but we cannot use it for describing the EW0. The Hypernothing

36
I use “hyperis” in order to avoid other three alternatives: the regression ad infinitum, nothing and God.

46
hyperhas certain hyperfeatures which eliminate the regress add infinitum. All its
hyperfeatures have to be totally different than any feature of all the EDWs, just in order to
eliminate the regress add infinitum, nothing, God and the illusory “spacetime”. Therefore, the
Hypernothing hyperis and it hypercorresponded to the EW1 which corresponded to the EW2.
When we talk about the Hypernothing, we have to exclude both the concepts of Parmenides
(static) and Heraclitus (in motion), since any duality is meaningless here in the EW0. We
need a new language, a new way of thinking, a hyperthinking method for a
“hyperunderstanding” of the Hypernothing and this new framework of thinking will come
after the EDWs perspective will become the most common framework for all the human
beings (after several decades).

1.5 The relativization of EDWs

We have to take into account Einstein’s special relativity of spacetime and motion in
relationship with the EDWs. Recall Newton’s laws of motion and then Einstein’s laws. Since
Einstein relativized “spacetime” and motion, we are forced to relativize the EDWs. In
general, the main laws of physics refer to motion. From the EDWs perspective, we need to
relativize motion, the physical laws and therefore the EDWs. In this sense, there are not only
several EDWs (the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW, life-EW), but many EDWs. For
instance, let us talk about the motion of a planet, the Earth. This entity, the planet follows the
laws of motion imposed by Einstein’s general relativity, that is, the motion of the planet in
relationship with the other planets. However, if we use a microscope for seeing the
“composition” of a stone, we perceive certain microparticles. What are the laws for these
microparticles? The microparticles that “form” the planet are in a “different framework” of
motion than the microparticles that “surround” the planet. Why? Because these
microparticles correspond to the planet which follow a different law of motion than all the
microparticles (those which correspond to the planet and those which surround the “planet”).
The motion of the planet is more important than the motion of the microparticles which
correspond to the planet. Even if the macro-entities do not exist for the micro-entities, the
motion of the planet is somehow “imposed” to the motion of the microparticles. However, I
emphasize again, motion is just a feature of the ED entities, but this relativization is available
for other features (see below). In this context, I need to elaborate a new principle which
furnish the relationship between the corresponding ED laws: the relativization of qualities,
phenomena or the EDWs through the correspondences between the ED entities/laws (of
motion, etc.):

Even if one EW does not exist for an EDW, the correspondences between the ED entities/laws
impose certain new “qualities” or “features” to some of the 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 the
EDWs. From those several EDWs (the field-EW, the microparticles-EW, the macro-EW, the
self-EW) elaborated until now, the number of the 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 the macro-entities are “more powerful” than the laws of motion of the microparticles. The

47
motion of a greater entity is “imposed”, indirectly, to the motion of the smaller ED entities.
The motion of the microparticles which correspond to a planet is different than the
motion of the microparticles which do not correspond to a planet. The microparticles
which correspond to a planet have all the particular motions
- in relationship between them (it is an inertial framework)

- in relationship between them and the surrounding microparticles: the microparticles

which correspond to the planet are in different motion than the motion of the surrounding
microparticles.

The motion of the planet is “more powerful” than the motion of corresponding
microparticles in relationship with the surrounding microparticles. Therefore, in order to
explain the motion of microparticles which correspond to the 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 the microparticles). The same principle of relativization is applied to the
“entanglement” problem. However, in this case it is not the “size” which is involved but
the “length” (of the 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 imposed 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 the
ED phenomena or even to the 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 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 the
planet). The 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 the ED entities from the EDWs. I emphasize that
there are some indirect interactions between entities which belong to the 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.

48
Chapter 2

The Hypernothing and its hyperontology

Among the great things which are found among us the existence of Nothing is the
greatest.
Leonardo da Vinci (in Barrow 2002)

A place is nothing: not even space, unless at its heart – a figure stands.
Paul Dirac (in Barrow 2002)

Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little.

Epicurus

Nothing happens until something moves.

Albert Einstein

But a problem occurs regarding this term “nothing”.

St. Anselm of Canterbury

Nothing comes from nothing.

Lucretius

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Aristotle

Nothing is, but what is not.

Shakespeare (Macbeth)

2.1 The Hypernothing (epistemologically different then “something” and “nothing”)

In my previous books (2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016a, 2016b), using the 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 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;

49
(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, the Hypernothing is something completely different from
this “nothing”, since Kuhn’s “nothing” refers to the “nothing” constructed within the
unicorn world. On the contrary, the 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, the 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)37

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 the Hypernothing (quite a
different notion from “nothing”): for me, the Hypernothing is the first EW (a kind of
Aristotle’s “prime/unmoved mover”; both these expressions are quite wrong, so I
replaced them with something completely new: the “Hypernothing”).
Let me clarify the difference between the “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
belong to the micro-EW, for instance. On the contrary, the Hypernothing has a kind of
hyperontology, that is beyond the ontologies of all the EDWs that we know and we can
know in the future. The “Hypernothing” has a hyperontology. We know that an EW does
not exist for any EDW, but the ontologies of all the EDWs (except the EW0) are
“somethings”, while the hyperontology of the Hypernothing is hypernothing, nothing

37
“The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change.
The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the amount of energy in the universe minus the amount
of gravity is exactly zero. In this kind of universe, matter could be created from nothing through a vacuum
fluctuation, assuming such a zero-energy universe already is nothing.[5] Such a universe would need to
be flat, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of
error.[6] Some physicists—such as Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, and Michio Kaku—define or
defined 'nothing' as an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles.[7][8][9] This is different from
the philosophical conception of nothing, which has no inherent properties and is not governed by physical
laws. Quantum mechanics proposes that pairs of virtual particles are being created from quantum
fluctuations in this "empty" space all the time. If these pairs do not mutually annihilate right away, they
could be detected as real particles, for example if one falls into a black hole and its opposite is emitted
as Hawking radiation.” (Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia) It seems that the physicists try to answer
to the question: “From what did appear our Universe?”. Since I did presupposes that before the Big Bangs,
there was another EDW, and before this EDW was another EDW and so on until the first EW, the EW0 (I
reject the infinite and God), I try to answer to the question: “From what did the EW0 appear?”

50
more or less. The “hyperontology of the 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 the 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 the Hypernothing were just “nothing”, then the EDWs would not be. The
“hyperontology” is something different from “ontology”. 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 the 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: “the Hypernothing hyperis.”
As an EW, the Hypernothing cannot be/exist since “any EW is”. Only the ED entities
(objects, for instance) “exist” in the 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 the ED entities and their interactions really exist.
One of the main questions in philosophy and science today is the following:
“Why there is something rather than nothing?”

Why is there something rather than nothing? Some regard such questions as unanswerable, some go further
to claim that they are meaningless, whilst others claim to provide the answers. Science has proved a
reasonably effective way of finding out about the world because it confines itself, in the main, to questions
about “how” things happen. (Barrow 2002, p. 316)

I do not believe “science has proved a reasonably effective way of finding out about the
world” since the “world” does not exist and, moreover, the physicists used quantum
theory to get this answer, but I have showed that this theory was a pseudo-theory
constructed within the unicorn world. Anyway, “nothing” is an old notion in philosophy
and science. 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:

51
The 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 the Hypernothing hyperis. An EW is not for any EDW, but more than this
state, the EW0 hyperis, while the 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 entity). So, a human body does not belong to the EW0 and cannot interact with this
EW. A kind of hyperinteraction between the human body and the 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, the Hypernothing has no ED
ontology for us, like all the EDWs. The EW0 is nothing for us. From this “nothing”,
through correspondence, appeared the EW1, but it appeared in itself not in any
relationship with the EW0. The EW-1 appeared at the same time with the EW1, but one
EW does not exist for the EDW. Each EW is in itself, no more. However, from the
viewpoint of the EW0, the EW-1 + the EW1 = 0 (that is, this sum is “nothing”). I
emphasize, there was not a separation between these two EDWs. From the viewpoint of
the EW0 (i.e., a kind of “nothing”), this separation does not exist, so these EDWs are,
together, nothing and nothing else.
The micro-EW appeared in “nothing” (no ontology), but through the
correspondence to the field-EW, and the macro-EW appeared in “nothing” through
correspondence to the micro-EW. I can say that “the macro-EW appeared from nothing”
and it would be quite correct not only within the unicorn world, but also within the
EDWs perspective. However, what is more exactly the Hypernothing? It would be a kind
of “nothing” which corresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1. From a reductionism
viewpoint, we are “nothing” since even we correspond to the Hypernothing. Also, we can
presuppose that also here has to be present the “anti-matter” which together with all the
EDWs correspond to the Hypernothing. But this supposition would require a moving
point of separation between matter and antimatter. So, I could not solve the problem of
the appearance of the “Universe” with the “separation” between matter and antimatter
from “nothing” (as it is accepted by the majority of physicists in our days), since this
separation would require a process which separated these two matters from “nothing”.
We cannot accept a kind of self-organization of “nothing”. My solution would be that
there was no separation between the matter and the antimatter, the Hypernothing has
hyperbeing there (nothing changed inside the Hypernothing.), we have corresponded to
the Hypernothing. Obviously my approach is a kind of Spinoza’s pantheism, but not
within the unicorn world. So, I can say that I am nothing (more exactly, I correspond to
the Hypernothing), that is, nothing has changed in this “nothing”/hypernothing. But, in
the same time, “the self has the illusion of (a) its being as mind-EW, and (b) the existence
of the macro-objects in the macro-EW. The self has the “illusion” of being just because it
is an EW. The self is in its world, an EW, but “in reality, the self is nothing”. From a
reductionist viewpoint, the self does not exist, it is “nothing”. In this way, we can avoid to
insert the separation between matter and antimatter from “nothing”. So, within the EDWs

52
perspective, it has to be very clear, there has been no separation of “matter from
antimatter in nothing”.
In this context, I have to rethink the entropy. Entropy is a kind of “order”, from
the viewpoint of the Hypernothing or from the viewpoint of field-EW. So, the human
body or the self is a disorder, not an order. The field-EW was somehow disturbed and
because of these disturbances, the micro-entities had appeared and we can still see some
of them in our days. Because these micro-entities came together, they survived long time.
Coming together an amalgam of microparticles correspond to the macro-entities which
can exist long period of time (in correspondence to the amalgam of those microparticles
which is in correspondence to a disturbed electromagnetic field). Even if I introduced
new ideas for the appearance of everything, we have not solved yet how the EW1
appeared. We know the EW1 did not exist for the EW0, the EW1 is, but why it is? The
EW1 is for itself, exactly as a self-EW is for itself, but why it is for itself? The EW1 is
because of its correspondence to the EW0 exactly as the self-EW is because of its
correspondence to the body (which is an entity in the macro-EW). So, the body has to
exist in order to talk about the corresponding self-EW (or the brain has to exist in order to
talk about the corresponding mind-EW).
I could emphasize that the Hypernothing hyperis, but because of the
hypercorrespondence we can talk about the EW1 and the EW-1. The EW1 was in itself,
the EW-1 was in itself, one was not for the other, but together they hypercorresponded to
the EW0, a kind of nothing. So, something without any ontological status has hyper-
corresponded to the ontological status of everything. In this context, we cannot even ask
“How this correspondence appeared since it has no ontological status?” because of the
interactions between two bodies, my body appeared, therefore, my corresponding self
appeared. Because of the interactions between the electromagnetic waves in the field-EW,
the corresponding microparticles appeared in the micro-EW. So, something happened in
an EW in order the ED entities belonging to an EDW to appear. If nothing happens in an
EW, it is quite impossible a new EDW to appear. However, in order to stop the regress ad
infinitum, I have to consider that “nothing happened in the EW0 for the EW1 and the
EW-1 to appear”. These two EDWs appeared accidentally in themselves, there are no
laws for the appearance of these EDWs. An “aspect” of the EW0 did change in order the
EW1 to appear. Another aspect of the EW0 did change in order the EW-1 to appear. But,
again, I emphasize, nothing changed in the EW0. What does it mean “aspects” of the
Hypernothing? There are at least these two aspects of Hypernothing which together are
the Hypernothing. These aspects do not have any ontological background, therefore, they
do not exist for the Hypernothing. However, from a logical viewpoint, wI have to talk
about these aspects just because without them, the EW1 and the EW-1 could not
appeared. This is the main reason, I call the “Hypernothing” the EW0. The EW0 is not
“nothing” just because “nothing” did not have these aspects. These aspects do not have an
ontological background, but better, they are the “conditions of the possibility” (no
ontological background) of the EW1 and the EW-1. Accidentally, because of these
aspects, the EW1 and the EW-1 appeared, but each EW is in itself, no more or less.
Independently, each aspect do not exist, but it is the conditions of the possibility of an
EW. One aspect added to the other aspect represented the EW0.
Why do I need to introduce these “aspects” into my schema of thinking? Just
because each of the self is, each body really exists. These “aspects” replace Aristotle’s

53
notion of “motion” in his schema. I followed the viewpoint which have dominated the
physicists in the last century (“from nothing appeared everything”), but my schema of
thinking is quite different: I used this “nothing” (which it is the Hypernothing with its
“aspects”), and there appeared the EDWs (each in itself!) and not one “world”. Since the
EW1 and the EW-1 appeared only in themselves, these EDWs do not exist for the EW0,
so, in the end, nothing did change in this EW. There is only a hypercorrespondence (no
ontology) between the EW0 and the EW1 or between the EW0 and the EW-1. Each of us
exist just because of such (hyper)correspondences: the self is just because of its
correspondence to the body, but the self is not for the body. Amazing, isn’t it? From the
viewpoint of the Hypernothing, we do not exist, nothing can exist. So, the eternal
question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a meaningless question within
the unicorn world. However, I translate this question within the EDWs perspective: “Why
the EDWs really are?” or “Why the ED entities exist?” An EW is only for itself and it isn’t
for any EDW. Each set of the ED entities exist only within their EW, but not for the ED
entities which belong to the EDWs. In this context, could I say “something really exists”?
My answer is: something exists only in its EW and something is only as an EW. Anyway,
from the viewpoint of the Hypernothing, nothing could have existed.
The EW0 is the Hypernothing with its hyperontology. What does it mean this
“hyperontology”? The Hypernothing is “nothing” and its corresponding ED “aspects”, i.e.,
the EDWs. There was no separation of matter and anti-mater, nothing is the hyperontology (it
means, nothing is “superior” to something), while the ED ontologies are something inferior
to “nothing”, all hypercorresponding to the EW0. From the viewpoint of Hypernothing, we
are “nothing”, no more or less. This is the reason, in all the EDWs, nothing can eternally
exist: the existence is something inferior to nonexistence, “something” is inferior
(ontologically speaking) to nothing. This sentence is created by a self, therefore, I believe the
self is primordial. In fact, “nothing” is primordial to something, so, the question mentioned
above has quite a opposite answer: “something” is something negative in relationship to
nothing. The neutral viewpoint is the most important, but such neutral viewpoint can be only
the EW0, which is Hypernothing. In reality, any “something” is a perturbation of nothing
exactly as a microparticle is a perturbation of an electromagnetic field. Without such
perturbations, the microparticles would not exist. However, the EW1 did not appear as a
perturbation of the EW0, since nothing could have changed in the EW0. The changes took
place only within each EW, but not in the EW0. Again, “Why is there something rather than
nothing?”, I answer: “somethings” (perturbations) are only within the EDWs, nothing is
the Hypernothing which corresponds to all the EDWs. It is not necessary, all the
microparticles have positive and negative signs and their sum is zero. If we sum up all
these two sets of microparticles, maybe we can get “zero”, maybe no. (The same process
has to be for all the electromagnetic waves which correspond to all these microparticles.)
However, if we add the signs of all the microparticles and the EDWs, we need to get
“nothing” since all the EDWs have hypercorresponded to the Hypernothing (which has
no sign, since it is “nothing”.)
Does the Hypernothing have a kind of unity? Firstly, we are tempted to support the
idea that the Hypernothing has indeed a unity. If the Hypernothing were composed of
certain entities, then it would not be the Hypernothing. I emphasize that it is completely
meaningless to believe that the Hypernothing is composed of certain elements. However,
I strongly claim that the Hypernothing is beyond “unity-disunity” distinction just because

54
of its “aspects” (the “possible conditions of existence”). If the Hypernothing had a
“unity”, no EDW would appear, through correspondence, of course. If the 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, the Hypernothing is exactly
as nothing is, it has nothing to do with something (the ED ontologies) or nothing (no
ontology). We exist just because something is missing from our existence: i.e., EW1 +
EW-1 = 0. It means that for the EW1 is missing something (the EW-1) and because of
this missing element, “the EW1 is”. The “absolute viewpoint” is the Hypernothing’s
viewpoint (the first viewpoint), which it is “nothing”, the supreme ontological status
(“nothing” is missing). I introduce “the principle of existence”:

From the EW0’s viewpoint, the existence is negative, it is something “missing”. Also, the
existence corresponds to a perturbation of something from an EDW. For the existence of
the first EW, the EW1, it was necessary the appearance of the EW-1 (EW0 = EW1 + EW-
1 which means EW1 = EW0 - EW-1).

So, we have EW1 = EW0 – EW-1. In other words, “the EW1 is” just because
“something” is missing from “nothing” (the Hypernothing, the EW0), and it is missing
the EW-1. Again, I emphasize that it was not a separation of the EW from the EW-1 since
one EW could not exist for any EDW. For instance, a particle exists just because there is
a corresponding “perturbation” of the electromagnetic wave/field. Without this
perturbation, the microparticle would not exist. There are the ED processes (missing
something for the appearance of the EW1; the perturbation of a field for the existence of
a microparticle; the accumulation of microparticles which correspond to the appearance
of a macroparticle) which correspond to the appearance of the ED entities. I emphasize
that are no rules for such processes. In reality, these processes are quite aleatory,
accidentally, exactly as the appearance of the EDWs is accidentally. So, I need to
introduce the “negative principle of appearance of EDWs”:

The appearance of the EDWs is an aleatory process exactly as it is the appearance of

animals species on the Earth. The appearances of the EDWs are quite spontaneously ED
processes.

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 the EW1 and the EW-1, 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. This negative principle of appearance of the
EDWs is in opposition with the “entropy”. All the physicists call “entropy” as being the
tendency toward “disorder”. For instance, the macro-entities represent the order and the
entropy tends toward the disappears of these macro-entities. However, from my
viewpoint, the macro-entities (the order) appeared just because of some “perturbations”
of the EW0, the field-EW and the micro-EW. So, the entropy is the tendency toward the
not perturbed electromagnetic field, for instance. The entropy is a tendency toward
“disorder” in the macro-EW, but a tendency toward order in the field-EW or the EW0.
Therefore, within the EDWs perspective, all the EDWs tend toward the “order” of

55
nothingness. From this viewpoint, “order” means “nothing”, so any “disorder”,
disturbance, means a creation of something within particular EDWs (certain particular
ED entities), but this something corresponds to a disorder, perturbation of the phenomena
which belongs to a previous EW. I have to explain better this principle within the EDWs
perspective.
In general, the creation/appearance of “something” is something negative in the
relationship with the previous EDW. The creation of “first entities” (which belong to a
particular EW, let call it the EW1) would be something negative in relationship with the
phenomenon which belonged to a previous the EDW, that it would be the EW0.
“Negative” is given by the “perturbations”, “discrepancies”, disturbances of certain parts
of the EW in relationship with the entire EW. I emphasize that the perturbations or
discrepancies are against the uniformity of an EW. An entity, a microparticle, corresponds
to a discrepancy of a small part of the electromagnetic wave/field in relationship with the
entire wave/field. An EW, “life”, is in correspondence to a discrepancy (the body) of the
macro-EW. We could notice that the correspondences of these discrepancies moved from
the microparticles to the macroparticles and finally to the EDWs, the lives-EDWs. A
body corresponds to a great disturbance of the electromagnetic field (the field-EW). The
dark energy and the dark matter correspond to the correspondences between those
phenomena we cannot explain using only the entities belonging to the macro-EW. In my
previous works, I indicated that these unexplained phenomena can be explained
introducing mega-phenomena which belong to the mega-EW.38 However, I believe that
38
According to Tchakarov (2021), a new empirical “discovery” about this topic is realized by Wang et. all
(2021) and other researchers which indicate “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… 7. Scientists examined more than 17,000 of these rotating filaments and measured the speeds of
many galaxies. At this point, the fastest whirl they discovered was about 360,000 kilometers per hour.”
(Tchakarov 2021) These “filaments” could represent certain mega-entities (which belong to the mega-EW,
an EW which is “larger” than the macro-EW). “But despite their differences, and the mind-boggling
distances between them, scientists have noticed that some galaxies move together in odd and often
unexplained patterns, as if they are connected by a vast unseen force. Galaxies within a few million light
years of each other can gravitationally affect each other in predictable ways, but scientists have observed
mysterious patterns between distant galaxies that transcend those local interactions. These discoveries hint
at the enigmatic influence of so-called ‘large-scale structures’ which, as the name suggests, are the biggest
known objects in the universe… For instance, a study published in The Astrophysical Journal in October
[Lee et all 2019] found that hundreds of galaxies were rotating in sync with the motions of galaxies that
were tens of millions of light years away… ‘The observed coherence must have some relationship with
large-scale structures, because it is impossible that the galaxies separated by six megaparsecs [roughly 20
million light years] directly interact with each other,’ Lee said… The discovery, which was published in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics [Hutsemékers et all, 2014], is an indicator that large-scale structures
influenced the dynamics of galaxies across vast distances in the early universe… The galaxies we see
captured in static positions in beautiful deep-field shots are actually guided by many complex forces we
don’t yet fully comprehend, including the cosmic web that undergirds the universe.” (Ferreira 2021) It is
clear that this “cosmic web” are parts/entities of the mega-EW. “For the large-scale coherence discovered in
this paper, we cautiously suggest a scenario in which the long-term motion of a large-scale structure may
influence the rotations of galaxies in it. It will not be easy to verify this scenario in another observational
approach, but numerical simulations would be helpful.” (Lee et all, 2019, p. 15) “A giant arc of galaxies
appears to stretch across more than 3 billion light-years in the distant universe. If the arc turns out to be
real, it would challenge a bedrock assumption of cosmology: that on large scales, matter in the universe is
evenly distributed no matter where you look… ‘It would overturn cosmology as we know it,” said
cosmologist Alexia Lopez at a June 7 news conference at the virtual American Astronomical Society
meeting. “Our standard model, not to put it too heavily, kind of falls through’.” (Grossman 2021) We are

56
maybe it is possible to explain these phenomena using only the well-known EDWs: the
field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-EW, but physicists need to find the solutions
using only the correspondences between the ED entities/phenomena of these EDWs. The
EW0 was not perturbed when the EW1 and the EW-1 appeared, as the electromagnetic
field (the field-EW) would have been perturbed when a corresponding microparticle
appeared in the micro-EW. The uniformity of the Hypernothing was not perturbed by the
appearances of the EW1 and the EW-1. From nothing (the EW0), something is “missing”,
in order certain entities (the EW1 and the EW-1) to appear, but this “missing” belongs to
the conditions of possibility of existence, not to the EW0 (since nothing can change in the
EW0). The spontaneously appearances of the EW1 and the EW-1 was accidentally and
these appearances hypercorresponded to the EW0. The “hypercorrespondence” means
that nothing changed in the EW0 with the appearances of the EW1 and the EW-1
(nothing could chance in the EW0). The uniformity of the EW0 (i.e., nothing) was not
perturbed by the spontaneously appearances of the EW1 and the EW-1. Nothing has
remained nothing (and nothing else), even if the EW1 and the EW-1 spontaneously
appeared just because the EW1 and the EW-1 exist in themselves, but not in relationship
with the EW0. From the viewpoint of the EW1, the Hypernothing is not, and the EW-1
isn’t. (The same rule is available for the EW-1 in relationship with the Hypernothing and
the EW1). Exaggerating, in analogy with Aristotle’s Prime Motor, I could claim that the
Hypernothing is the “Prime EW”. Without the Hypernothing, without the uniformity of
the Hypernothing, nothing would have existed! However, the EW1/-1 did not exist for the
EW0. But could we claim that, from the viewpoint of the EW1/-1, the EW0 did not exist?
Since the EW0 is nothing, and the EW0 and the EW1/-1 are EDWs, than indeed, one EW
did not exist for any EDW.
The question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is inevitably based in
the 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 causality and to follow
Aristotle’s rule of “Prime engine”, the thinkers (religious, philosophers and physicists)
introduced “nothing”. 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 EW1 and the EW-1,
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 the alternatives to quantum mechanics are
wrong, since the framework under which these theories have been constructed has been
like certain microparticles “inquiring” about the motion of a real “table” (it does not exist for the
microparticles). However, the microparticles, the table and galaxies, and the “large-scale structure” are ED
entities which belong to the EDWs: the micro-EW, the macro-EW and the mega-EW. (For the EDWs
perspective applied to the dark matter, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2020)

57
quite wrong, the unicorn world. Under the EDWs perspective, the “causality” between
the events/processes which belong to the EDWs is also excluded, since one EW does not
exist for any EDW. In our mind (and only in our mind), there are certain
correspondences, but nothing more. In this book, I will indicate a kind of “temporal”
order (“time” does not exist) of the EDWs and I will “localize” (“space” does not exist)
the first EW (i.e., the EW0), the Hypernothing (this EW does not have an ontological
status, but only a hyperontological status) which has its unperturbed uniformity. Because
of this “unperturbed uniformity”, all the EDWs have not existed for the EW0.
There is a kind of “succession” of the appearance of EDWs, but “time” and “space”
cannot 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
mind-EW) is placed as an EDW than the macro-EW, where the body/organism is placed.
In relationship with 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 accidental, aleatory, and I am convince there are no rules for
transforming the “correspondences” in certain scientific notions. The correspondences do
not have any ontological status, there are no scientific rules of these correspondences.
Another common question related to “nothing” is the following: “If nothing exists,
what are the properties of nothing?” In this chapter, I will show that this question is
meaningless, even if the “Hypernothing” (not “nothing”) is an EW. The EW0 is an EW
without any properties, but from my viewpoint, when I talk about the ED entities, their
properties, and the processes in which these ED entities are involved, I talk about
something which is “negative” in relationship with the non-existence, the EW0.
Therefore, all the ED entities and their processes have always been “negative” in
relationship with the Hypernothing (which in fact is “nothing”). The existence of
something is negative in relationship with the Hypernothing (“nothing” which is
“positive”). The existence of ED entities is given by the corresponding disturbances of
the pre-EDWs, but “the EW1 and the EW-1 are” only accidentally. Exactly as Aristotle’s
Prime Motor is unmoved, the Hypernothing is (or isn’t), that is, the Hypernothing (the
Motor of the being of EW1 and the EW-1, with their ontologies) is not, i.e., the
Hypernothing cannot have any ontology (any “ontology” of the Hypernothing will push
our thinking to a regress ad infinitum argument, so we have to reject any ontology of the
EW0).
I strongly emphasize that Barrow is perfectly right considering that someone can
deal with “nothing” only after he/ she has written something about everything which has
existed. In this book, I investigate the “Hypernothing”, an EW (i.e., the EW0), after I had
investigated, in my previously works, all the important scientific and philosophical topics
of actual human thinking. I have explained the most important EDWs that we know until
now, therefore, I deal here with the Hypernothing. At an extreme point (wrong
viewpoint!), I can claim that all that have existed have been just “disturbances” of the
Hypernothing (i.e., of nothing). 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the plasma cooled and
thus the first photons and the corresponding waves were able to move in the “nothing”
which corresponded to “something” which belonged to the pre-Big-Bang-EW. From that
moment, the “Universe” had been full of waves. However, the waves are not the

58
“underlying reality of the universe”, just because the “universe” does not exist and,
moreover, the electromagnetic waves corresponded to a previous EDW (the pre-Big-
Bang-EW) which corresponded to a previous EDW, until the moment when two
particular EDWs (the EW1 and the EW-1) corresponded to the Hypernothing. Also,
corresponding to the field-EW, later, probably because of the interactions between
particular electromagnetic waves, there appeared, through correspondence, the micro-
EW, and much later the macro-EW appeared from “nothing” which corresponded to the
micro-EW. At the same time, there was the mega-EW, where we could find the “matter”
and “energy” which correspond to so-called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Recently,
some researchers have discovered, for the first time, the link created by the dark matter
between two galaxies. This link would be very similar to the notion of “entanglement” in
quantum mechanics that we explained in my previous works (2006, 2007, 2008, etc.). In
the mega-EW, maybe there is a kind of entity that would correspond to those two galaxies
and their relationship.
Interestingly, in a short clip, Close mentions ten reasons why “nothing” cannot
exist:
- The sentient being wondering about nothing (Aristotle “abhorred the nothing” and we
have to remember Aristotle’s “prime mover” (or better said, the “unmoved mover”) that
is, according to the EDWs perspective, a wrong notion): the Hypernothing is beyond
“moved” or “unmoved” and beyond other dichotomies referring to various features
(“motion” being only one of these features).
- If we removed everything in our imagination, I would remove the “universe” as well.
- The “empty space” is “empty”.
- The atoms are made of “empty”.
- Eliminating the electromagnetic fields, gravity would still remain.
- The whole “space” (which does not have any ontological status) is full of
electromagnetic waves (after the Big Bang).
- Quantum fluctuations of matter-antimatter.
- The Higgs field from which, applying energy, the Higgs bosons will appear. Quantum
mechanics informs us that our “universe” is a quantum fluctuation “out of nothing”
which leads to the question: “What or who encoded the rule of this fluctuation”?
(Our one more question: “Why did happen at that moment (13.82 billions years
ago) and not earlier or later?”)

In my previous books/ works, I showed that “space” (spacetime) and even God could not
even exist. All the theoretical alternatives to quantum mechanics are wrong because their
framework, the “unicorn world”, has been wrong: the particles do not appear from the
waves, but from “nothing” that belongs to the particle-EW which corresponds to the
field-EW. The electromagnetic fields have been present everywhere within the field-EW.
Also, the Higgs field has been present everywhere, so talking about “nothing” only in the
field-EW, for instance, would be meaningless. Again, within the macro-EW, for instance,
between the two macro-entities on the Moon, there is “nothing” (except for the dust, etc.).
However, the question “What existed before the Big Bang?” still has no answer within
the unicorn world. (The reader can notice a short answer to this question in our previous
works from 2007, etc.) I will state once more the main idea about “space”: space
(spacetime) cannot even exist, otherwise strong ontological contradictions would appear.
Within a particular EW, we can say that “nothing is” between two entities with a

59
particular distance between them, but this “noting” has no ontological status. It just
corresponds either to “something” which belongs to an EDW or hypercorresponds to the
“Hypernothing”. Because of this correspondence (which cannot have any ontological
status since it would require that one particular EW would be for an EDW and, as we
already know, this is not possible), the human being created the illusion of “space” (or
“spacetime”, as you wish).
I will not give further details about “nothing”, but about the “Hypernothing” within
the EDWs perspective. The “Hypernothing” is one of the most important notions within
this framework. The Hypernothing has to replace the empty notion of “God” and also to
stop the regress ad infinitum argument in “time” (and “space”, i.e, in Einstein’s
“spacetime”) - even if “infinity”, “space”, “time”, “spacetime” cannot even exist. What
is, then, the “Hypernothing”? From my viewpoint, the Hypernothing is the first nothing,
i.e, nothing existed before the Hypernothing. From my viewpoint, all the great scientific
questions are, in reality, philosophical questions. Therefore, “What was there before the
Big Bang?” is a philosophical question and it has a plausible answer only within the
EDWs perspective. I answered to this question in 2006: before the many Big-Bangs (the
appearance of matter in different places), there was an EDW. Maybe that EW still exists
today, I do not know. I called this EW the “pre-Big Bangs-EW” (even if this “pre-” is
quite a wrong notion since one EW does not exist for any EDW, and, moreover “time”
does not even exist). (About these notions, see also Vacariu 2014) This “pre-Big-Bangs-
EW” did not exist for the EDWs; also, it was not for the EDWs that appeared after the
Big Bang: the plasma-EW, followed by the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW and,
finally, the life-EW. Before this pre-Big-Bangs-EW, there was an EDW and so on.
Between two EDWs, any relationship is meaningless, since one EW is not for any
EDW. Therefore, the EW1 and the EW-1 did not appear directly from the EW0. The
appearance of one EW is not “caused” by an EDW, since any “causation” between two
EDWs is meaningless. However, without the EW0, the EW1 and the EW-1 did not even
appeared. In particular, the EW1 and the EW-1 could appeared just because the
“Hypernothing” is not “something” that we can even imagine. The Hypernothing is not
“nothing” (which “belongs” to a particular EW) but, I repeat, the Hypernothing is the
“Hypernothing” and nothing else. The question “What was there before EW0?” is
meaningless not only because “time” (and “space”) do not exist. (We can ask what was
there before the plasma-EW, even if space and time do not exist). It is a meaningless
question because the EW0 is the Hypernothing – following Aristotle, I have to stop the
regress ad infinitum argument.) In the case of the Hypernothing, it is not only that I claim
this EW has no property that we know of, but it has no properties at all, not even a quality
which we can imagine. Any property would require an entity that really exists and a cause
or a correspondence that created it or it corresponded to that entity. On the contrary, the
Hypernothing is not an entity/object that “was caused” by or that “corresponded to”
something else which belonged to an EDW. Also, the Hypernothing did not cause the
appearance of something else. Again, it would be completely meaningless to ask “What
was there before the Hypernothing?”. If I introduce this question, we reach the regress ad
infinitum argument, but the “infinity” does not exist, therefore, following Aristotle’s rule,
we have to stop this regress ad infinitum argument and we stop this regress ad infinitum
argument by discovering the hyperbeing of the Hypernothing. The main reasons to reject

60
Aristotle’s notion of “Prime mover” (an Unmoved entity which produced the motion of
the others entities which appeared later) are the following:
- We have to pay attention to the fact that the Hypernothing has no ontology, but
hyperontology. It means that any notion/concept that refers to a phenomenon that has an
ontology (and therefore belongs to a particular EW) needs to be rejected when explaining
the Hypernothing. For instance, the notion of “causality” should be completely rejected.
Therefore, the question “What were those changes within the Hypernothing that
corresponded to the appearance of the EW1 and the EW-1?” would be a meaningless
question. Nothing has changed within the Hypernothing, but obviously the appearance of
the EW1 hypercorresponded to the hyperbeing of the Hypernothing and this appearance
would require the appearance of the EW-1, even if the EW1 did not exist for the EW-1.
- Within the EW0, there are no entities and/or processes, hence it would be meaningless
to consider that the EW1 appeared because of “something” (a process or whatever you
want to consider) that had happened within the EW0. There is no time, no causality, in
general, but there are not even entities and processes within the EW0. So, we cannot
conclude that “something” (whatever we can think of) has to correspond to the “first
movement” that produced the appearance of the EW1 and the EW-1. The appearances of
these EDWs happened spontaneously, without following any rule/law. The appearance of
the EW1 corresponded to the appearance of the EW-1, and together, these EDWs
represent “nothing” (no ontology) which hpyercorresponded to the Hypernothing (the
first nothing). Again, no process could happen within the Hypernothing, so I have to
reject Aristotle’s Unmoved “Prime Mover”. From my viewpoint, it was “nothing” (no
existence) which did not produce the existence of the EW1 and the EW-1, but this
Hypernothing hypercorresponded to the appearance of these EDWs. Any question which
can be applied to any EDW (particular entities, and their interactions, etc.) is totally
wrong to be applied to the Hypernothing. Therefore, in order to understand the
Hypernothing, each mind has to eliminate all concepts and judgments referring to the ED
entities, processes and properties of all the EDWs (their entities and interactions). “The
Hypernothing hyperis”, therefore the Hypernothing is beyond dichotomies like being-non
being or existing-nonexisting.
The “conditions of possibility” (no ontological status) for the appearance of the
first macro-entity belonged to the micro-EW. Without the “perturbations” of the existence
of the 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 corresponding
microparticle would not exist. From these sentences, I deduce the following essential
statement: before the EW1 appeared, I can think that there were certain “conditions of
possibility” for the appearance of this EW, but these “conditions of possibility” (no
ontology) were not inside the Hypernothing, and did not correspond to the Hypernothing,
but there are just epistemological notions in our head for explaining the appearance of the
EW1 and the EW-1.
We have to make a strong difference between the appearance of the EW1/EW-1
and the appearance of the micro-EW or respectively the field-EW, for instance, after the
Big Bangs (if such phenomena did indeed exist). Before the micro-EW, respectively the
field-EW, there had to be an EW that had certain particular entities and their interactions,
even if immediately after the Big Bang, there were no free microparticles. The EW1 and

61
the EW-1 suddenly appeared without nothing happening in the Hypernothing-EW, but
without the Hypernothing, these EDWs would not appear. Our intellect cannot
understand this sentence, but we have to accept it as being the only possibility to stop
Aristotle’s regression ad infinitum argument. Only within the EDWs perspective, we
could understand that the Hypernothing has corresponded to “everything”, i.e., to the
EW1 and the EW-1. It is meaningless to ask when the Hypernothing appeared. Space and
time do not exist at all, but we can talk about a relative “location”, an abstract notion
which refers to the identification of “abstract coordinates” relative to certain real entities.
So, indeed, there is a kind of Leibniz’s “relationalism” (which was against Newton’s
“absolute space” and “absolute time”), and indeed neither absolute nor relative space (or
time) really exists. For me, the word “space” is “nothing”. This “location” has no
ontological status, it is just an instrument that helps us identify the relationship between
two objects. I can ask why and “when” the EW1 and the EW-1 appeared at “that moment,
but regarding “that space” is meaningless. Maybe the EW1 appeared “everywhere” (I
cannot know what “everywhere” really means), I do not know. Anyway, the
Hypernothing has no substance at all, but we can think about certain “possibilities” (that
have no ontological status).
Anything which has existed, it has corresponded to something, but the EW1 and
the EW-1 hypercorresponded to the Hypernothing and, moreover, the being of the EW1
would require the being of the EW-1. We cannot ask if the EW1 corresponds to the
Hypernothing, but only together the EW1 and the EW-1 correspond to the EW0. The
Hypernothing cannot correspond to something, otherwise (1) it would not be the
Hypernothing (2) only something that has an ontology always corresponds to something.
The Hypernothing has no ontology, but a hyperontology and, therefore, it cannot simply
“correspond” to something that exists or is. (Obviously, it is better to talk about the
hypercorrespondences between the Hypernothing and all the EDWs.) The sudden
appearances of the EDWs are “accidental events” (not “laws”, not “regularities”). For
instance, the macro-EW appeared accidentally in correspondence to the micro-EW. So,
there is a kind of Darwinian rule in the spontaneous appearance of all the EDWs. If the
Hypernothing were something (material or immaterial), then its presence would require a
cause for its existence.

We cannot think the Hypernothing just because our mode of thinking: the mind-EW
corresponds to a body (the macro-EW). Maybe without this correspondence, I would be
able to think better the EW0.

The Hypernothing does not “contain” even the “potentiality of EW1”. Maybe, we can
talk about the idea that an EW contains the “potentiality” of an EDW. For instance, we
can think that the micro-EW “contained the potentiality” of the macro-EW. However, we
strongly emphasize the fact that this “potentiality” has no ontological status. The
Hypernothing hypercorresponds to the latter EW1 and the EW-1 (and maybe to other
EDWs, I don’t know). Only through the hypercorrespondence to the Hypernothing, the
EW1 and the EW-1 did spontaneously appear. It seems that such correspondence would
require, at one “moment”, a ghostly “tension of correspondence” (not ontological, since
the “correspondence” has no ontological status) of the Hypernothing. However, we have
to be aware that the Hypernothing has always been “unchangeable” (in Ancient Greek
terms), otherwise, I would have to introduce the notion of “time” into the equation. I do

62
not introduce “time” (even artificially) just because any “process” could not exist in the
Hypernothing. I cannot introduce any “process” which “time” has been attributed. If there
had been no processes, nobody could have been able to talk about “time”. (However,
without “processes”, we could not talk about the human beings.) Also, no “state” exists in
the Hypernothing. So, the above-mentioned “tension” has no ontological status at all. The
“tension of correspondence” is mirrored by the appearance of first corresponding EDWs,
the EW1 and the EW-1. This “tension” is just a “phantom” in the EW1 and the EW-1 or,
better yet, this “tension” is generated by our false way of thinking in the last 2,500 years:
the unicorn world.
The appearances of EW1 and EW-1 are embodied in their “self-organization”
(which “belongs” to the EW1 and the EW-1) out of “nothing”, and this “self-
organization” just hypercorresponds to the Hypernothing. Both the ED entities and the
nothing appeared spontaneously, but these entities/nonentities had hypercorrespondences
to the Hypernothing. It is as if the EW1 and the EW-1 had appeared from itself, even if,
before their appearance, these EDWs did not even exist. The EW0 is a kind of “ghost” for
the EW1 and the EW-1, 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 to the Hypernothing): however, even if one EW does not exist for any EDW, without
the micro-EW, the appearance of the macro-EW would not happen. 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.
The spontaneous appearances of certain EDWs out of “nothing” (at one “moment”)
hypercorrespond to the Hypernothing-EW. Apparently, we can believe that the plasma-
EW (and later the micro-EW and the field-EW) appeared spontaneously “out of nothing”:
i.e., the Big Bangs (I replaced the Big Bang with many Big Bangs) happened “out of
nothing”, but these many Big Bangs corresponded to an EDW (as I called the “pre-Big-
Bangs-EW”). There are no arguments against the idea that, before the pre-Big-Bangs-
EW, there was no EDW. Obviously, there were the EDWs, but any EW could not exist for
the micro-EW or field-EW, for instance. However, any property that I will be able to
identify regarding “something” cannot be applied for identifying the Hypernothing.
Otherwise, the Hypernothing would not hyperbe the Hypernothing… So, it is just
meaningless to associate any known property with the Hypernothing. It is meaningless to
apply even the “abstract” spatio-temporal framework (that can be applied to the objects
which belong to the macro-EW, but we have to remember that, ontological, space and
time do not even exist). I repeat, the Hypernothing is not here or there, everywhere or
nowhere. It is beyond whole-parts, entities-processes, static-in motion, continuum-
discontinuum, temporal or spatial location etc. I can say nothing about the Hypernothing,
except that “the Hypernothing is the Hypernothing”. The Hypernothing is an EW which
hypercorresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1. In this case, Plato’s famous notion of
“participation” is transformed into “correspondence”. (See the next chapter, about Plato’s
dialogue) Following Plato, while the “EDWs are”, the “Hypernothing hyperis”; in
general, only the sensible ED entities exist, while the EDWs are.
I introduce here the “postulate about the nothingness” within the EDWs
perspective:

63
In general, “nothing” of a particular EW has no ontological status, but this nothing corresponds to
something which belongs to an EDW. 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 - only their ED entities and interactions
really exist. The EDWs that do not “contain” “nothing” (correspondences) have a “unity” (like the self-EW
or the field-EW) and the entire EW corresponds to something which belongs to (or is) an EDW.

The Hypernothing rejects such necessary correspondences, since it is about the EW0. It
would be meaningless to believe that the Hypernothing “contains nothing”. If the
Hypernothing contained “nothing”, then this EW would not be the Hypernothing. We can
think that the 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 the ED entities which
belong to EDWs, but not to the Hypernothing, since the EW0 cannot have any such
feature. Also, the 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”. Maybe, the EW1 did not have “entities”, it was something like an
electromagnetic field and the EW-1 was like an electromagnetic field with an opposite
sign. Together, the EW1 and the EW-1 represent “nothing” which both
hypercorresponded to the Hypernothing. It is not one EW which corresponded to the
EW0, but only from the viewpoint of both EDWs, we can talk about the EW0. (The
notion of hypercorrespondence is related to this previous statement.) Again, the EW0
cannot have any property; if it has any property, I need to introduce a correspondence
between 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 the Hypernothing, but there
would be an EDW and not the Hypernothing. It has to be clear that the EW1 and the EW-
1 did not appear from the “instability” of EW0. The Hypernothing is beyond the stable-
unstable dichotomy and any dichotomy that can characterize the ED entities and their
interactions which belong to the EDWs (but not “nothing”). The sudden appearance of
the EW1 and the EW-1 depended on the “conditions of possibility” of their appearance,
not on the EW0 (which did not exist for the appearance and the existence of the EW1 and
the EW-1). The “conditions of possibility” of their appearance had no ontological status;
it is a formal notion, in a strictly Kantian sense.
Only within the framework of the EDWs, we can avoid the question: “Why didn’t
the ‘Big Bangs’ for the EW1 and the EW-1 happen earlier or later?” The period of the
appearance of the EW1 and the EW-1 “depended” on the “possibility of its appearance”
(an abstract notion), not on the existence of the EW0 (which it could have any ontology!).
This “possibility” has no ontological status, being exactly a Kantian one (a notion of
explanation, not of ontology). I will use this notion of “possibility” to move the question
of “What did produce the appearance of the EW1 and the EW-1?” from the EW0 to the
EW1/EW-1, even if the EW1 and the EW-1 did not exist at that moment. Again, I
strongly emphasize that it is compulsory for us to introduce such “possibilities” only in
order to explain certain phenomena and to avoid the unanswerable or the meaningless
questions. Such “possibilities” have no ontological status. In a Kantian manner,

64
 “possibility” is just a methodological notion which only helps us, somehow, to explain
certain real phenomena.

2.2 The principles of hyperontology of Hypernothing

I introduce the principles of hyperontology of the Hypernothing:

 The Hypernothing hyperis (or hyperisn’t).39

 The Hypernothing hyperis an EW. Anyway, the Hypernothing isn’t for any EDW, but
only hypercorresponds to the EW1 and the EW-1.
 The Hypernothing hyperis, any EW is. Therefore, the Hypernothing is beyond the
dichotomy “is-isn’t” which refers to some of the EDWs (like the mind-EW): as we
already know, some of the EDWs really are, while some of the EDWs are just
abstract labels which designate a set of the ED entities and their interactions. The
Hypernothing has its own hyperontology (Hyperbeing, that is, “first nothing”), while
some other EDWs have their ontology (being). All the ED entities and their
interactions really exist (“belong” to some EDWs like the macro-EW or the micro-
EW).
 “I am”, therefore the “I” cannot think something about the Hypernothing. Anyway, if
the Hypernothing does not have any kind of (possible) ontology, then we are not able
to speak anything about it.
 The Hypernothing is an EW that has no real (or even imaginary) entities, processes,
forces, properties that we know about or we can presuppose to be or to exist. Also,
we cannot claim that the Hypernothing does not exist (in a classical sense). From
“nothing there can appear nothing” (Parmenides). Therefore, the Hypernothing
cannot be the a “nothing” (like “nothing” between two planets), but only the
“Hypernothing”.
 If the Hypernothing had any kind of known or possible ontology, all the EDWs
would not appear through (hyper)correspondences with the Hypernothing just
because there would be a regress ad infinitum argument.
 Because the Hypernothing hyperis, sequences of events/processes of entities inside it
are totally meaningless. Therefore, notions like “earlier” and “later” are meaningless
for the Hypernothing. Also, question like “What was before the Hypernothing?” is
meaningless. Only introducing the Hypernothing, we could stop the regress ad
infinitum argument regarding the being of EDWs. Also, the thought “The
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 the ED entities from the EDWs.
 The Hypernothing replaces Aristotle’s Prime Motor. The Hypernothing is not just
“Unmoved”, but I extend this Aristotelian “missing property” to all the properties
that can characterize all the ED entities that we know: it means that the Hypernothing
did not have any property that we know as belonging to an entity from any EW. The
Hypernothing has no property and this status is the most positive characterization.
39
I cannot state that the Hypernothing is/exist (or isn’t). Otherwise, I would either regress ad infinitum
argument or all the EDWs would not be.

65
 All the particular properties of the ED entities are just perturbations or disturbances
of this “no property” property since the Hypernothing is the EW0 (i.e., “nothing”).
 The macro-EW appeared through the correspondences with 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). 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 the previous EDWs. In this way, I could
move closer and closer to the Hypernothing. Nothing is not equivalent to the
Hypernothing, since always something existed before “nothing”, but nothing existed
before the Hypernothing. Therefore, the Hypernothing is the first nothing and
nothing else.
 Exactly as the “entanglement” has no ontology (it is based on the correspondence
between the wave and the 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.
 I need to explain the relationship (hypercorrespondence) between the Hypernothing
and the EW1/EW-1, even if, in principle, one EW isn’t for any EDW. In this case,
however, the Hypernothing (which hyperis/hyperisn’t for the EW1 and the EW-1
which both are for themselves, not for the EW0): it means the being of these two
EDWs do not disturb/perturb the 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 appearance of the
EW1 and the EW-1, nothing happened in the Hypernothing. Since it would be about
the Hypernothing, nothing happened within this EW in order something which
hypercorresponded to it (the EW1, the EW-1) 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 EW1 and the
EW-1 (which are): the Hypernothing hyperisn’t for the EW1 and the EW-1; the
micro-EW isn’t for the macro-EW. It means all the ED entities hypercorrespond to
the Hypernothing. The Hypernothing is the most undisturbed/unperturbed EW. In
other words, “nothing could be perturbed” inside the EW0 just because nothing could
be perturbed inside the EW0 (which is “nothing”). So what can be perturbed
“within” (a pseudo-notion, anyway) the Hypernothing?
 Since the Hypernothing hyperis(n’t) for the EW1 and the EW-1, then it would be
meaningless to talk about the “causality” or even the correspondence between these
EDWs. The EW1 appeared not because something happened in the Hypernothing
(nothing could happen within the Hypernothing). The EW1 was only for the EW1
and it did not exist for the Hypernothing. The EW1 did not exist even for the EW-1.
The Hypernothing hyperis, and only from the viewpoint of the Hypernothing, we can
talk about together the EDWs, the EW1 and the EW-1, since “these EDWs are
nothing” and nothing else. Anyway, for the Hypernothing, it is meaningless to use
the words “is”, “isn’t”, or “correspondence” for indicating the relationship between

66
 these the EW0, the EW1 and the EW-1. (In fact, it is about a hyperrelationship
between the EW0 and both the EW1 and the EW-1.) The hypercorrespondence
excludes Aristotle’s concept of “Unmoved Prime Mover”. I do not need “something”
happened inside the Hypernothing for the “corresponding” EW1 and the EW-1 to
appear, since it was not about “correspondence”, but about “hypercorrespondence”
between the EW0 and the EW1/EW-1. In order to explain nonlocality, mental
causation, and many other very difficult notions in particular sciences and
philosophy, I have to include the “nothing” (no ontological status). Also, I have to
use “nothing” related to the “motion” of certain ED entities which belong to some,
but not all, the EDWs. For instance, within the macro-EW, the planets move in
“nothing”; in the micro-EW, the electrons move in “nothing”. This nothing
corresponds to something which belongs to the field-EW, for instance. The field is
present “everywhere”, so it has no relationship with the “nothing” (the illusory
“spacetime”), so I cannot include the “nothing” to define the field-EW. Also, this
corollary does not refer to the mind-EW: the mind does not move and it has no
“nothing” inside it. Why? Because any mental state is the mind-EW and the mind-
EW corresponds to something from the macro-EW (it corresponds to the body which
belongs to the macro-EW; each mental state corresponds (very approximately) to the
most activated neuronal patterns, but also to the entire brain/body).
The Hypernothing somehow “hyperis”. In this statement, it is quite difficult to explain
“somehow” and “hyperis”: in this case, “hyperis” has a special meaning, a totally new
meaning, a completely different meaning from any meaning we know or we can even
conceive. This is the reason I have to replace the notion of “is” with the notion of
“hyperis”. Obviously, the EW1 and the EW-1 appeared due to the hypercorrespondence
to the EW0. However, without the Hypernothing, the EW1 and the EW-1 would not be
possible to appear. If something else were instead of the EW0, obviously, the EW1 and
the EW-1 would not have appeared. Without the Hypernothing, we could not even think
the EW1 and the EW-1. Someone can ask: “Why did the appearance of the EW1 and the
EW-1 happen at that moment and not earlier or later?” Again, our answer: meaningless
question. This question would suppose particular phenomena happening within the
Hypernothing at one particular moment, but this supposition is totally against the
hyperontological status of the Hypernothing. Moreover, anything related to the notion of
“causality” is meaningless since there are no elements (entities, processes etc.) inside the
EW0. The Hypernothing does not have the unity of the mind-EW, and it is not a “being”
in a similar mode as the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW are. The “micro-EW” or
the “macro-EW” are just abstract labels referring to the micro-entities and the macro-
entities which exist withing these “EDWs”. However, the EW0 is the Hypernothing, it
has no ontology, but a kind of hyperontology. From the viewpoint of the Hypernothing,
all the ED entities (which belong to the EDWs) have been just disturbances of “nothing”.
So, “nothing” hyperis earlier than all the ED entities which belong to the EDWs. In this
way, the hyperontology of the EW0 is more important than the ontology of any set of
entities which belongs to any EW. In this sense, any entity (which belongs to a particular
EW) is a perturbation of “nothing” (i.e., it is the disruption/perturbation of the
“uniformity of nothing”). The Hypernothing is Hypernothing and nothing else. It is quite
impossible for the human mind even to think about/conceive the Hypernothing as being
“something”. It is wrong to consider the EW0 as having or not having any kind of

67
properties that we can or cannot even conceptualize. The meaning of the Hypernothing is
completely “alien” to all the human minds. Nevertheless, the ED entities which belong to
all the EDWs hypercorrespond to the Hypernothing. Again, if an EW isn’t for any EDW,
then there are no causalities between the EW0 and the EW1/EW-1. Moreover, it has to be
clear that we have to exclude any causality regarding the appearance of the
Hypernothing, since it is meaningless to talk about the “appearance of nothing”, isn’t it?
The Hypernothing did not appear since the Hypernothing hyperisn’t (or hyperis).
In this context, let me investigate a general statement in physics: “An entity moves
in space.” This statement, so common in physics, represents an ontological contradiction.
It is the contradiction between that entity (which moves) and space (which, if it really
exists, has an ontological status). It would mean that that entity moves through the
“ontological space”, exactly as a human swimmer swims in a basin full of water. From
my viewpoint, it has to be very clear, the entity does not move through space as a
swimmer moves through the water of a swimming basin. The water does not move
through the body of the swimmer, but always surrounds or covers the body. There is no
ontological contradiction here between the body and the water of that basin: these entities
do not occupy the same place at the same time. However, we cannot claim the same thing
about an entity (for instance, a stone) which moves through “space”. What is the
relationship between that stone and space in which that stone moves? We cannot believe
that space “surrounds” the stone. Also, space does not “avoid” the matter which
“composes” that stone. Also, if we claim that space moves through that stone, we reach
other ontological contradictions. The stone moves in “nothing” (no ontological status)
which corresponds to the electromagnetic field from the field-EW) and hypercorresponds
to the Hypernothing (a hyperontology). Anyway, “space” cannot even exist. It is the
“nothing” (has no ontological status, but it corresponds to the EW0) “through which” the
entities move in the EDWs. The human beings called this “nothing” as “space” and later
Einstein unified space and time, but also relativized the “spacetime”.
Let me investigate another case: an electron moves in its micro-EW. Where does
the electron moves? In space? It would be an ontological contradiction: the electron and
its surrounding space corresponds to an electromagnetic wave (which belongs to the
field-EW). More exactly, the electron and its movement correspond to an electromagnetic
wave. If the electron moves in space, does it mean that both the electron and the space
correspond to the wave? Then what would be the ontological status of “space”? Within
the EDWs perspective, the electron moves in “nothing” (which does not have any
ontological status) which corresponds to the electromagnetic wave. The “nothing” from
the micro-EW corresponds to the electromagnetic waves; therefore, the “nothing” from
the macro-EW corresponds to the “nothing” from the micro-EW and to the
electromagnetic waves. The electromagnetic waves have the speed of light, therefore, the
first and the largest “nothing” is “created” by the electromagnetic waves, since these
processes appeared immediately after the Big Bangs and there are no processes that can
surpass the speed of light. Why? Because the photon corresponds to the wave (which
have the light speed). However, we should not forget that the “nothing” corresponds to
the Hypernothing which hyperis.
The Hypernothing hyperis “here” and “now” (time and space do not have any
ontological status) and this EW does not exist for any EDW (the causalities between the
ED entities which belong to the EDWs are meaningless). The Hypernothing hyperis; if

68
the Hypernothing only “is”, the regression ad infinitum argument would appear. It is
meaningless to use “causality” related to the Hypernothing. Any “causality” cannot even
exist within the Hypernothing and cannot exist between any two EDWs. The notion of
“causality” would require the notions of “process” and entities, but the Hypernothing has
neither entities nor processes/interaction. It is meaningless to consider that the
Hypernothing has or does not have this property of causality. The Hypernothing is neither
static, nor in motion; it hyperis (or hyperisn’t) something beyond these properties. We
cannot even say “the Hypernothing hyperis or hyperisn’t”. Anyway, following the main
rule of the EDWs, as an EW, the Hypernothing isn’t for any EDW. Again, I am certain
that I have to reject, as belonging to the Hypernothing, all the ED
entities/processes/forces/properties that we know belong to real entities/interactions or
imaginary entities/interactions which belong to the EDWs. Otherwise, that EW would not
be the Hypernothing. Because, ontologically, each human mind has certain limits in its
ability to think, we cannot even think more details about the 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, the 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, the
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 the Hypernothing, which also rejects the
necessity of a previous EDW. With the Hypernothing (not the Big Bangs), I finally stop
the regress ad infinitum argument.
One question referring to the “infinite space” is the following: “What is at the limits
of our universe”? The classical answer within the unicorn world would be: “space(time)”
has been created at the same time with “matter”, so beyond the “matter” placed at the
margin of the universe, there is “nothing”. I would like to add the old notion of
“multiverse” here: there is a multitude of “universes”. Our questions are (1) where are all
these universes placed? and (2) what is there between them? A physicist would tell us that
all these universes are placed within the “same spacetime framework”. Otherwise, any
alternative answer is meaningless. From my viewpoint, the “multiverse” or all these
“universes” are placed within the macro-EW, therefore the “multiverse” is a notion totally
different from the EDWs. This “multiverse” is placed within the same illusory
“spatiotemporal” framework, and between them there is “nothing” (which corresponds to
the electromagnetic field from the field-EW). I do not know if this hypothesis (about the
multiple universes) is true or not. The multiverse is a scientific hypothesis, totally
different than the EDWs anyway, so I am not interested in it. The Hypernothing is the
EW0 and all the EDWs “appeared” spontaneously from “nothing” (which does not have
any ontology) but the EW0 had been “there”. For the Hypernothing, “nothing” could not
be found inside it: “the Hypernothing hyperis” (or hyperisn’t) and this verdict excludes
everything that really exists, including “nothing” (which anyway it does not have any

69
ontology). Even if the Hypernothing were an observer, it could not perceive its
hyperontology. The Hypernothing hyperis, and all the EDWs, somehow, have
corresponded to the Hypernothing. Therefore, within the “unicorn world”, I can say
(following the Greek philosophers, obviously all working within the unicorn world) that
all the EDWs are just “illusions” which correspond to the Hypernothing (with its
hyperontology). In other words, somebody would say that all the EDWs are
“manifestations” of the Hypernothing, but this idea, constructed within the unicorn world,
would be totally wrong. “Manifestations” is a meaningless notion constructed within the
unicorn world. I emphasize that, within the EDWs perspective, Einstein’s special and
general relativity are extended to the following principle: “the Hypernothing
(hyper)corresponds to all the EDWs”. This principle, translated into the words that
describe the unicorn world, would be: “existence is non-existence, space and time do not
exist, and even matter is an illusion for the ‘foundation of existence’, the Hypernothing,
i.e. the non-existence”. I would make a mistake similar to Berkeley’s philosophy: except
for the mind, nothing exists, and the mind is part of God.
If I could claim only that “the Hypernothing hyperisn’t”, then nothing (no
ontological status) would exist. Even the expression “the Hypernothing is” is quite a
wrong expression since the Hypernothing “hyperis”, but not “is”. If an “EW is”, the being
of this EW would require a particular EDW that was before this EW, which “is”.
However, before the Hypernothing there could not be an EDW (I have to avoid the
regress ad infinitum argument). So, if the “Hypernothing is”, then the Hypernothing
would not be the EW0. This is the main reason I have to claim that “the Hypernothing
hyperis”, but not “the Hypernothing is”. Except for the Hypernothing, any “EW is” (not
“hyperis”). Again, it is quite clear that only the Hypernothing can stop Aristotle’s regress
ad infinitum argument. Obviously, the sudden appearance of both the EW1 and the EW-1
corresponded to the Hypernothing, otherwise there would not have been the EW1 and the
EW-1. Only because the “Hypernothing hyperis”, I can use the main notion of
“correspondence” to indicate the hypercorrespondence between the EW0 and the
EW1/Ew-1. A previous EDW could not correspond to the EW0, since the EW0 hyperis
(or hyperisn’t).
The question is how is it possible that from the Hypernothing, any EDW can
“appear”. The problem is that the notion “appear” is quite wrong in this statement. I have
to replace it with “(hyper)correspond”. So, the EW1 and the EW-1 hypercorresponds to
the Hypernothing. The Hypernothing hyperis because it cannot contain any entity and
therefore any parts of it cannot be observed. Indirectly, we can observe parts of the
macro-EW or the micro-EW or we can “perceive” parts of the self-EW. The
observation/interaction presupposes at least two entities. The Hypernothing has no
interactions, no entities, no processes; therefore it is quite wrong to believe that “the
Hypernothing is”; the correct statement is: “the Hypernothing hyperis”. I will never be
able to observe the Hypernothing (not even through (hyper)correspondences, as we
“observe” the macro-EW or the micro-EW). We cannot observe “nothing”. Indeed, all of
us, the human observers, hypercorrespond to the Hypernothing, so we cannot observe it.
But the situation is much worse: the Hypernothing excludes any parts of it, any observer,
any interaction, any place and any entity/process. Again, if we accept any element of this
set, then I should check for an EW that was there before the Hyperverse, so I would
collapse within the regress ad infinitum argument avoided by Aristotle by introducing

70
“God” into equation. However, the Hypernothing could not be God. I can deduce the
hyperis of the Hypernothing only based on the rational, abstract knowledge (even if the
entire our knowledge has the starting point on the empirical knowledge). The reader,
imagine yourself being within the Hypernothing (even if it does not exist “within” the
Hypernothing). What would you see there? Nothing. In principle, you cannot “see”
nothing “within” the Hypernothing. I can “see nothing” between two entities which
belong to the macro-EW, for instance. However, we have to remember the fact that your
self is an EW, but the self cannot perceive any part of it. In other words, the self is in the
same situation with the Hypernothing: no parts of it can be observed. I would need to
introduce an “internal eye”, a meaningless notion. I consider that the self really is since
there are parts of it that, through correspondence, are. And we are sure about these
correspondences, so the self (as an EW) surely is. But don’t forget: your self
hypercorresponds to the Hypernothing. Amazing, isn’t it? It has to be clear that within the
unicorn world, we could not discover the Hypernothing (as the EW0).
I start to scheme about the relationship between the Hypernothing and the
Hyperverse with a thought experiment: let me imagine the center of a quite cold planet
(no hot center, no “fire” inside it). The planet is just a huge and cold stone and the air
does not exist at all at the surface of the planet or inside it. Somebody made a tunnel from
the surface of the planet through its center to the other part of the planet. So, the tunnel
starts from the surface of the planet, passes through its center and reaches the surface on
the other side. Now, a person jumps in that hole. What will happen with the body of that
person? It will accelerate until the center of the Earth, then it will decelerate towards the
other surface until the body stops. Then, the body will repeat this movement until a
“force” will stop this “oscillation”. Without a different force, would the body
continuously oscillate between those two holes of the surface?

71
Chapter 3

More details about the hyperontology of Hypernothing-EW

When you look at a vacuum in a quantum theory of fields, it isn’t exactly nothing.
(Peter Higgs)

The fun in science lies not in discovering facts, but in discovering

new ways of thinking of them . (Lawrence Bragg)

3.1 The ED “aspects” of Hypernothing

Essentially, for Parmenides, the “appearances” are just illusions because the “absolute
nothing/void” does not exist: the Being is, the nonbeing is not. I cannot even think that
“the being is not”, and “the nonbeing is”. I emphasize the fact that Parmenides’ idea is
very important for us. It means that the macro-objects, for instance, do not exist. Also,
our ideas about them are “false thoughts”. What really exists is the “Being”, which is
unique, eternal, unknown, cannot be expressed, homogeneous, static, perfect, close and
finite. What is “perfect” has to be “finite”, therefore, being “incomplete”, the “infinity”
cannot even exist. For Parmenides, the exclusion of the “nonbeing” imposes certain
features for the “Being”: the One is a logical necessity based on the premises of “the
nonbeing is not” (which is based on a radical application of the principle of non-
contradiction: the being and the nonbeing cannot both exist.). Zeno’s paradoxes come
from the absolute rejection of the existence of “Nonbeing”: in the “Greek framework”,
“place”, motion, vacuum do not exist, there is no division, no multiplicity, so the
Nonbeing cannot even exist.
From my viewpoint, however, I have to accept the macro-objects really exist for
at least one good reason: your mind really is just because it corresponds to a macro-entity,
your body. Without your body (brain), you mind would not be able to be. Through
correspondence to your body (brain eyes), your mind reads this sentence. Without such
correspondences, the mind would not be able to read this sentence, more exactly, it would
not be able to be. If “the Hypernothing is not”, what happens to the EDWs? By
definition, the Hypernothing hyperis not. Then, the question is: How can the
Hypernothing that is not (ontological contradiction in this expression) correspond to
something that really exists (the EW1 and the EW-1, for instance)? But the Hypernothing
hyperis, so without the Hypernothing, any EW (that we know of) would not be. So, the
Hypernothing hyperis. I need to change the human language (it does not matter what
particular language), if I want to explain the origin of any EW. Again, any entity which
belongs to a particular EW “hypercorresponds” (“is a manifestation/determination/aspect
of”, would be a wrong expression) with the Hypernothing. Obviously, an EW is, but does
not exist, especially when we talk about the mind-EW. Imagine, then, the Hypernothing is
a huge mind-EW. We have to add that the EW1 and the EW-1 (like any EW) is a “self-
production” and only corresponds to the Hypernothing. The self-production is the
“correspondence” and both these notions do not have ontology, since these notions
indicate the conditions of the possibility of EDWs. Even if we presuppose the
“spacetime” really exists, the Hypernothing (like any EW) has no “spatial-temporal”

72
coordinates (that is, the “nothing” is not “within” the Hypernothing). (Even this notion
“within” is quite artificial here…) If the Hypernothing had these features, then the EDWs
would not be at all. The Hypernothing is not “One”; it is closer to “Zero”, it is (not) a
kind of “nothing”, but maybe an EW having “supreme negative powers”. The
Hypernothing is beyond the One-Multiple distinction. The Hypernothing is not One,
since the Hypernothing cannot be One. Apparently, these statements are contradictory,
but about the Hypernothing I can say nothing more. I state once again that, from what we
know today, except for the mind-EW and the Hypernothing, any EW does not even exist
(it is not). The problem is that we cannot even think more about the Hypernothing that is,
in a misleading expression, “the origin of the EDWs”.
What is exactly the hyperontology of Hypernothing? It is “nothing” (no ontology)
which permits the correspondence of the EDWs. How then appeared these
correspondences? Wrong question since the correspondences do no have any ontological
status. What is then the history of these EDWs? Wrong question, there is no history of
these EDWs. There is the history of one EW, no more. What is the causality between
these EDWs? Wrong question, obviously since one EW is not (does not exist) for any
EDW. Then how is the (hyper)correspondence between “nothing” and “something” (for
instance, the EW0 and the EW1/EW-1)? I have to suppose that there is the EW1 and the
EW-1 which both hypercorrespond to the EW0. Then how did appear the EW1 and the
EW-1? These EDWs did not appear from something, but obviously, without the
hypercorrespondence of the EW0, I would not be able to talk about them. So, I have to
take into account the “nothing”, since all the EDWs represent, somehow, nothing.
Together are all the “ED variations of nothing”, which does not have any ontological
status. Is not this a contradictory statement? Obviously, within the unicorn world, it is a
contradictory statement. However, within the EDWs perspective, this statement reach the
ED ontologies, but also the hyperontology of the EW0. The EW1, together with its
corresponding EW-1, are “variations” of “nothing”. But nothing cannot have
“variations”. Of course, it cannot, but these “variations” are through the
hypercorrespondences in the EDWs. So there are certain ED variations of “nothing”, but
these variations are the EDWs, not nothing. At least, the EW1 and the EW-1 are, clearly,
the “ED variation of EW0”. This is the reason, the EW0 is not “nothing” but
“hypernothing”. This hypernothing can have the ED variations, but these variations are
the EDWs not the Hypernothing. These variations are the EW1 and the EW-1 and these
variations hypercorrespond to the EW0. We have to be aware that this “ED variation of
nothing” is not an act/process on/in the EW0 since the EW0 is (hyper)nothing. The ED
variations of EW0 are just the “spontaneous appearances” of the EW1 and the EW-1.
There were not appearances from/in/at the EW0 since the EW1 and the EW-1 did not
exist for the EW0. Nothing changed in the EW0, the Hypernothing, since nothing could
change in nothing (no ontology). However, this “nothing” could be the ED “aspects” of
the EW1 and the EW-1, which together corresponded to (represented) the EW0. The
EW1 and the EW-1 were in themselves, no more. The EW2 could appear through the
correspondence to the EW1, but the EW2 corresponded to certain variation of the EW1
(and maybe of the EW-1). How was it possible for the EW0 to have these “variations”?
Again, the EW0 had no variation since it was nothing. The EW1 was only the ED
“variation” of nothing, a “variation in itself”, “a variation of the EW1”. (The same is

73
available for the EW-1) These “ED variations in itself” represent “nothing” from the
viewpoint of the EW0. So, one mind-EW, for instance, is the “ED variation” of
(a) the body (macro-EW)
(b) an amalgam of microparticles
(c) an electromagnetic field in field-EW
(d) something in both the EW1 and the EW-1 (there is a correspondence between the
entities/events/process from the EW1 and the EW-1 and both represent the EW0)
(e) the EW0, the Hypernothing (i.e, it is nothing).
Can I talk about an ED variation of “nothing”? If these variations are the ED
variations, I can talk about them but, from the hyperontological viewpoint of the EW0,
these variations do not exist. So, everything from the EDWs is “nothing” from the
viewpoint of EW0. Anyway, the EW0 has no ontology since it is “nothing”. To the
classical question “When matter separated from antimatter?”, our answer is that this
question is a wrong one. There is no separation from the EW1 and the EW-1 since both
are the EDWs and they are the ED aspects (it means the EW1, respectively, the EW-1) of
the “nothing”. It means “nothing” changed in the Hypernothing, anyway. The ED
changes are “the EW1” and “the EW-1”, respectively, but these changes
hypercorresponded to the EW0 (in which “nothing” could change). Since all the EDWs
have been just the ED aspects of “nothing”, then any EW could existed forever.
Everything does not “return to nothing”, it is not even a “return”. An entity from an EW
just disappears because of its hypercorrespondences to the Hypernothing. Any entity is
just an “hyperED aspect” of “nothing”, and the “ED entities” cannot have any ontology,
in fact, the EW0 has no ontology, these epistemological entities (from the EDWs) have
“epistemological ontologies”, i.e., they hypercorrespond to “nothing”, no more or less.
Since nothing, infinite and God could even exist (see our book 2019), then “nothing”
could really exist. There have been only the ED existences as “aspects” of the
Hypernothing (nothing). The ED entities have existed only in their EDWs, no more, but
all have hypercorresponded to the EW0 (“nothing” which has no ontology). “Nothing”
has a hyperontology just because it is possible certain “ED aspects of nothing” to be in
themselves (the EW1 and the EW-1 were but together hypercorresponded/represented the
EW0). The hyperontology is, in fact, the “supreme ontology”, and this is the
hyperontology of nothing, i.e, it is no ontology, it does not exist/is. Nothing does not
exist. All the EDWs “appear and disappear spontaneously in themselves” in certain
hypercorrespondences to the EW0, but their “appearances” have been some ED aspects
of “nothing”. In fact, there had been no appearance from “nothing” (the Hypernothing),
since there is the EW1 and the EW-1, and these EDWs are not for the EW0. There is not
the “appearances” of the EW1 and the EW-1 since they hypercorrespond to the EW0. In
relation to the EW0, the EW1 and the EW-1 aren’t. The EW0 hyperis and it has a
hyperontology: the conditions of possibility of the EW1 and, respectively, the EW-1.
I emphasize that with the EDWs perspective, we go beyond the realism-idealism,
matter-“no matter”, phenomena-“thing-it-itself” distinctions. My mind is an EW, it exists
only for itself. My mind corresponds to a body(brain) which is an entity in the macro-
EW. My mind-EW hypercorresponds to the EW0. The field-EW hypercorresponds to the
EW0. Then, why did the field-EW (like my mind-EW) appear in itself? Because of the
same relationship between the EW0 and the EW1/EW-1: one EW isn’t for any EDW.
There is not a separation between the EW1 and the EW-1 since one EW does not exist (is

74
not) for any EDW and both hypercorrespond to the EW0. So, nothing “appeared” since
EW1 + EW-1 = EW0. It is not a real “+” between these EDWs, since the EW1 and the
EW-1 are the EDWs. From the EW0’s viewpoint, together these EDWs do not exist, i.e.,
both are “nothing”. There is no “absolute reality” or “God”, since the absolute reality
would be, in our case, the EW0, i.e., the Hypernothing. In other words, “nothing” (no
ontology) is the “absolute reality” or “Nothing is God”. Everything hypercorresponds to
the “nothing”, i.e, everything exists only in its EW or in itself (mind-EW). There is an
evolution for the positive EDWs and corresponding negative EDWs, but all the ED
entities (including the mind-EW) are “nothing” for the Hypernothing (which is “nothing”,
i.e., it has no ontology). The Hypernothing is “nothing”, therefore, both the EW1 + the
EW-1 are always “nothing”. Each mind-EW is not for the Hypernothing (“nothing”, no
ontology). My mind has a relative existence (it exists to itself and it corresponds to the
body from the macro-EW). The EW1 and the EW-1 are in themselves and these EDWs
do no exist for the EDWs. Also, nothing isn’t in itself, it does not exist for the EDW, but
temporally, nothing is the EW0, so “the EW0 is God”, “nothing is God”, no more.
I strongly emphasize that when only the EW0 hyperis, it was impossible a single
EW to appear (even accidentally) since “nothing can appear from nothing” (Parmenides).
There were potential appearances of the EDWs in the “correspondences” to the
Hypernothing, but only potential appearance of particular EDWs, but the EW1 appeared
in itself only when the EW-1 appeared in itself at the same time, just because both these
EDWs hypercorrespond to the EW0, so, in reality, “nothing appeared from nothing”.
Very probably, there were many conditions of the possibility of appearances of EDWs in
the hypercorrespondences to the EW0, but each of these possible positive EDWs did not
appear in correspondence to the negative EW, so was is not possible for each of these
EDWs to appear. The only EDWs that appeared, in hypercorrespondences to the EW0,
there were only the “pair of the EDWs”, i.e., the pairs of the positive and the negative
EDWs, which together represent the EW0. So Parmenides’ slogan “Nothing appears from
nothing” is still valid in the EDWs perspective.
In the field-EW, there are no too many non-uniformities (like in the macro-EW or
the micro-EW). From the field-EW to the micro-EW and the macro-EW there are greater
and greater non-uniformities. The EW0 has the greatest uniformity (or the greatest
“disorder” for the physicists working in the thermodynamics – see later in this book). In
the field-EW, there have been not too much “events” involving at least two entities (like
in the micro-EW and the macro-EW). Between the pre-Big-Bangs-EW and the plasma-
EW (the first EW after many Big Bangs), there were only certain correspondences (Big
Bangs) in many places, so I can reject Guth’s “inflation” from this equation. In reality,
there is matter (the EW1) and antimatter (the EW-1) which hypercorresponded to the
EW0. There is no return to the EW0 since nothing “runs” from the Hypernothing.
Nothing appeared from the Hypernothing (i.e, “nothing”), there was just accidentally,
spontaneously appearance of the EW1 and the EW-1 (which hypercorrespond to the
EW0).
In this sense, I can say when a body appeared (an entity within the macro-EW),
but not a life, an entity and an EW. We cannot identify when an EW appears just because
we cannot see it, if it is an EW. Only through correspondences with the entities from the
macro-EW, we can guess when an EW appears. The EW1 and the EW-1 spontaneously
appeared through the hypercorrespondence to the Hypernothing, and nothing else. We

75
can guess when a life-EW appears through its correspondence to the appearance of a
macro-entity within the macro-EW, but we cannot guess when the EW1 appeared. You
cannot prove even your life is. Can you prove through your words? But maybe you are
just a speaking machine. Have you ever seen the life of somebody? Have you seen your
life/mind at least one time? I can prove the existence of life only indirectly, through
correspondence to the manifestations of a body. There are different bodies in the macro-
EW, but all these bodies correspond to different electromagnetic waves (to an
electromagnetic field) in the field-EW. There is no chronology of the EDWs, so we
cannot make the history of the EDWs, even if in our mind, I can identify the order of the
appearances of some EDWs (like this order: the field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-
EW).
Spinoza’s pantheism is replaced with “nothing” the hpyercorrespondence EDWs.
Leibniz’s parallelism is replaced with the EDWs (one EW does not exist for any EDW, so
there is not “parallelism) and his “monada” are replaced with the “Hypernothing”. The
harmony between “monada” and the “parallel worlds” established by “God” (Leibniz) is
replaced with the correspondences between the EDWs and the hypercorrespondence
between the EW0 and the EW1/EW-1. “God is nothing” in my EDWs perspective, or, in
other words, God cannot even exist in the EDWs. (see my article at my webpage, or last
chapter from my book 2019) The (hyper)correspondence eliminate any kind of
“harmony” and any kind of “God”. The Kantian noumena-phenomena distinction is quite
wrong, since “noumena” (nothing) did not exist for any kind of “phenomena” (entities
from any EW). Maybe I can claim that the noumena is “nothing” and all the ED entities
are the phenomena, but the microentities do not exist for the electromagnetic waves, for
instance, so I do not have the noumena-phenomena relationship. In my EDWs
perspective, it would be quite wrong to consider the Hypernothing as being the
“noumena” in relationship with all the ED entities (“ED phenomena”) from the EDWs,
since the EW0 is nothing and nothing else. The microparticles did not appear from the
electromagnetic field/waves but in correspondence to it/them. The EW1 and the EW-1
did not appear from the EW0 (“nothing”) but in the hpyercorrespondence to the EW0.
Until me, everybody has been working within the unicorn world (including Everett with
his “many worlds”, Leibniz with his “parallel worlds” and those with the “multiverse”).
Before me, nobody has even thought about the EDWs.
The matter (the EW1) and the anti-matter (the EW-1) are the ED aspects of the
Hypernothing. There have been many potentials ED entities to appear in
hypercorrespondence to the EW0, but from all these potentials, they appeared only those
“positive” entities and their ED “negative” entities, just because together they
corresponded (no ontology) to the Hypernothing. The EW1 wasn’t for the EW-1, but for
the EW0, they represented nothing. How did the EW1 appear? Accidentally, no more. All
the EDWs are in themselves, but everything correspond to nothing. I talk about a
hypercorrespondence just because there is no EDW before the EW0, and the EW0 just
hypercorresponds to all the EDWs. Life cannot be without involving, in its definition, its
disappearance. There cannot be an eternal life. In reality, everything which exists, it exists
for a period of time. The disappearance of life does not mean “death” (since death has no
ontological status). Life means its disappearance as EW just because something negative
happens to its corresponding body. This disappearance does not mean that “life”
transmutes in another form in an EDW or somewhere else; purely, after a period, “life is

76
not”. I have to notice that when life stops its being, something dramatically has to happen
within the body which corresponds to that life. The same is true about the existence of
material things: anything that exists has to disappear in the future because something
negative happen to the corresponding entities which belong to an EDW. In this context, it
becomes meaningless to ask about the appearance or disappearance of the Hypernothing,
since this EW has no ontological status, i.e., it is not. The Hypernothing hyperis and it
has a hyperontology: the conditions of the possibility of the EW1 and the EW-1. I
emphasize again that if the Hypernothing were “nothing”, then only “nothing” would
exist/be (but this “nothing” could not have any ontological status).
I could almost claim the same statements about the Hypernothing. However, my
viewpoint about the Hypernothing has to go beyond all different approaches which have
been elaborated by the Ancient Greek philosophers and contemporary
philosophers/scientists. That is, in order to “grasp” certain “information” about the
Hypernothing, we have to go completely beyond any scientific or philosophical
approach, beyond any conceptual dichotomy (old or new) elaborated in philosophy or
science. For me, it is better to write that since the Hypernothing hyperis, then the
Hypernothing is beyond “being” and “becoming”, and all other dichotomies, since even
all the ontologies of EDWs (that we know or we presuppose to know) cannot grasp the
hyperontology of the Hypernothing. As I showed in the past, for the EDWs, the classical
philosophical distinction “ontology-epistemology” is quite wrong. For the Hypernothing,
even the notion of “ontology” is quite wrong. We need the “hyperontology”, that means a
completely new framework of thinking.
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 the Hypernothing, from what we know today,
no other EW really exists. I can say that all the EDWs are, but only the ED
entities/processes really exist. I introduce an important principle regarding the “negative
epistemology-ontology” for the Hypernothing:

If we were able to “identify” somehow the Hypernothing, then the

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

From the ontological viewpoint of any EW, the Hypernothing has no “identity”; more
exactly, the Hypernothing “hyperis not”. Obviously, an EW is not for any EDW, but
theoretically, we can think of two EDWs, even if there is no relationship between them.
For instance, we can think of the micro-EW and the macro-EW or the mind-EW and the
macro-EW (where the corresponding brain/body is placed). The problem is that we
cannot even think of the Hypernothing, not only in the relationship with any EDW, but
we cannot think of the EW0 in itself at all. Why? Because the 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 the above mentioned
dualities cannot be applied to the Hypernothing. Since the Ancient Greek philosophy, our

77
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 the Hypernothing and the EDWs is
given by this simple law (the 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.)
(3) Therefore, the Hypernothing hyperis/(hyperisn’t). “Hyperisn’t” means
“nothing” which permit the appearance, simultaneously and accidentally, of at least two
EDW, one negative and one positive. These two EDWs represent “nothing” from the
viewpoint of the EW0. Therefore, nothing changed in the EW0, when the EW1 and the
EW-1 appeared.
Any EW is, the Hypernothing hyperis (or hyperisn’t), i.e., this EW is beyond the
dichotomy “is-isn’t” which refers to all the EDWs.

In order to avoid the regress ad infinitum argument, “the being of EDWs” is the main
indication of the hyperbeing of the Hypernothing. Precisely to avoid either a strong
ontological contradiction or a regress ad infinitum argument, I discover that if the EDWs
are, then it is compulsory that the EW0 (the Hypernothing) hyperis. Apparently, the
expression “the Hypernothing hyperis” seems to be a contradictory statement: how can
we claim that “nothing is”? Obviously, we do not say either “the nothing is”, or “the
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 “the Hypernothing is not”, or “the Hypernothing is”. All I can
claim is that “the Hypernothing hyperis”. Again, by comparing the existence of the
various ED things with the being of the EDWs, on one side, and with the status of the
Hypernothing, on the other side, I have discovered the hyperbeing of the 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 the Hypernothing: the
hyperontology.
An EW has an epistemological-ontological different ontology than any EDW. One
EW is not for any EDW. However, the ontology of the Hypernothing is not included in
the same class of ontologies as all the EDWs. If the ontology of the Hypernothing were
included within the same class of ontology as all the EDWs, then either all the EDWs
would not be or that EW would not be the Hypernothing. I cannot say about the
Hypernothing that it is and/or it is not just because we have to avoid any contradictory
statement. If I claimed that, as EW, the “Hypernothing is”, then the Hypernothing would
not be the Hypernothing, but would be an EW (as all the EDWs). The Hypernothing has
to be something different, regarding not only its ontology, but referring to a completely
new framework of our thinking, different even from the framework for the EDWs (which
anyway it was a new different framework from the unicorn world in which all the
scientific theories and philosophical approaches had been elaborated until the appearance
of the EDWs perspective). This new framework is that of “hyperontology” with its main

78
rule: “the Hypernothing hyperis”. As we already know, I have to reject any kind of
causality between any two EDWs, since one EW does not exist for any EDW. Therefore,
we have to avoid any causation but even the correspondences between the Hypernothing,
the EW1 and any EDW. I cannot talk about the “correspondences” between the
Hypernothing and all the EDWs (or between two EDWs), but only about the
“hypercorrespondences”. Without these (hyper)correspondences, no EW would be. That
is, if the Hypernothing “were not”, no EDW would be; or if the EW0 was, there would be
necessary a previous EDW which corresponds to the Hypernothing.
I need to introduce the notion of “contrariety” within my EDWs perspective.

The Hypernothing (the EW0) is contrary (not a contradiction) to any EW. The “hyperis”
is contrary to “is” or “exists”, the hyperontology is contrary to the “epistemology-
ontology”. This contrariety represents the Kantian “conditions of possibility” of all the
EDWs.

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

between it and any EDW. 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 the
Hypernothing hyperis. Nevertheless, the Hypernothing is contrary to any EDW and this
contrariety admits middle term, so between the Hypernothing and the field-EW (for
instance), there have been many EDWs. Certainly, the EW1 is not the field-EW. 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 the Hypernothing
was there before the EW1, but I would not be able to indicate the details referring to the
relationship between the Hypernothing and the EW1. The law of “beyond
complementarity to be or not to be” is the following:

The Hypernothing is beyond the complementary, ontological contradiction: “the

Hypernothing is and the Hypernothing is not”: I can say no more than “the
Hypernothing hyperis”. Even if, like any EW, the Hypernothing is not for all the EDWs,
without the Hypernothing (which is beyond being-nonbeing), all the EDWs would not be.
But the hyperis of the Hypernothing is beyond “to be” or “not to be”,”to exist” or “not
to exist”.

Only going beyond the above-mentioned complementarity, we can understand the first
EW (the EW0) and why “all the EDWs are” after the EW0. The hypercorrespondences
between the Hypernothing and the EDWs are “multiple”. For me, some of the EDWs are
“visible” (that means, indirectly we can visualize them), some of them are completely
“invisible” (that means, I will never be able to visualize them in any sense, directly or
indirectly). The problem is that the Hypernothing is not only “invisible”, but it is
“absolutely invisible”, just because it hyperis and, moreover, it is beyond the dualities
“being-nonbeing” or “existence-nonexistence”. Therefore, if for Plato, the “Being”
preserves its status of ontological contradiction (being-nonbeing), the Hypernothing is
beyond this contradiction.
I have to re-think one of the main notions of the EDWs perspective: the
correspondence. I know that an entity (a table, for instance) that belongs to an EW1 (the
macro-EW) corresponds to an amalgam of microparticles that belong to the EW2 (the

79
micro-EW). Also, there are certain hypercorrespondences between the Hypernothing and
the EDWs, and the correspondences between the entities which belong to the EDWs. The
table is an object which belongs to the macro-EW. In the micro-EW, the table does not
exist, there is an amalgam of microparticles which corresponds to the table. As I
emphasized in the past, Bohr’s complementarity (the main principle of I published in
2002-2014) has been changed: the 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 the 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 the 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 the EDWs. So, I have to eliminate even Bohr’s complementarity from our vocabulary.
When the “I” thinks about the Hypernothing, the “framework of thinking” (the self-
EW with its ontology) is contrary to the Hypernothing (with its hyper-ontology). It is the
contrary 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 the Hypernothing. Our mind cannot even think of the Hypernothing. Maybe, a
self would be able to think about the Hypernothing, if it gets out of the mind-EW (self).
So, let us try to think about this possibility. What would it mean “the self is out of itself”?
Obviously, such phenomenon it is quite impossible, but this question can be translated
into “What does it mean to be outside the EW1?” We remember that from what we know,
except for the mind-EW and the Hypernothing, all the EDWs are not, only the ED entities
which belong to these EDWs really exist. An entity “outside” the EW1 means that that
entity “does not belong” to that EW. If the entity is placed effectively at a long “distance”
from the rest of the entities which belong to the EW1, then that entity would still be
“inside” the same EW1 (even if that entity had not yet interacted with any other entity
which belongs to the same EW). No entity can be “outside” an EW, since it does not exist
“outside an EW” (within the unicorn world, we have to say: there is no “outside” the
universe since “space” does not exist, and “place” has no ontological status). Any EW is
not placed within a space (the space does not even exist), so there is only one possibility:
for an entity to be outside the EW1, it would mean that that entity belongs to an EDW.
Therefore, that entity is not “outside” the EW1 but it does not even exist in the EW1.
Parmenides claimed that “Nothing comes from nothing.” Indeed, there would be
the strongest ontological contradiction to consider that the “Universe appeared from
nothing”, as the most physicists believe in our days. They believe there was a separation
between the matter and the antimatter (which together would have represented
“nothing”). First at all, the antimatter has not been found yet. Moreover, there is another
important question: “What did separate matter from antimatter?” Meaningless question
since, according to Parmenides, “nothing can appear from nothing”. As I emphasized
below, Parmenides’ principle is followed by the appearances of my EDWs: the EW1 and
the EW-1 did not appear from nothing, but only in hypercorrespondence to the EW0;
moreover, the EW0 did not exist for the EW1 or the EW-1. So, my EDWs perspective
follows Parmenides’ principle.

80
3.2 Porphyry’s and Damascus’ nothing

For Aristotle, there are three principles: form, “something missing”, and matter (Cornea
2010, p. 212). Essentially, these elements are not the “bricks of reality”, but some
“general functions” which are instantiated in “something”. For Plato, the world is
“substantial”, made from being-nonbeing, while for Aristotle it is “functional made” from
the dichotomy “being-nonbeing”. (Cornea 2010, p. 214) The Hypernothing is beyond the
“substantial” or the “functional” modes of reality, since the Hypernothing is beyond all
the EDWs. Anyway, Aristotle relates the “nonbeing” to the notion of “possibility” which
is unable to become reality from itself, but is necessary as an “external efficient cause”.
(p. 225) The nonbeing is an “unaccomplished possibility”. (Cornea 2010, p. 226) In the
frame furnished by the EDWs perspective, what can I say about the “potentiality”? I can
introduce many ideas about “potentiality”, but I believe this notion is meaningless for
“nature” (i.e. for the entities/processes that belong to the EDWs). I can consider
“potentiality” just as a useful notion in certain explanations, but ontologically speaking
(our language), the “potentiality” has no status. Both Plato and Aristotle worked within
the unicorn world and this was the wrong framework for Plato to find the answer to that
very important notion in his philosophical framework, the “participation” of objects to
the Ideas.
In this section, I mention only the ideas of two philosophers, Porphyry and his
pupil, Damascus, just because their ideas are quite important to our Hypernothing. In
fact, Porphyry’s ideas (who followed somehow Plotinus’ duality between good/ One and
bad/ multiple) are somehow related to my EDWs perspective. His framework is a
religious one within the unicorn world. Porphyry makes the distinction between
“Nonbeing” beyond “Being” (One): “Nonbeing” is placed at the same level as “Being”
(the “intelligible matter”). Moreover, “Nonbeing” is before “Being” (the “matter of
bodies”). (Cornea 2010, p. 362) Cornea remarks that Porphyry tries to post the “Supreme
Principle” in the “Nonbeing”! In my framework, I did not posted the “Supreme Principle”
in the Hypernothing since the EW0 is nothing, so nothing cannot be a principle of a
philosophical framework for existences. However, nothing , i.e., the Hypernothing is just
the EW0, no more. Damascus (the last leader of Platonic Academy) pushes this principle
to the extreme: “Nonbeing” is not only beyond all things, but also beyond “Being”, and
“One”. “Nonbeing” is not the “secondary nonbeing”, it is even superior to “One”.
Beyond “One” there is the “superior Nonbeing”, before “matter” there is the “inferior
Nonbeing”. (p. 364) So, “Nothing” becomes the main element in the “creation of the
world”: “Nothing” created the appearance of the world itself, but essentially, this
“Nothing” is not “part of the world”. (Cornea 2010, p. 364) Everything appears from and
disappears in this “Nothing”. Therefore, all the entities exist just because of “Nothing”
which is out of the world of these objects. The last sentences are quite similar to my main
ideas referring to the Hypernothing. However, Damascus created these essential ideas
within the unicorn world. It is quite confusing to use this expression: “Nothing is out of
all objects”. The question is: Does this “nothing” have any ontological status? If not, how
is it possible all the entities to appear from nothing? Again, my notion of the
“Hypernothing” is quite close to Damascus’ approach. However, Damascus’ philosophy
is constructed within the unicorn world and, therefore, even if “Nothing” is “outside the
world”, for him, there is a “direct causality” between this “Nothing” and the “World”.

81
That is, “Nothing” is in the same “framework” with the “World”, even if “Nothing is
outside the world”. Anyway, it is quite clear that Damascus worked within the unicorn
world. In my EDWs perspective, there is no direct causality between the Hypernothing
and any EW, but there is only a hypercorrespondence between the EW0 and, for instance,
the EW1/EW-1. Moreover, Damascus did not explain how it was possible everything to
appear from “nothing”. From my viewpoint, it was not everything which appeared from
“nothing”, since only the EW1 and the EW-1 hypercorresponded to the EW0. The
appearances of the macro-objects corresponded only indirectly to the electromagnetic
waves and directly to the microparticles (the micro-EW). Therefore, it has to be very
clear that we have directly hypercorrespondence between the EW0 and the EW1/EW-1,
and only indirectly hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and the ED entities from the
micro-EW or the macro-EW.
Within the EDWs perspective, any entity or being is “finite” regarding its features.
The “infinite” as a feature of an entity or in it-self does not exist, anyway. (See last
chapter of our book 2019) Therefore, because of this “finitude”, the Hypernothing has to
“hyperbe” and not “to be”. I repeat, the Hypernothing is neither “infinite” in “time” or
“space” (which anyway do not exist, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016), nor “limited” (in the
illusory “spacetime”). The mind-EW has no such limits, any EW has no such limits, but
there are certain correspondences between an EW which appears at one moment and
some EDWs which have already been. The problem is that the Hyperverse did not appear
(since it always has not been) and did not correspond to something. However, when the
EW1 appeared, it hypercorresponded to the EW0. Again, I strongly emphasize that the
Hypernothing is an EW beyond our mode of thinking (which is the result of the evolution
of the human body within the macro-EW and of its corresponding mind-EW) and even
beyond the EDWs perspective constructed until I dealt with the Hypernothing (our work
2017). The Hypernothing did not appear from “somewhere”, it will not “disappear” in
any future, since it “hyperis” and this notion is beyond certain concepts like “appearance”
or “disappearance”. I situated the Hypernothing beyond the classical laws of thought (the
law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle (or third), and the principle of identity)
and beyond all the physical laws (physical “regularities”), since the Hypernothing hyperis
a hyperbeing. All the ED beings and the ED entities appear and disappear, but it is
meaningless to believe that “the Hypernothing appears or disappears”. The Hypernothing
is an EW beyond the notions like “entity”, “process”, and “law”. It is meaningless, also,
to consider the Hypernothing as being a new form of “God”. “God”, under any form,
cannot even exist. Only “is” can becomes “isn’t”, but “hyperis” is “hyperisn’t”, therefore,
it is meaningless to believe that the Hypernothing will disappear in the future. I recall that
the Hypernothing (like any EW) isn’t for any EDW. There are only correspondences
between the EDWs, but this notion is an abstract term that has no reference in any EW,
i.e., “correspondence” has no ontological status. The Hypernothing is quite close to
“Absolute Nothing” of Ancient Greek philosophers, but it is placed within the EDWs
perspective, not within the unicorn world. However, the Hypernothing hyperis an EW, all
the EDWs are, but all the EDWs have the same order of ontology, that is, the
Hypernothing is not superior or inferior to any EW. This is the reason in our table of
categories (our work 2019), I used verbs and not substantives. So, I introduce here an
important law of the EDWs:

Except for the Hypernothing:

82
- Any EW (or entity) has a limited period of being (or existing).
- Any EW appears from and disappears in “nothing” which (hyper)corresponds to either
an EDW and the Hypernothing or only to the Hypernothing.
- The Hypernothing has neither a limited or unlimited period of being, since the
Hypernothing hyperis and therefore it is meaningless to relate this EW to any particular
limited (or “unlimited”) period of being/existing.

Certainly, the EW1 and the EW-1 hypercorresponds only to the Hypernothing, while the
macro-EW, for instance, corresponds both to the micro-EW and the field-EW and
hypercorrespond to the Hypernothing. Again, “disappear” refers to “is” or “exist”, but it
does not refer to “hyperis”. Even if the mind-EW certainly disappears (“dies”)
somewhere in the future, it does not mean that the Hypernothing is somehow “superior”
to the mind-EW. I state once again that the Hypernothing is beyond the distinction
unlimited-limited being/existence.
The (un)famous philosophical question, “Why is there something else than
nothing?” is meaningless. Only the ED entities exist and the EDWs are, but the
Hypernothing hyperis. “To be/exist” (for any kind of ontology) implies, with necessity,
“not to be/exist” in the future, while “hyperis” refers to the hyperontology (which is
beyond being-nonbeing or existence-nonexistence distinctions). “To be” or “to exist”
means “to disappear in the future”, “to become nothing in the future” (which does not
have any ontological status.). Obviously, any “nothing” corresponds to the Hypernothing,
but it is quite wrong to believe that any entity/being “returns” to the Hypernothing, since
the Hypernothing does not even exist for any EDW. I emphasize again that the
“hyperontology” is not somehow “superior” to “ontology”, since one EW isn’t for any
EDW. In a kind of exacerbate “temporal order”, the hyperontology of the Hypernothing
is prior to the ontology of any EDW. Within the Hypernothing, all the EDWs aren’t, so
how to relate the EW0 to the EW1, the EW2, etc.? I have to avoid the collapse of our
thinking into the regression ad infinitum argument. Following Aristotle on putting a stop
to the regress ad infinitum argument, I have to reject any kind of “infinity”. The
Hypernothing is not “potential” or “actual”, since these logical notions refer to the ED
entities which belong to the EDWs. There is not even an “atemporal order” between the
Hypernothing and the EW1, EW2, etc. just because one EW is not for any EDW, “time”
does not even exist, there is no “causality” between any two EDWs. There is this
dichotomy “hyperontology-ontology” which rejects any “temporal order”. Through
“(Hyper)correspondence”, one will reject any causality between any two EDWs.
Inside the Hypernothing there is no “potentiality” of the EW1/EW-1. The notions of
“actual” and “potential” are meaningless when I refer to (a) the EDWs, and (b) the
Hypernothing and any EDW. So, there is the “hyperis-is” dichotomy which changes
again the framework of thinking: with the EDWs, I moved from the unicorn world to the
EDWs; with the Hypernothing, I make another step forward: the EW1 did not
“correspond” but “hyper-correspond” to the Hypernothing. Can I think that potentially,
the EW1 is somehow inside the Hypernothing before its (EW1) appearance? Meaningless
question. Nothing could “happen” within the Hypernothing in order the EW1 to appear.
The appearance of the EW1 did not involve any kind of “correspondence” to the
Hypernothing, but only a kind of “hyper-correspondence” which excludes any notion that
I can apply to an EDW, any question that I can formulate using the old vocabulary of the
unicorn world or even the vocabulary of the EDWs perspective for all the EDWs except

83
for the Hypernothing. If necessary, maybe I have to attribute Aristotle’s potentiality not to
the Hypernothing but to the EW1, EW2, etc., but I believe we do not need to find a place
for this philosophical notion, any kind of “potentiality” (no ontological status).
The Hypernothing did not correspond to an EDW which was before or at the same
time with it. The mind-EW corresponds to a body which belongs to the macro-EW and
this EW appeared before the mind-EW. Thinking within the unicorn world, I can say that
the relationship between “One” and “plurality” mirrors somehow the relationship
between the Hypernothing and the EDWs: the “One” diverges in different
“determinations”: “each Form being one, the One integrates them because of their
participation, and because the forms integrate also the plurality.” (Cornea 2010, p. 61)
The Hypernothing is the absolute dominant: as the “absolute non-being”, through
hypercorrespondences with the EDWs, the Hypernothing somehow “becomes” the
“hypercorresponding being”. I use “somehow” because this notion is wrong. Again, in
reality, the Hypernothing (which hyperis)corresponds to something which appeared later
– the EW1 and the EW-1. The reader has to clearly understand this statement. Just
because the Hypernothing hyperis, it is meaningless to ask “What EW ‘was’ before the
Hypernothing?” The Hypernothing is beyond the “One-Multiple” distinction, but it
hypercorresponds to all the EDWs. The Hypernothing is not for any EDW. So, it is
meaningless to ask about the any direct relationship between the Hypernothing and the
EDWs. “Plurality” refers to the plurality of objects which really exist in the same EW.
Maybe I can push further the status of the Hypernothing indicating that the Hypernothing
“is” (as an EW) and the Hypernothing “is not” (as referring to its content). But precisely
to avoid any such contradiction (that can be applied to the EDWs but not to the
Hypernothing), I discovered that the Hypernothing hyperis.
All the mental representations (words, thoughts, etc.) are the mind, but the mind has
no property of “extension” (like a table has). About the Hypernothing, I cannot claim this
feature. The Hypernothing is beyond “is not” and “is” (which are in fact the “conditions
of the possibility of hypercorrespondence” to the EDWs). If the Hypernothing only “is
not”, then all the EDWs would not be. Without the conditions of possibilities and those of
potentialities, all the EDWs would not be. Again, I repeat the argument
(a) If the Hypernothing were, all the EDWs would not be.
(b) If the Hypernothing were not, all the EDWs would not be.
Therefore, the Hypernothing hyperis (or hyperisn’t).

Why can I use to contradictory notions (hyperis and hyperisn’t) for the Hypernothing?
Just because the Hypernothing is nothing, and about nothing I can use both verbs without
getting any contradictions. So, it is quite clear that the Hypernothing (as an EW) cannot
be just like all the EDWs (including the mind-EW). In Parmenides, Socrates tells to
Zeno:

When … somebody would come to show that the One-in-itself is itself a plurality and would show that the
plurality is truly the One, I would be very surprised. The same also for the existence of the others;… (129
b-c)

If… the person would firstly make the distinction among the forms-in-itself, the forms themselves – for
instance, similarity and not-similarity, plurality and the One, static and movement, and all the others – and
then he would declare that the forms themselves can be mixed and separated, then, you have to know Zeno
that I would be very surprised. (129d-130a)

84
Within the unicorn world, regarding these statements, Socrates’ position is quite correct.
Within the EDWs perspective, these statements either lead to certain strong ontological
contradictions or are simply meaningless. Parmenides concludes: “If the One is not, then
nothing is”. (Cornea 2010, p. 166c) If we directly translate this statement into our
language, we get a wrong statement: “If the Hypernothing is not, nothing is no”. The
correct statement would be: “As an EW, the Hypernothing hyperis”. To claim that
“nothing” exists in this EW is quite wrong. Only with my framework, we can avoid
Parmenides’ ontological paradoxes. “The Hypernothing hyperis” because it cannot be
something else. The Hypernothing has no “correspondence” with something else that was
before it, since in this case “before” is meaningless, even if we use the correspondence.
All the ED entities hypercorrespond to the Hypernothing in the same way a microparticle
corresponds to a wave. The Hypernothing “hyper-corresponds” (directly or indirectly) to
all the entities which belong to the EDWs.
Vieru informs us that none of Plato’s antinomies have solutions. (Vieru, p. 65)
Obviously, within the unicorn world, there could not be a real solution to any such
antinomy. Not surprisingly, Noica writes a table for Plato’s categories. I remember that
only Aristotle and Kant, among those 12 philosophers, created a “categorical table” for
their philosophies. Such “categorical table” would include notions that are common to
our mode of thinking and our language, but there are many EDWs which we have not
discovered yet, and some of these new EDWs can impose other categories. Moreover, the
Hypernothing has no feature (even this affirmation is quite wrong just because we can
say nothing about the EW0), while any EW has (or its entities have) certain features.
Otherwise, the Hypernothing would not be the Hypernothing (i.e., beyond the “Prime
Mover”). Therefore, I suggest to the reader: “Don’t even try to think of the features of the
Hypernothing”. Then, what could be the help for any investigation of the Hypernothing?
The hyperbeing of the Hypernothing is absolutely necessary to “hyperbe” just in order to
avoid the regress ad infinitum argument. Rejecting the existence of the “infinity” and any
“God”, I need to discover (not to conceive) the Hypernothing. The “infinite” (like “God”)
cannot even exist. Time and space do not exist, the question “What is there beyond the
boundary/edge/margin of the Universe?” is meaningless, since the edge of the Universe
does not exist. What really exist are the ED entities and their processes which belong to
the EDWs, but the notion like the “macro-EW”, for instance, is an abstract notion. So, the
main verdict is the following: nothing appeared from the Hypernothing. The
Hypernothing only hypercorresponded to the spontaneous appearances and
entities/processes which belonged to the EW1 and the EW-1 (or maybe more pairs of the
positive and the negative EDWs appeared spontaneously at the same “moment” – we
don’t know). The correspondences between any EW and the Hypernothing are vital. I can
claim that the Hypernothing “is One and Multiple” at the same time or “is not One and is
not Multiple”. It is possible to think that both statements (“is-is” “neither-nor”) are
available for the Hypernothing. However, both statements are incorrect because I cannot
use “is” or “is not” for the Hypernothing. Only working within the framework of the
EDWs, I would produce such controversial judgments about the Hypernothing.
I do not need to rethink the EDWs perspective. However, in order to investigate the
Hypernothing, I need a dramatic extension of the EDWs perspective. The reader will
believe that I am doing here just a methodological discourse, but I am not doing
something like this. Is the Hypernothing the “conditions of the possibilities” of the being

85
of all the EDWs? No. The Hypernothing is not even the “possibilities” of EDWs. These
possibilities do not really exist, not even as “possibilities”. It has to be clear that:
(a) With all the above written statements, I moved from Plato’s method to an
hyperontological discourse, but even the “ontologies” of all the EDWs are not enough for
the Hypernothing. I need a hyperontology: “the Hypernothing hyperis”.
(b) Only in this way, I can stop the regress ad infinitum argument and we go beyond
Aristotle’s “Prime Mover”: I reach not the “First Movement”, but the EW0 and the
EDWs and these EDWs have the ED entities with different features (we don’t know
exactly what kind of features, but probably motion is included.)
Let me develop Aristotle’s “Unmoved mover”: the Greek philosopher was very
correct in thinking the “Prime” (which produced the first movement of something else) to
be “unmoved”. Otherwise, if this “prime” were in motion, something else would have
had to produce that movement and I would fall into the regress ad infinitum argument.
So, it was necessary for the “Prime mover” to be “unmoved”. I apply the same principle
of thinking to the Hypernothing, but I replace “motion” with “existence”/”being”. What
is the first EW that really is? The EW1 and the EW-1. Then what did “produce”
(correspondence) their appearance? “The EW0?”. No, there is only the
hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and that pair of EDWs (EW1 - EW-1). So,

Aristotle’s “Unmoved mover” is transformed into (wrong expression) “Not-existing that

produces existing”, that is, (correct expressions) “the Hypernothing (which hyperis)
hypercorresponds to the pairs of EDWs”.

So, from a particular feature (Aristotle’s “motion”), I move to the main concept:
“existence/being”. It has to be clear that I cannot claim that “Everything appeared from
nothing”. This statement is quite a strong ontological contradiction. Moreover, it is quite
impossible for the EW0 to “be”. Otherwise, if “the EW0 is”, then an EDW would be
necessary for the being of the EW0, and this is quite impossible, since the “infinity”
(neither in “time”, nor in “space”, which anyway do not even exist) does not exist. I
needed to discover (neither to invent, nor to presuppose) the EW0 which “is not” but
“hyperis”. Exactly in this way, I stopped the regress ad infinitum argument of the being of
EDWs, i.e., the regress ad infinitum argument of existences/beings (exactly as Aristotle
stopped the regress ad infinitum argument using his notion of “motion”). It would be
quite wrong to consider that “the Hypernothing is”. Only judging within this framework
of thinking, I would discover that “the Hypernothing hyperis”. What “hyperis” the
Hypernothing? Again:

The Hypernothing hyperis Hypernothing and nothing else.

This statement is quite important: it indicates, again, that the Hypernothing has no
features/trait, no ontology, but a kind of hyperontology. It is not “nothing” (which does
not have any ontology), but the Hypernothing and nothing else. That is, the Hypernothing
is not something that has an ED “reality” than all the EDWs, but it hyperis the
Hypernothing and nothing else. It means that the Hypernothing is even stronger than
“nothing”: stronger in a sense that if “nothing” has no ontology, the Hypernothing has a
hyperontology. It does not mean that the Hypernothing really is/exist. From the viewpoint
of the EW0, the EW1 and the EW-1 did never appear. The EW1 and the EW-1 appeared

86
each only in itself. However, without the hypercorrespondence between the EW0 and the
EW1/EW-1, the EW1/EW-1 could not appeared. But, the EW0 is “nothing”, so why did it
matter for that hypercorrespondence? Nothing, through the hypercorrespondence, could
“hyper-determine” the appearance of the EW1/EW-1. It would be clear that if there were
something else and not the Hypernothing, then it would have been something else than
the EW1/-1.
It seems that between the hypercorrespondence and the correspondence is a kind
of tension which it sends to a kind of “self-organization” for the Hypernothing and
nothing. Because of this self-organization (that pre-ontology), through
hypercorrespondence, the EW1/EW-1 appeared (that pre-ontology became ontology of
the EW1/EW-1). Again, the EW1 and the EW-1 do not exist for the EW0, but together
these two EDWs represent “nothing” for the Hypernothing. So, the EW1 is an illusion for
EW0, exactly as the macro-EW is an illusion for the micro-EW, or the mind-EW is an
illusion for the brain (macro-EW). All the EDWs have never (hyper)existed for the EW0.
My self does not exist for the EW0 (it is an illusion for my self, it is a self-illusion for
itself). In reality, the EDWs do not exist, they are not, the ED entities do exist. Therefore
it is meaningless to ask when started everything. The relationship between the EW1/EW-
1 and the EW0 does not exist. In actual notions, the matter and the antimatter correspond
to “nothing” (the Hypernothing), but the matter does not exist for the antimatter, and the
matter is represented by all the ED entities from the EDWs. Maybe the “evolution” of the
EDWs have corresponded to the evolution of the anti-EDWs, I don’t know. But I am
convinced that together the EW1 and the EW-1 represented “nothing” for the EW0 just
because “Nothing has changed in the Hypernothing!” It has to be very clear: all the
EDWs and all the anti-EDWs are all in the same place and correspond to “nothing”, i.e.,
the Hypernothing. All the EDWs are just illusions for each self (they cannot have
ontology in relationship with the self).
The EDWs perspective is not about the “relative ontology” since I do not talk
about “different worlds”, “different realities” (I talk about the EDWs: one EW does not
exist/are for any EDW). For understanding better the EDWs perspective, the reader has to
put together Spinoza’s pantheism, Leibniz’s pre-established harmony (not monad), Kant’s
transcendentalism, and Berkeley’s idealism (but, anyway, the EDWs perspective is
something beyond all these approaches). I have to eliminate “God” (any kind of God)
from all those approaches. Time and space do not exist, the relationships between the
EDWs do not exist since one does not exist for any EDW, therefore, to ask when the
EW1 appeared it is meaningless. In reality, this question would be post by “nobody” (for
the Hypernothing), so it has to be meaningless.
During my entire career, I have been working on the great problems of certain
particular sciences and philosophy. With my EDWs perspective, I have solved the mind-
brain problem, emergence, personal identity and all the problems of Cognitive
Neuroscience/Cognitive Science. In the same time, I have been working on the great
problems of Physics (much less as time in the past, but in the last years, I have been
working only on these problems) like the problems of Quantum Mechanics, the
relationship between Einstein's general relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the principles
of thermodynamics, etc. The reader has no be aware that, with my EDWs perspective, I
have solved all these great problems! It has remained only one question: “From where
EVERYTHING appeared?” With the EDWs and the Hypernothing, I have furnished

87
partially (not completely) the answer. Finally, I have founded more details for this
answer. I combined Spinoza's pantheism, Kant’s transcendentalism, Berkeley's idealism
and Leibniz's pre-established harmony (no monad), but I excluded “God” from my
equation. In fact, I extended Kant’s transcendentalism (I did this in the past in my EDWs
perspective), but now I extended his approach in other direction. In this way, I furnished a
new argument about the Hypernothing (EW0) and its hyperrelationship with the
EW1/EW-1, the EW2 etc. It is not a relativization of “ontology”, on the contrary…
“From the viewpoint of the Hypernothing, there are no EDWs, there is no evolution of
the EDWs and the -EDWs.

88
Chapter 4

Immediately after many “Big Bangs”: the “anisotropies” from

Cosmology within the EDWs

If you want to find the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.
(Nikola Tesla)

As the scientists accept today, the Big Bang happened 13.82 billions years ago. In reality,
it was not a real “Big Bang”, a real explosion, but it was just the appearance of matter in
a “space” created at the same moments, the temperature being 1000 trillions degree
Celsius immediately after that explosion. The electromagnetic fields was released
380.000 years after that Big Bang and then the first microparticles (quarks and photons)
appeared in this “spacetime” framework. The “Universe” expanded, the temperature
constantly decreasing.

About one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons formed, and within a few
minutes these particles stuck together to form atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and helium. Hundreds of
thousands of years later, electrons stuck to the nuclei to make complete atoms.
About a billion years after the Big Bang, gravity caused these atoms to gather in huge clouds of
gas, forming collections of stars known as galaxies. Gravity is the force that pulls any objects with mass
towards one another -- the same force, for example, that causes a ball thrown in the air to fall to the earth.
(https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html?
fbclid=IwAR3jKHFI8ZpqiEAg6TRibBnbHmxtQVZWbyZGkQtmd4oSWgxcwyP5MmOzjs)

The expansion of the “Universe” and the creation of certain elements in certain quantities
is another prove of the Big Bang. (idem) As I indicate in this work and other works, there
was not only one Big Bang, but many Big Bangs at the same time (just in order to avoid
Guth’s inflation which would surpass the speed of light c). More than this, there were not
really “Big Bangs”, but just “appearances” in different places which created the first EW
after these Big Bangs, let me call it the “first-after-Big-Bangs-EW”, probably a kind of
plasma, I don’t know. I exclude Big Bang from our equation just because I am convince
that before these Big Bangs and this EW, there was a “pre-Big-Bangs-EW”. Therefore,
these Big Bangs were just certain correspondences between these two EDWs. The first-
after-Big-Bangs-EW was a kind of plasma-EW with a very high temperature. The first
entities which evaded from this plasma-EW were the electromagnetic fields. Later, the
micro-particles which “continually pop out into and out of existence” exactly because of
their correspondences with the electromagnetic waves/field. (See Tyson’s history about
these “EDWs” in section 1.1 of this work)
Let me suppose I take out even the the “first-EW-after-Big-Bangs”. Do we get
“nothing”? Even in such case, the physicist would tell you that “space” and “time”
(“spacetime”) remain everywhere. But space and time do not exist. There will remain the
“nothing” which corresponds to “something” that belongs to an EDW rather than the
field-EW. However, this EDW was not the Hypernothing, since before the Big Bangs
(not only one, but many Big Bangs at the same time so as to avoid Guth’s “inflation” that
“surpassed” the speed of light c – see Vacariu 2014), there was at least one EDW then all

89
the EDWs that appeared after those “Big Bangs” (I indicated this idea long time ago – see
I 2007 or 2008!). And this EW would correspond to an EDW and so on in the “past”
since we reach the EW1 which finally hypercorresponded to the Hypernothing.
Within the EDWs perspective, I can use certain methods from “Cosmology” to
indicate the correspondences referring to the formation of the ED entities belonging to
the EDWs. For instance, the physicists use three methods to indicate the large-scale
structure of the “Universe” and its expansion: (1) measurements of cosmic background
radiation40 (2) mapping the galaxies (3) determinations of distances and velocities of
superstar type Ia explosions. (Bojowald 2010, pp. 153-4) I can use the results of these
methods to identify certain correspondences between the formation of the EDWs like the
field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-EW.
Obviously, the physicists believe that the “quantum field theory” indicates that the
“nothing” cannot even exist. Surely, the “empty space is ruled out by the laws of
physics”, but from my viewpoint even the “empty space” cannot even exist and the “laws
of physics are just “regularities”. Let us suppose that after the “Big Bangs” and that
plasma-EW with very high temperature, the next EW was the field-EW. The cosmic
background radiation had certain “irregularities” (i.e., “anisotropies”) in its directional
distributions (Bojowald 2010, p. 156) and these anisotropies indicates “how gravitational
attractions led slightly denser than the average to grow” (p. 156) which led, finally, to the
formation of the microparticles and later to the formation of planets (and galaxies).41

In the very early universe, the distribution of matter as well as radiation was almost homogeneous: nearly
equal at all places. Slight fluctuations existed nonetheless, seeds that at later times, after the radiation
pressure decreased, led to the buildup of much denser regions, eventually culminating in galaxies. Traces of
these small inhomogeneities are still discernible from the directional distribution of cosmic background
radiation: Its intensity varies slightly from different parts of the sky. (Bojowald 2010, p. 155)

We can see here quite clear the formation of the EDWs after the Big Bang, but we have to
replace the “Universe” (the unicorn world) with the EDWs. Moreover, within the EDWs

40
“The first direct observation of the cosmic microwave background was made inadvertently in 1964 by
American physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Telephone Laboratories, the research branch
of AT&T. In the 1960s everyone knew about microwaves, but almost no one had the technology to detect
them. Bell Labs, a pioneer in the communications industry, developed a beefy, horn-shaped antenna for just
that purpose.” (Tyson 2017, p. 79) “Meanwhile, a team of physicists at Princeton, led by Robert Dicke, was
building a detector specifically to find the CMB. But they didn’t have the resources of Bell Labs, so their
work went a little slower. And the moment Dicke and his colleagues heard about Penzias and Wilson’s
work, the Princeton team knew exactly what the observed excess antenna temperature was. Everything fit:
especially the temperature itself, and that the signal came from every direction in the sky.” (Tyson 2017, p.
81)
41
“Then you map the cosmic microwave background in detail, you find that it’s not completely smooth. It’s
got spots that are slightly hotter and slightly cooler than average. By studying these temperature variations
in the CMB—that is to say, by studying patterns in the surface of last scatter—we can infer what the
structure and content of the matter was in the early universe. To figure out how galaxies and clusters and
superclusters arose, we use our best probe, the CMB—a potent time capsule that empowers astrophysicists
to reconstruct cosmic history in reverse. Studying its patterns is like performing some sort of cosmic
phrenology, as we analyze the skull bumps of the infant universe.” (Tyson 2017, p. 85) Together with other
thousands of galaxies (between 100,000 and 150,000 galaxies), Milky Way galaxy belongs to the
supercluster Laniekea (“immense heaven” in Hawaiian) spreading across 520 million light-years.
(https://www.physics-astronomy.org/2022/02/astronomers-make-incredible-discovery.html?
fbclid=IwAR3JcjkQcZxAR4fm2S6WSr3XuYRBxlGER_1PZQDturTKeoR1pqn7d8tdsHY)

90
perspective, we have to reject the ontology of “spacetime”. The wavelenght of the
anisotropy spectrum is not a “measure of the curvature of space at a given time” (as
Bojowald indicates, p. 157). The planets (galaxies) (corresponding to the curved
electromagnetic waves) did not “curve” the surrounding “spacetime”, they “curved
nothing” which corresponded to the electromagnetic waves which surrounded the
concentrated electromagnetic fields which corresponded to the planets. In the past, these
anisotropies were nothing more than “glued” or “inflected” electromagnetic waves in the
field-EW. Except for the Hypernothing, all the EDWs appear “out of nothing”, but this
“nothing” corresponded to a previous EDW. Therefore, this “nothing” has a different
meaning for us: it has no ontology and “it” corresponds to an EDW. Within the EDWs
perspective, I have changed Einstein’s verdict: the “gravity” would be not the “curvature
of spacetime” (“spacetime” cannot even exist), but it is the “curvature of nothing” which
corresponds to “something” which belongs to an EDW. In the macro-EW, the “gravity” is
the curvature of “nothing” which corresponds to the “inflected electromagnetic waves”
(the field-EW). So, the electromagnetic field was curved exactly as Einstein wanted to
curve his spacetime (in order to eliminate Newton’s very strange notion of “gravity”).
Similar with the non-existed “spacetime”, the longer the distance from the corresponding
“planets”, the straighter are these electromagnetic waves; if these electromagnetic waves
are closer to the concentrated amalgam of electromagnetic waves or electromagnetic field
(which it corresponds to a planet), they are more curved. So, with my EDWs, I eliminate
even Einstein’s relative “spacetime”.42 With this new view, I replace Einsteins’ gravity
(the curvature of spacetime) with the curvature of “nothing” which corresponds to the
curvature of the electromagnetic field (the field-EW). An apple (which corresponds to an
amalgam of the electromagnetic waves) falls downs just because the nothing which
surrounds the apple corresponds to a curved electromagnetic field. Therefore, the
amalgam of electromagnetic waves (corresponding to the apple) falls down just because
the surrounding electromagnetic field (corresponding to the “nothing” which surrounds
a “planet”) is curved by a huge amalgam of electromagnetic waves (corresponding to the
planet). In our view, this is the “gravity”!

But if gravity is supposed to be nothing but the force transmitted by the exchange of gravitons, why, then,
can gravitons, messengers analogous to the photons of light, leave the black hole to bring notice of the
strong central force to the neighborhood? Reconciling the elementary picture of gravitational quanta with
the powerful processes bending even space and time is one of the main difficulties of quantum gravity.
(Bojowald 2010, p. 226)

Obviously, there would be no “gravitons” since Newton had no idea to explain “what is
the force of gravity” and Einstein’s general relativity indicated that the “gravity” would
be not a force (there would be no “force of gravity”), but just the “curved spacetime”.
However, gravity is neither a force (Newton), nor the “curved spacetime” (Einstein’s
general relativity), since “spacetime” cannot even exist (see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016b).
In reality, the gravity between the macro-entities (the macro-EW which correspond to the
microparticles (the micro-EW) which correspond to the electromagnetic waves (the field-
42
One problem that we have discussed in our book 2016 was about the presence of “spacetime” and all the
EDWs (their ED entities): there have been the ED spacetimes for the ED entities or the same spacetime?
Moreover, if the spacetime has an ontology, how does it (or its microparticles) directly interacts with a
planet or a microparticle?

91
EW)) is only the “nothing curved” (no ontology) by the “planets” (the macro-EW) and
this “nothing” corresponds to the inflected electromagnetic wave (the field-EW). So,
there are the ED ontologies proper to the ED entities from the corresponding EDWs: the
field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-EW. It is not the expansion of “space” (which
cannot exist), but the extension of the electromagnetic waves (speed c) and the
corresponding extension of the galaxies (much lower speeds, of course) just because of
the correspondences between the electromagnetic waves and the planets (which form the
galaxies; the galaxies do not have any ontological status, only the planets have
ontological status). Close asks standard and old questions in philosophy and physics:

This led to my final question: what if there were no life, no Earth, no planets, Sun, or stars, no atoms with
the potential to be reorganized into future somethings; what if there were just emptiness? Having removed
everything from my mental image of the universe, I tried to imagine the nothing that remained. I discovered
then what philosophers have known throughout the ages: it is very hard to think about the void. (Close
2009, p. 2)

Indeed, it is very hard to think about the “emptiness” or the “void”. It is more difficult to
think about the hyperbeing of the Hypernothing, but following our new framework of
thinking, the reader can understand that “the Hypernothing really hyperis”.

… if I have removed everything, then is space still expanding? In turn this begs the question of what
defines space when everything is taken out. Does space exist independent of things, in the sense that if I
had mentally removed all those planets, stars, and assorted pieces of matter, space would remain, or would
the removal of matter do away with space as well? So let’s begin our quest to see what insights wiser heads
from history can offer as we try to answer questions such as: could we empty space of everything and if so,
what would result? Why did the Big Bang not happen sooner? What was God doing the day before
creation? Or was there always something that turned into us? (Close 2009, p. 4)43

Reading Close’s book, the reader could have the feeling that indeed the “nothing” could
not exist. Indeed, does space exist or not? No, space cannot even exist, but between the
planets is “nothing” which corresponds to the electromagnetic field (from the field-EW).
Why did not the Big Bangs happen sooner? Because in the pre-Big-Bangs-EW, at that
moment something happened and many corresponding Big Bangs appeared in the first-
after-Big-Bangs-EW. Again, what does “exist” mean within the EDWs perspective? The
existence requires an ontological status within a particular EW. Is, then, the same
“nothing” between the macro-entities and the micro-entities? Meaningless question since
nothing does not have any ontological status. The Higgs’s field (discovered in 2012,
mentioned by Close) and the bosons, the gravitational field and the electromagnetic
waves, the quantum fluctuations and other physical stuff cannot allow the “void” to exist.
From my viewpoint, the space cannot even exist (see our book 2016), therefore, I have
replaced the “space” with “nothing” (which anyway cannot have any ontological status)
43
“What happened before all this? What happened before the beginning? Astrophysicists have no idea. Or,
rather, our most creative ideas have little or no grounding in experimental science. In response, some
religious people assert, with a tinge of righteousness, that something must have started it all: a force greater
than all others, a source from which everything issues. A prime mover. In the mind of such a person, that
something is, of course, God. But what if the universe was always there, in a state or condition we have yet
to identify—a multiverse, for instance, that continually births universes? Or what if the universe just
popped into existence from nothing? Or what if everything we know and love were just a computer
simulation rendered for entertainment by a superintelligent alien species? These philosophically fun ideas
usually satisfy nobody.” (Tyson 2017, pp. 46-7)

92
which almost always corresponds to something from an EDW. Moreover, if we remove
everything from a particular EW (the field-EW, the macro-EW and the micro-EW, for
instance), there remains the “nothing” which corresponds to the many EDWs which
finally hypercorrespond to the “Hypernothing” (an EDW). The “expansion of the
Universe” is due to the correspondences between the macro-entities (the planets which
“form” the galaxies) and the corresponding microparticles, and mainly between the
correspondences between the microparticles and the electromagnetic waves. There is no
other force which produces the expansion of the “Universe”. The waves have the constant
speeds c, therefore, the microparticles which correspond to the electromagnetic waves
tend toward this speed c and, therefore, the corresponding macro-entities (planets, etc.)
also increase their speed just because of these correspondences.
As we already know, except for the mind-EW and the Hypernothing, any EW is
not. Essentially, only the entities and the interactions (that belong to an abstract,
particular EW) really exist, i.e., they have an ontological status. I “label” any set of such
entities and their interactions as “EW”, but except for the mind-EW and the
Hypernothing, from what we know today, any other EDW is not (does not “exist”) in
itself, i.e., it does not have any ontological status. The elimination of the existence
(ontological status) of EDWs (as entities or processes) helps us to eliminate the existence
of “spacetime” (space and time) and to introduce the Hypernothing into equation. Most of
the EDWs have no ontological status, so I use labels (“empty words”) that help us
(pragmatism) to explain certain real ED phenomena (the real ED entities and their
interactions).
Essentially, we have to understand that the notion of “causality” between the
entities which belong to any two EDWs is meaningless, since an EW does not exist for
any EDW. The idea that “an EW is the cause of an EDW” is totally meaningless. For
instance, it is meaningless to claim that the brain “causes” the mind (Searle 1992) or the
wave causes a microparticle or an amalgam of microparticles causes a macro-object.
Therefore, it is meaningless to claim that the Hypernothing (an EW) “caused” the
appearance of any EDW, for instance of EW1. As an EW, the Hypernothing does not
exist/is for any EDW, but maybe it still hypercorresponds to everything that surrounds
your body (including your body) and without this correspondence, any EW would not be.
Moreover, it is meaningless to consider that the pre-Big-Bangs-EW caused, directly, the
appearance of the first-after-Big-Bangs-EW (the plasma-EW). There is only a
correspondence between these two (or more) EDWs. Most contemporary thinkers will
reject our explanation of the Hypernothing, but I am sure that the Hypernothing is the
best explanation for the origin of the EDWs. Maybe about the Hypernothing, it is better
to say nothing today. Even in this context, I am aware that I have to discover (not invent)
the categories of the EDWs perspective. Within the EDWs perspective, it is meaningless
to ask not only about “space” and “time”, but also about the “borders” or “boundaries”.
An EW is not (like the macro-EW where the “galaxies” are placed), it has no boundaries.
An EW which is, also does not have boundaries: the mind-EW does not have
“boundaries” (only the brain (not an EW, just an entity) which corresponds to the mind
(an EW and an entity) has boundaries). So, I can claim that:

Any EW does not have any kind of boundaries.

93
Except for these EDWs, the notion of “EW” is an abstract notion, since what really exist
are the entities and their interactions, but nothing more or less. So, there is neither space
(or spacetime), nor boundaries of any EW. There is no space for the macro-EW (or the
micro-EW), therefore, exactly as for the mind-EW, asking about the boundaries of the
macro-EW (or the micro-EW) is meaningless. That is, obviously, there are galaxies at the
“margin” (abstract notion) of the macro-EW (the “Universe”), but beyond these galaxies,
there is not even “nothing” (I can insert “nothing” only between two entities that belong
to an EW). Therefore, the question “What is there beyond these galaxies?” is
meaningless, since I cannot even answer: “Nothing”. The same reason is to ask what was
there before the Hypernothing, that is going “back in time”. Anyway, “time” does not
exist, but even if I ask about “time”, the question about the entities/interactions “before
the EW1” is completely meaningless. Even if “time” had existed, it would be
meaningless to ask “What was there before the EW1?”, since there were no entities and
no interactions, and nothing does not have any “ontology”. The Hypernothing which
hypercorresponds to the EW1 has a hyperontology, so it “is not”, but “hyperis”. Even the
illusory “spacetime” would be a wrong presupposition, I cannot talk about “nothing”
within the Hypernothing. Since the Hypernothing has no entities and/or processes, it is
meaningless to talk about “nothing” there. As many other physicists, Kaku also claims
that the “Universe” appeared “out of nothing” (2016), even if apparently it violates the
principle of conservation of the matter and energy44: matter has a negative energy, gravity
has a positive energy

For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far
from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar
system had negative energy. (Kaku 2016)

Except for the Hypernothing, all the EDWs appear “out of nothing”, but this “nothing”
has a different meaning for me: it has no ontology and “it” corresponds to an EDW.
Moreover, I have changed Einstein’s verdict: the gravity is not the curvature of
“spacetime” (which does not even exist), but it is the curvature of “nothing” which
corresponds to “something” which belongs to an EDW. Obviously, there are no
“gravitons” since, as Einstein’s general relativity indicates, there is no “force of gravity”.
However, gravity is neither the “curved spacetime” (Einstein’s general relativity) since
“spacetime” cannot even exist. In reality, from my EDWs perspective, the gravity
between the macro-entities is only the “nothing curved” which corresponds to the curved
electromagnetic wave (the field-EW).
Kaku suggests that it was possible for our universe to have been born from the
collision of other two universes. (idem) We have no idea about this collision, but anyway,
these two” universes” would be two “parts” (abstract notion) of the same macro-EW. In
fact, in this case, “universes” mean just certain amalgams of many (hundreds of billions,
as we know today) “galaxies” (abstract notion), which are amalgams of stars and planets
which really exist in the macro-EW (an abstract notion). These planets correspond to
huge amalgams of microparticles which correspond to the waves/field-EW, and all these
ED entities correspond to the Hypernothing (which, as to stop Aristotle’s regress ad
infinitum argument, has to “hyperbe”).
44
I recall, the physicists introduced the anti-matter in their equation. Anti-matter and matter represent
“nothing” before any beginning.

94
 Let me clarify again a well-known question in Physics and Philosophy: “What is
the origin of the Universe?”. Within the EDWs perspective, this question is indeed a
pseudo-question. Why? Not only because the “Universe” does not exist, but also because
there is no “origin” of it: any EW spontaneously appeared from “nothing” which
corresponded to an EDW. However, I can re-write this question: “What is the origin of
EDWs?” Maybe the reader will be surprised, but even within the EDWs perspective, this
question is meaningless. I can think that the EW1 is the first EW and then ask “What was
the origin of EW1?” However, this question is also a pseudo-question, since the
Hypernothing is not the “origin” of the EW1 (even if without the Hypernothing, the EW1
would not even exist). The Hypernothing corresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1, but the
correspondences is something completely different from the “origin”. The relationships
between the “hyperbeing” and “be” and between the EW0 and the EW1/EW-1” do not
exist. With the EDWs perspective, scientists and philosophers needed to change their
vocabularies and their framework of thinking. Now, with the Hypernothing, they need to
change again part of their new vocabulary. Can I claim that the Hypernothing is the
“origin” of the EDWs? No, since the Hypernothing did not exist for the EDWs and,
moreover, the Hypernothing was not “something” that could be considered as being the
“origin” of something else. Therefore, it would be meaningless to claim that the
Hypernothing was the “origin of all the EDWs”, even if, this EW “was” before any EDW
and without the Hypernothing, none of the EDWs were possible. The meanings of the
notions like “origin” and “causality” are completely lost when these notions refer to the
ED entities/processes and their interactions which belong to at least two EDWs. We have
to remember that “always” the Hypernothing hyperis the EW0. Let us introduce another
principle, “the postulate of existence/being”:

In order for an entity/EW to exist/be sometime in the past inevitably it has “to cease
existing/being” in the future. By definition, the actual notion of “existence”/“being” has
to contain “ceasing existing/being”, or better, “existing”/”being” today means “ceasing
existing”/“being” in the future. Otherwise, no entity would exist (no EW would be). This
is the reason, “the Hypernothing hyperis”, while “all the EDWs are”.

From this principle, we can see the difference between the “is” and the “hyperis”: the
actual “is” involves the “non-is” in the future, while the “hyperis” is also the “hyperis” in
the future, that is, what it hyperis, it does not mean it will disappear (since “nothing”
cannot even disappear).

95
Chapter 5

Rosenblum and Kuttner’s work (2006) on quantum mechanics “for

everybody” and the EDWs perspective

Rosenblum and Kuttner (2006) investigate in their work, quantum mechanics’s mysteries.
I deal with this work just because it is a “popular” one, without mathematics and very
complicated notions. It is a perfect work to deal it, to deal the main topics of quantum
mechanics (QM) with my EDWs perspective. I have managed the main topics of QM
with my EDWs perspective in my previous works, but in this chapter, following this
work, we deal systematically the main topics of QM from my perspective. The book is
written for everybody (no mathematics, no formulas), therefore, I believe my
“description/interpretation” (see below) of QM from the EDWs perspective can be
understood by everybody.45
Let me start investigating, from my viewpoint, the main ideas of this book. The
authors mention, several times, Einstein’s words about the QM:

Einstein was bothered by the theory’s claim that if you observed an atom to be someplace, it was your
looking that caused it to be there — it wasn’t there before you saw it. Does that apply to big things? In
principle, yes. Deriding quantum theory, Einstein once asked a fellow physicist, only half-jokingly, if he
believed the moon is there only when you look at it. (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, pp. 9-10)46

From my viewpoint, Einstein was right: the atom has existed “there” before we
“measured” it. The atom is in the micro-EW, while the “its” wave is in the wave-EW.
Obviously, the “moon” is also there, in the macro-EW, surrounding the Earth, before we
“look at it”. The authors mention that their books focus on the fact that the quantum
theory rejects the “real word independent of its observation”. (p. 10) In this chapter, I will
focus on indicating that the real world, i.e., the EDWs, really exists “independent of their
observations”.

As a graduate student I puzzled about the related “wave-particle duality.” It’s the paradox that, in one
experiment, an atom could be shown to be a compact, concentrated thing; but with a different experiment,
you could have shown that atom to be something spread out over a wide region. (Rosenblum and Kuttner
2006, p. 10)

In reality, from my EDWs perspective, in one experiment, we can see the atom (in the
micro-EW), while in an EDWs, the wave-EW, we can see a part of the wave (“something
spread out over a wide region”) which corresponds to the atom. From the beginning, it
has to be very clear that the atom, as a physical reality, is not “spread over a wide
region”, the atom is not “superimposed” in different places. The atom is in one place,
while, obviously, the corresponding electromagnetic wave is spread over a wide region.

45
For the investigations, from my EDWs perspective, of many other works written by physicists and
philosophers about quantum mechanics, see my previous works.
46
I mention here that I will prefer quoting many paragraphs from Rosenblum and Kuttner’s book just
because English is not my native language.

96
quantum theory tells us that an observation of one object can instantaneously influence the behavior of
another greatly distant object — even if no physical force connects the two. Einstein rejected such
influences as “spooky interactions,” but they have now been demonstrated to exist. Quantum theory also
tells us that observing an object to be someplace causes it to be there. For example, according to quantum
theory, an object can be in two, or many, places at once — even far distant places. Its existence at the
particular place it happens to be found becomes an actuality only upon its (conscious) observation.
This seems to deny the existence of a physically real world independent of our observation of it.
You can see why Einstein was troubled. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 12)

As I explained in our previous works (2006, 2007, 2008, etc.), this “spooky interactions”
represent nothing more than the electromagnetic wave that “relate”, indirectly, through
correspondence, those two microparticles. We have, indeed, the non-locality between
those two microparticles just furnished by the correspondence between them and the
electromagnetic wave. However, there are EDWs, not the unicorn world. When we move
an electron, for instance, the other electron moves almost instantly just because, at the
same time, we move an end of the electromagnetic wave which moves the other end of
that wave almost instantly. Because of the movement of this wave, through
correspondence, the other electron moves almost instantly in the direction we moved the
first electron. Here, it is about exactly Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”. I totally
disagree with QT which considers that Schrödinger’s cat is both live and death until we
observe it.47 In reality, within the EDWs, inside only one box, the cat is live or death
before we “measure” it.

Though the paradoxical nature of light disturbed Einstein, he clung to his photon hypothesis. He declared
that a mystery existed in Nature and that we must confront it. He did not pretend to resolve the problem.
And we do not pretend to resolve it here in this book. The mystery is still with us a hundred years later. The
implications of our being able to choose to prove either of two contradictory things extend beyond physics.
It’s the quantum enigma. I will see far-out speculations being seriously proposed. (Rosenblum and Kuttner
2006, p. 61)

Einstein was aware about the quantum enigma, Rosenblum and Kuttner declare that, after
100 years, this problem is not solved yet! Obviously, everybody working within the
unicorn world, nobody could have solved this problem. De Broglie accepts Einstein’s
duality about the light, but he extends this duality to the electrons and all the

47
“Schrödinger’s cat, according to quantum theory, could be simultaneously dead and alive — until your
observation causes it to be either dead or alive. Moreover, finding the cat dead would create a history of its
developing rigor mortis; finding it alive would create a history of its developing hunger — backward in
time.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, 2006, p. 13) Bohr’s slogan (“Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics
has not understood it.” idem) had been available within the unicorn world! Rosenblum and Kuttner mention
that the “quantum enigma has challenged physicists for eight decades. Is it possible that crucial clues lie
outside the expertise of physicists? Remarkably, the enigma can be presented essentially full-blown to
nonscientists. Might someone unencumbered by years of training in the use of quantum theory have a new
insight? After all, it was a child who pointed out that the emperor wore no clothes.” I has been the child
which indicated that the “emperor” has no clothes!

97
microparticles.48 We have not to forget, this wave-particle duality is constructed by de
Broglie within the unicorn world.

We close it with physicists in 1923 finally forced to accept a wave – particle duality: A photon, an electron,
an atom, a molecule — in principle any object — can be either compact or widely spread-out. You can
show something to be either bigger than a breadbox or smaller than an atom. You can choose which of
these two contradictory features to demonstrate. The physical reality of an object depends on how you
choose to look at it. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 67)

Obviously, working within the unicorn world, for the physicists of that period, it was
quite difficult to accept the duality of both microparticles and macroparticles. The main
problem in the above paragraph is the “superposition” of wave-particle (or superposition
of a microparticle in two or more places) before our observation. From my viewpoint,
there is no such “superposition”, since the wave and the particles belong to the EDWs.
Moreover, the microparticle is not “superposed” in “different places”; it is just the
correspondence between the particle and the electromagnetic wave placed in the EDWs
which creates, in our mind, this un-famous “superposition”!
Schrödinger denies Bohr’s idea that the electrons move only in “allowed orbits”,
the microparticles move from one orbit to another. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 70) He
was totally against Bohr’s that the electrons just “jump” from one orbit to another and
rejected Bohr’s “damn quantum jumps.” (idem, p. 71) Therefore, Schrödinger
“discovers” a new universal equation of motion (which replaces Newton’s equation, just
an approximation of motion for the big objects):

It is hardly necessary to point out how much more gratifying it would be to conceive a quantum transition
as an energy change from one vibrational mode to another than to regard it as a jumping of electrons. The
variation of vibrational modes may be treated as a process continuous in space and time and enduring as
long as the emission process persists. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, pp. 71-2)

Working within the unicorn world, Schrödinger bets on the “vibrational mode” of the
electromagnetic wave to replace those “damn quantum jumps” of electrons. This is the
reason, Rosenblum and Kuttner presents Schrödinger’ “initial (wrong) interpretation”
which it is, later, replaced by the “probability”. From my viewpoint, Schrödinger’s initial
interpretation is quite good one, but it has to be pushed further: it is not the “collapse” of
the wave into the particle, since both the wave and the particle exist in the EDWs.
Anyway, many physicists have believed that the “collapse” creates the atom. From my
viewpoint, the measurement act just moves the physicist’s observation from one EW to
an EDW! If we replace the measurement apparatus for the atoms with one for the
electromagnetic wave, we see again the wave! So, there is not a real and total collapse of
the wave.

48
“… If an electron in a hydrogen atom were a compact particle, how could it possibly ‘know’ the size of
an orbit in order to follow only those orbits allowed by Bohr’s by-now-famous formula?… if the electron
was a wave, the allowed orbits might be determined by a whole number of electron wavelengths that fit
around the orbit’s circumference. Applying this idea, de Broglie was able to derive Bohr’s ad hoc quantum
rule. (In the violin, it’s the material of the string that vibrates. What vibrates in the case of the electron
‘wave’ was then a mystery. It’s become an even deeper one.)” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 66) Obviously,
the electron is particle and corresponds to an electromagnetic wave, but the particle and the wave are in the
EDWs, not within the unicorn world, as it was constructed by de Broglie.

98
 The notion of “probability” is quite important in QM. The “probability”
interpretation is that

The waviness in a region is the probability of finding the object in that region. Be careful — the waviness is
not the probability of the object being there. There’s a crucial difference! The object was not there before
you found it there. Your happening to find it there caused it to be there. This is tricky and the essence of the
quantum enigma. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 75)

Max Born transformed the ontology of a real physical ontology of a microparticle in the
“ontological probability” of a microparticle. He believed that “ the waviness in a region
was probability, the probability for the whole object being found in that region”.
(Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 76) The replacement of something having a real ontology
(the microparticle) with an “ontological probability” was a direct consequence of the
physicists working within the unicorn world!

Quantum probability, waviness, on the other hand, is objective — it’s the same for everyone. It’s the whole
story: There is no atom in addition to the wavefunction of the atom. If someone happened to see the atom at
a particular spot, that look would collapse the spread out wavefunction of the atom to be concentrated at
that particular spot for everyone. Any subsequent looker would find the atom there — as long as they
looked before it moved away. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, pp. 76-77)49

This “accepted interpretation” is quite wrong, from my viewpoint: there is an atom in

addition to the wavefunction of the atom in EDWs! Using the measurement apparatus for
the microparticles, there is no “total collapse” of the wavefunction into the atom, since if
we change the measurement apparatus, we can see again the wavefunction. The observer
just moves her observation from an EW to an EDW.

But, unlike the classical shell game, where the pea was in fact under one shell or the other, quantum theory
says the waviness, and therefore the atom, is simultaneously in both boxes. What can that possibly mean?
We establish that with an interference experiment, the standard demonstration of the wave phenomena. (p.
78)

Physically speaking, we can accept that the waviness is simultaneously in both boxes, but
not a single atom is in both boxes. The atom is in one of those two boxes or maybe the
atom is in neither of two boxes (maybe, because of our measurement, the atom appears as
the collapse of the wavefunction in one box). The authors insist in emphasizing, many
times in their book that, according to “quantum theory, each atom knows the rule because
each atom was in both boxes at the same time” (p. 79) or “The quantum mechanical term
for this situation is that the atom is in a ‘superposition state’ simultaneously in both
boxes.” (idem) Or “According to quantum mechanics, there was not an actual atom in
one of the boxes before we looked and found it there. But there are actual atoms, and
49
“In quantum theory there is no atom in addition to the wavefunction of the atom. This is so crucial that
we say it again in other words: The atom’s wavefunction and the atom are the same thing; ‘the
wavefunction of the atom’ is a synonym for ‘the atom.’ Accordingly, before a look collapses a widely
spread-out wavefunction to the particular place where the atom is found, the atom did not exist there prior
to the look. The look brought about the atom’s existence at that particular place — for everyone.”
(Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 77) Again, from my viewpoint, there is, indeed, an “addition” of an atom to the
wavefunction of that atom. The wavefunction does not exist without its correspondence to the atom! On the
contrary, the atom is there before the collapses of the “widely spread-out wavefunction to the particular
place where the atom is found”.

99
actual things made of atoms.” (p. 80)50 No, only the wavefunction as an electromagnetic
wave is in both boxes, while the atom (any microparticle, like an electron) is not in a
“superposition state”, but only in one box, not in both! There is even neither the
“superposition” of the microparticle and the electromagnetic wave, since each of these
ED entities belongs to a particular EDW, the wave-EW and the micro-EW, respectively.
Rosenblum and Kuttner quote J. M. Jauch (as the introduction to a chapter): “The
interpretation [of quantum mechanics] has remained a source of conflict from its
inception. . . . For many thoughtful physicists, it has remained a kind of ‘skeleton in the
closet’.” (J. M. Jauch) I quote this paragraph just to emphasize the “skeleton in the
closet”: the interpretation. Why? The framework of any interpretation has been the
unicorn world just because the description of the QM has the the unicorn world! Within
this general framework of thinking, any “interpretation” has been, unavoidable, a real
“skeleton in the closet”. Surprisingly (or maybe not), the next first paragraph from this
chapter is one from Weinberg’s book (our authors mention, Weinberg as a won of a Nobel
prize) and their comment:

“The one part of today’s physics that seems to me likely to survive unchanged in a final theory is quantum
mechanics.” We share Weinberg’s intuition about the ultimate correctness of quantum mechanics. (p. 87)

What does it mean quantum mechanics (QM)? It is a “theory” (better, description) with
many very clear empirical results, but with different “interpretations” regarding the
theoretical part of QM.51 What does it mean “theory”, in this context? There are some
theoretical and empirical parts of QM which are “interpreted”. I am mainly interested
neither by those ten interpretations, nor directly by the empirical results, but I want to
deal, from my viewpoint, the EDWs perspective, with the “description” (theoretical part)
of QM. I want to deal with QM as a whole theory. From my viewpoint, the entire QM as
a theory (its description) has been elaborated within the unicorn world, and therefore, the
entire QM is quite wrong!52 The authors mention that the “quantum enigma” is
determined also by the quantum experiment, not only by its theoretical part. (Rosenblum
50
The authors mention, just after this statement, the famous Feynman’s slogan “who understood quantum
mechanics as well as anyone ever did: “Nobody understands quantum mechanics.” (Rosenblum and
Kuttner, p. 80) It has to be very clear, within the unicorn world, nobody had been able to understand
quantum mechanics…
51
Few chapters later, our authors will investigate, quite shortly, ten interpretations.
52
John Bell was right writing the paragraph mentioned by those two authors: “the quantum mechanical
description will be superseded. . . . It carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction… For him, quantum
mechanics reveals the incompleteness of our worldview. He feels it is likely ‘that the new way of seeing
things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 87) It seems that
Bell’s view is quite close to Einstein’s view who also considered QM as something missing. In reality, I
indicated that QM is not incomplete, but a totally wrong description. Indeed, the EDWs perspective has
astonished many people who, then, have plagiarized our totally new paradigm of thinking which has solved
not only the quantum mysteries, but also the mind-brain problem, emergence, micro-macro relationship
(QM vs. Einstein’s general relativity), and many other problems from Physics, Cognitive Science, and
Philosophy. “However, the existence of an enigma is not a physics question. It’s metaphysics in the original
sense of that word. (Metaphysics is Aristotle’s work that followed his scientific text Physics. It treats more
general philosophical issues.) Here nonphysicists with a general understanding of the experimental facts—
facts about which there is no dispute — can have an opinion with validity matching that of physicists.”
(idem, p. 88) Quite right, the “enigma” in QM has been a problem of metaphysics, therefore, I needed to
discover the existence of the EDWs and to construct its totally new metaphysical background to avoid all
its pseudo-problems created within the wrong framework. (see our previous works)

100
and Kuttner, p. 95) From my viewpoint, even the description of all quantum experiments
have been placed within the unicorn world! So, inevitable, these empirical experiments,
this description and its interpretations has been constructed are quite wrong (being
constructed all within the unicorn world). The authors totally support these statement:

“The first part of what you said is okay,” says our physicist encouragingly. “What was in each of the boxes
was indeed half of the marble’s wavefunction. The waviness is the probability of finding a marble in the
box. But there is no ‘actual marble’ in addition to the wavefunction of the marble. The wavefunction is the
only thing that physics describes — it’s the only physical thing.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 96)

Again, from my viewpoint, the wavefunction is, indeed, in both boxes, but the
microparticle is in one box, but not in both boxes. More exactly, the wave function is in
its wave-EW, and the microparticle is in an amalgam of the microparticles which, for us,
represents one box, a macroscopic object. Therefore, the wavefunction (the wave-EW) is
not the “only physical thing”, but there is, also, the microparticle (the micro-EW) and the
macroparticles (the boxes in the macro-EW). However, I strongly emphasize that, for the
electromagnetic wave, the microparticle does not exist; it is a concentrated waves (the
wave-EW) which, for me, it is a microparticle (the micro-EW).

“The wavefunction of the marble at some place gives the probability of your finding the marble there,” our
physicist emphasizes. “There was no actual marble there before you looked and found it there.”
(Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 97)

From my EDWs perspective, I reject this fundamental statement in the theory of QM.
The marble is there before someone has looked at it. Otherwise, neither Einstein’s moon
would be on the sky before someone takes a look at it. We have to pay attention that
Einstein moves from the microparticles to the macroparticles (the objects which really
exist without any problem, before we look at them). In reality, within the EDWs
perspective, the microparticles are in the same state as the macroparticles: both sets of
ED entities really exist in the EDWs, before we look at them. This idea and the entire
theory of QM are totally wrong (being constructed within the unicorn world).

Consider a marble whose wavefunction is equally in both boxes. If you look in either box, you find out
where the marble is. The probability becomes unity in one box and zero in the other. The waviness
collapses totally into a single box. That concentrated waviness, which your observation created, is what you
call the actual marble. But our being able to see an interference pattern proves there was no actual marble
in a single box, before you looked. (idem)

Indeed, the wavefunction is equally in both boxes, but for the “marble” there are two
possibilities:
(1) It is either in a single box, before we look at it
or
(2) The waviness “collapses” into a single box, and for us, using measurement apparatus
for microparticles, represents a microparticle. However, if we return to the measurement
apparatus for the electromagnetic wave, we observe again the wave. So, there is not a real
“collapse” of the wave into the atom. Changing the measurement apparatus represents for
the observer the passing moment from one EW (the wave-EW) to an EDW (the micro-
EW) but not the collapse. The electromagnetic wave and the atom both really exist at the

101
same time, but in the EDWs, not in the unicorn world. Simply speaking, there is no real
collapse of the wavefunction; in the micro-EW, there is no wavefunction, but in the
wave-EW, the wave will always be there.
I would accept the first possibility just because the macro-objects really exist
without any human perception. I agree with the idea that the “interactions” between the
microparticles/macroparticles represent different “kinds of looks” at the
microparticles/macroparticles. So, their interactions are equivalent for a human being
using a particular instrument of observation and looking at the microentities or macro-
entities. I totally follow Einstein’s view and accept the objective reality of the
microparticles and the macroparticles without somebody, using an “instrument of
measurement”, “observe” them. I totally reject the “subjective reality” (it would be, with
necessity, a human being as observer and I would return to Berkeley’s idealism) imposed
by certain interpretations of QM.53 The main slogan of the Copenhagen’s interpretation is
that “an observation produces the property observed. The tricky word here is
‘observation'.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 100)

Actually, in 1932, just a few years after Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, John von Neumann presented a
rigorous treatment also referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation. He showed that if quantum mechanics
applies universally — as claimed — an ultimate encounter with consciousness is inevitable. (Rosenblum
and Kuttner 2006, p. 100)

The rest of the part of Rosenblum and Kuttner’s book considers “consciousness” is
inevitable! From my viewpoint, I believe that we can exclude “consciousness” from the
QM without any problem. I believe that the introduction of “consciousness” in QM is just
a huge speculative step. Because of the interactions among the micro-entities in the
micro-EW and among the macro-entities in the macro-EW (there are EDWs), there is no
need of human observer (consciousness) for “quantum reality” to be created. For me,
interactions is equivalent with observation or measurement in any case, including Young
double slit experiment. In any case of experiment, we, human beings, exist and we use
macro-tools of measurement, therefore, we cannot avoid the micro-interactions or the
macro-interactions (equivalent to the human measurements). In this context, the
following paragraph is full of wrong statements:

According to quantum theory, however, before it was observed, the object was simultaneously in both
boxes. And you could have chosen to do an interference experiment establishing that fact. Thus, by your
free choice, you could establish either of two contradictory prior realities. And, in principle, quantum
mechanics applies to everything — to baseballs as well as atoms. It’s just our present technology that limits

53
“The meaning of Newton’s mechanics was clear. It described a reasonable world, a ‘clockwork universe.’
It needed no ‘interpretation.’ Einstein’s relativity is surely counterintuitive, but no one interprets relativity.
We get used to the idea that moving clocks run slow. It’s harder to accept that observation creates the reality
observed. That needs interpretation.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 99) Within the unicorn world, there is
need of interpretation of these “facts”. However, within the EDWs, I can reject the main idea of QM as
theory in which the “observation creates the reality observed”. No, from my viewpoint, there is no “reality”
created by the observation/measurement. The microparticle is there before we observe it. Otherwise, also
the Moon would exist only when a human being would perceive it. All these problems are created by our
tools of observation used within the unicorn world; in reality, these problems are not ontological problems,
but just epistemological problems. With my EDWs perspective, I reject all the problems of QM created by
the human beings working within the unicorn world…

102
us to displaying quantum phenomena only with small things. That physical reality depends on our
observation of it is what Copenhagen tries to make acceptable. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, pp. 101-2)

Again, only the electromagnetic wave is in both boxes, and there is, indeed, an
interference pattern produced by the electromagnetic waves that get out from those two
boxes. However, the microparticle is just in one amalgam of microparticles (which
represents, for us, the observers, one box). We can use the wavefunction as being the
“probability” for one object (a microparticle) to be found in that region just as an
epistemological element, but not as ontological one.54

Quantum probability is not the probability of where the atom is. It’s the objective probability of where you
(or anyone) will find it. The atom wasn’t in that box before you observed it to be there. Quantum theory has
the atom’s wavefunction occupying both boxes. Since the wavefunction is synonymous with the atom
itself, the atom is simultaneously in both boxes... The text we teach from emphasizes the correct point by
quoting Pascual Jordan, one of the founders of quantum theory: “Observations not only disturb what is to
be measured, they produce it.” (pp. 102-3)

The atom was in that box before we observed it and the wavefunction was in both boxes.
“Observations” do disturb the atom when there is a measurement, but also the
wavefunction. Pascual Jordan’s statement mirrors indeed the Copenhagen’s
interpretation.

For a photon bouncing off an atom, there is a clear answer: The photon does not observe the atom. After the
encounter, the photon is a wave of probability moving off in all directions. The photon and atom are in a
superposition state that includes all possible positions of the atom before their encounter. This can be
confirmed with a complex two-body interference experiment. According to Copenhagen, only when a
macroscopic measuring instrument records the direction along which the photon came away from the atom
does the existence of the atom in a particular position become a reality. More generally, Copenhagen
assumes that whenever any property of a microscopic object affects a macroscopic object, that property is
observed” and becomes a physical reality… Though we have talked only of an object’s position, in the
Copenhagen interpretation no property of a microscopic object exists until it is produced by observation. (p.
103)

From my viewpoint, the photon “observes”/interacts with the atom and the photon and
the atom are not in that superposition state, but in two different positions/places. Their
idea (these two particles are in superposition) is not confirmed by the Young’s double slit
experiment. The reality of the atom is preserved during the entire experiment. (See I ’s
previous works) The property of the micro/macroscopic object is there before any kind of
“measurement”/interaction. (The moon is still there before we observe it.) The

54
“While classical physics is strictly deterministic, quantum mechanics tells of an ultimate randomness in
Nature. On the atomic level, God plays dice, Einstein notwithstanding. That Nature is ultimately statistical
is not too hard for most people to accept. After all, much of what happens in everyday life has randomness.
Were that the whole story, there would be little concern with a ‘quantum enigma.’ Probability in quantum
mechanics implies something far more profound than randomness.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, 102) The
probability in quantum mechanics is involved just because of our tools of measurement (it is just an
epistemological element), but the “probabability” has no ontological status (as Born wanted). “God” does
not exist, anyway, (see I ’s article FREE at his webpage), since there are the EDWs and any ontological
relationship between two EDWs is rejected.

103
“microscopic object” has all its properties before our observation. We disturb its position
and other properties of the micro-entity, we do not “produce” them!55
In the next section, the authors deal with the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle
and the fact that the atom is in both boxes.

But such a required short wavelength means a large number of crests coming per second. That’s a high
frequency, and a high-frequency photon has a high energy. It would give the atom a hard kick. Heisenberg
easily calculated that photons with short enough wavelength would kick atoms hard enough to smear any
interference pattern. Thus, if you saw each atom come from a single box, you could not also see an
interference pattern showing that each atom had been in both boxes. (p. 106)56

55
The same observations are available for this paragraph: “Let us be more careful about what is
‘unobserved.’ Consider our atom in its box pair. Until the position of the atom in a particular box is
observed, the atom doesn’t exist in a particular box. We nevertheless initially ‘observed’ the atom when we
grabbed it and sent it into our box-pair apparatus. The atom’s position in the pair of boxes is thus an
observed reality. However, taking the extreme case of very large boxes, we can simply say the atom has no
position at all. It does not have the property of position. The same argument can be given for any other
property of an object.” (103-4) The atom is not in the “box pair”; the atom exists in a particular box, it
surely has a “position” and other “properties” without “our” observations. Therefore, the statement of
cosmologist John Wheeler (mentioned by our authors): “No microscopic property is a property until it is an
observed property.” is a statement which mirrors Copenhagen’s interpretation but, from my EDWs
perspective view, it is quite a wrong statement. Many other statements following the same idea appear in
Rosenblum and Kuttner’s book: “In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and
facts, the phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the atoms or elementary
particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of
things or facts. (Heisenberg in Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 104) “There is no quantum world. There is only
an abstract quantum description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is.
Physics concerns what we can say about nature. (emphasis added).” (p. 104) I mention, again, that Bohr’s
observation is an epistemological statement, not an ontological one (as Heisenberg’s statement would be).
“Schrödinger rejected the Copenhagen interpretation on the broadest grounds: ‘Bohr’s standpoint, that a
space-time description [where an object is at some time] is impossible, I reject at the outset. Physics does
not consist only of atomic research, science does not consist only of physics, and life does not consist only
of science. The aim of atomic research is to fit our empirical knowledge concerning it into our other
thinking. All of this thinking, so far as it concerns the outer world, is active in space and time’.” (p. 105)
56
“According to quantum theory, the atom does not exist in one particular box before you find a whole
atom to be in one of the boxes. The atom is in a superposition state simultaneously in both boxes. Upon
your looking into one box, the superposition state waviness collapses into one single box. You will
randomly find either a whole atom in that one box or that box will be empty. (You can’t choose which!) If
you find the one box empty, the atom will be found in the other box. But with a set of box-pairs, you could
have produced an ‘interference pattern’ demonstrating that before you looked, the atom had been
simultaneously in each box.” (p. 117) Again we have the same idea, before our observation, the atom is in
the both boxes, an idea constructed within the unicorn world, where we have a wrong “superposition” of
the electromagnetic wave and the atom in the same world. In reality, the wave is in the wave-EW and the
atom is in the particle-EW. The same for this paragraph: “Since the waviness of the atom split equally at the
semitransparent mirror, half went into the box with the Geiger counter and the cat and half into the other
box. As long as the system is isolated, the atom is in a superposition state we can describe as in the box
with the Geiger counter and, simultaneously, in the empty box. To be succinct we say that the atom is
simultaneously in both boxes.” (p. 118) There is no atom simultaneously in both boxes; there is the
waviness in both boxes, but not the atom. We can interpret even that, before our observation, the atom is
nowhere, and the waviness is in both boxes. When we observe in one box, the electromagnetic wave
collapses in one boxes, but not in both. Anyway, the atom has been only in one box, not in on both. The
next paragraph is quite absurd: “The unobserved Geiger counter must therefore also be in a superposition
state. It is both fired and, simultaneously, unfired. The cork on the cyanide bottle must be both pulled and
not pulled. The cat must be both dead and alive. This is, of course, hard to imagine. Impossible to imagine,

104
No, from my viewpoint, the same atom cannot be placed in two boxes, at the same time!
There is indeed, its corresponding electromagnetic wave, for us in both “boxes” (the
interference patterns, produced by those two wave, proves this fact), but no more.57
The uncertainty principle can also be derived directly from the Schrödinger equation. In fact, the
observation of any property makes a “complementary” quantity uncertain. Position and speed are, for
example, complementary quantities. Energy and the time of observation are another complementary pair.
The bottom line is that any observation disturbs things enough to prevent the disproof of quantum theory’s
assertion that observation creates the property observed. (p. 106)

The last statement is quite wrong: position and speed or energy and time are just
observational or epistemologically “complementary pair”. It means that we are unable to
observe both elements of each pair at the same time. This is an epistemological fact, not
an ontological one (as many physicists , working within the unicorn world, have believed
until now). Bohr indicates the complementarity of the atom: it is a particle and,
complementary, it is wave. Working within the unicorn world, Bohr could not

perhaps. But it’s just a logical extension of what quantum theory is telling us… Since the wavefunctions of
Geiger counters and cats are too complicated to display, we just picture the Geiger counter both fired and
unfired (lever both up and down), the cyanide cork both pulled and not pulled, and the cat simultaneously
dead and alive” (p. 118) From the EDWs perspective, it is quite absurd to presuppose that the cat is
simultaneously in both states, dead and alive!
57
“Werner Heisenberg proudly came to Bohr with his discovery. Bohr was impressed, but told his young
colleague that he didn’t have it quite right. Heisenberg forgot that if you knew the angle at which the
photon bounced off, you could in fact calculate which box the atom came from. He had the right basic idea,
though. Bohr showed him that by including the microscope needed to measure the photon angle in his
analysis, he could recapture the result he thought he had. Missing this point doubly embarrassed
Heisenberg. He reported that determining the direction of a light wave with a microscope was a question he
had missed on his doctoral exam.” (p. 106) This statement reflects my idea about the Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle. In reality, the uncertainty principle is just an epistemological principle (not an
ontological one, as many physicists have believed until the discovery of the EDWs); this uncertainty is
furnished by our tools of measurement, the light, by the light is not the only tool of our measurement. I am
sure that, in the future, discovering other tools of measurement, the uncertainty principle will disappear as
fundamental principle in QM. The microparticle has certain speed and position, just our tool of
measurement, the light in this case, disturbs either the speed or the position. The same is true for Born’s
“probability”, an epistemological not an ontological notion, as many physicists have believed it until the
discovery of the EDWs.

105
interpreted, correctly, this complementarity.58 In reality, Bohr’s complementarity reflects
two EDWs, the particle-EW and the wave-EW. Again, the authors indicate that

according to quantum theory, before you looked, the atom was not in one box or the other. It was in a
superposition state simultaneously in both boxes. Therefore, assuming cats are not entities beyond the laws
of physics, before you looked, the cat was in a superposition state equally alive and dead. It was not a sick
cat” (pp. 118-9)

Obviously, here it is about the skeleton in the closet, i.e., about many interpretations of
interactions among the microparticles and their forces. From my viewpoint, the
wavefunction is in both boxes, the atom is only in one box or in neither (and, indeed, it is
created by the collapse of the wave). However, it is quite impossible, from my realism
view, the microparticle to be in both boxes. And the cat is either alive or dead; if if it not a
sick cat, then the cat is surely alive. Even the QT have worked quite good, the empirical
results have been quite good in relation with QM, using the EDWs perspective, I indicate
that QM, constructed within the unicorn world, has been quite wrong. It is exactly this
construction of QM which represents, more exactly, the skeleton in the closet just
because of this construction there have been possible so many interpretations of QM.
I quote here, probably, the most important paragraph from this book: “the
quantum mechanical description will be superseded. . . . It carries in itself the seeds of its
own destruction”. (John Bell in Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 87) Indeed, Bell it is quite
right: the QM description “carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction”. It is not
about “interpretation, since all interpretations (the skeleton in the closet 59) are based on
this description! This QM description was realized within the unicorn world, therefore all
“interpretations” have been just different “hairs” of the “skeleton in the closet”. The
EDWs is indeed a “new way of seeing things” which “involve an imaginative leap that
will astonish us”. It is a new perspective which demolish the unicorn world perspective
(the world/Universe) in a totally new way.

58
“The two aspects of a microscopic object, its particle aspect and its wave aspect, are ‘complementary,’
and a complete description requires both contradictory aspects, but we must consider only one aspect at a
time.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 108) In reality, there are the particle and the wave in the EDWs…
“Quantum theory has atoms and molecules not existing someplace until our observation creates them there.
According to Heisenberg, they are not ‘real,’ just ‘potentialities.’ If unobserved atoms are somehow not
physically real things, what does it say about things made of atoms? Chairs, for example? Is an unseen
galaxy not really there? We’re confronting the skeleton physics usually keeps in the closet.” (our italics, pp.
115-6) Heisenberg is quite wrong, since the microparticles really exist before we observe them. Indeed, this
interpretation about the macro-entities is one of the skeletons (there are more) in the closet for many
physics. “Such attitudes likely stimulated Murray Gell-Mann’s remark in his lecture accepting the 1976
Nobel Prize: ‘Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into believing the problem had been
solved.’ Gell-Mann’s concern is a bit less relevant today since most current quantum texts at least hint of
unresolved issues.” (p. 111) Gell-Mann is quite right. Bohr did not furnish quite a good “cloth” for the
skeleton in the closet, since his cloth, as all the “cloths”, was created within the unicorn world. It has to be
very clear that all the cloths (“interpretations”) of the skeleton have been constructed within the unicorn
world…
59
I quote again this citation: “The interpretation [of quantum mechanics] has remained a source of conflict
from its inception. . . . For many thoughtful physicists, it has remained a kind of ‘skeleton in the closet’.”
(J. M. Jauch in Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 87) Indeed, the interpretation of QM has been the “source of
conflict from its inception”, i.e., from the source of its “description”. The conflicts (the interpretations)
have been based on QM’s description, but this description was constructed within the unicorn world,
therefore, all the interpretations have been completely wrong.

106
Along with Bell, we suspect that something beyond ordinary physics awaits discovery. Not all physicists
would agree. Many would like to dismiss the enigma, our “skeleton in the closet,” as merely a
psychological problem, claiming that we just have to get used to the quantum strangeness.
However, the existence of an enigma is not a physics question. It’s metaphysics in the original
sense of that word. (Metaphysics is Aristotle’s work that followed his scientific text Physics. It treats more
general philosophical issues.) Here nonphysicists with a general understanding of the experimental facts—
facts about which there is no dispute — can have an opinion with validity matching that of physicists. (pp.
87-8)

So, indeed, it was “something beyond ordinary physics”! Many physicists have believed
that the description of the QM represents the real world. I discovered the existence of the
EDWs working on the mind-brain problem. My description is, at the same time, a new
“description” and also a new “interpretation” of the QM which it has already been
accepted by many physicists from many countries.60 The EDWs perspective is a new
metaphysics which challenges completely the metaphysics of the “Universe/world”. In
Rosenblum and Kuttner’s book, in a discussion between a lady and a physician, the
physician declares that:

the remarkable thing I’ve demonstrated, the quantum enigma — that the physical condition of the marble
depends on your free choice of experiment — arises directly from the experimental facts. ‘Just the facts,
ma’am, just the facts,’ as Sergeant Friday used to say. The quantum enigma is not merely theoretical. (p.
95) But now that you’ve seen the demonstration, let me tell you quantum theory’s explanation of what
we’ve seen.” (p. 95, their italics)

However, the “experimental facts” are created within the EDWs, but are described just
within the unicorn world. Any interpretation (Rosenblum and Kuttner present ten
interpretations) is constructed within the unicorn world and, therefore, all interpretations
are, inevitable, quite wrong. I continue with a dialog between a women and that
physician:

“I’ve read about quantum mechanics. I think she just means that the wavefunction, which is the probability
of where the marble is, was in both boxes. The actual marble was, of course, in one box or the other.”

“The first part of what you said is okay,” says our physicist encouragingly. “What was in each of the boxes
was indeed half of the marble’s wavefunction. The waviness is the probability of finding a marble in the
box. But there is no ‘actual marble’ in addition to the wavefunction of the marble. The wavefunction is the
only thing that physics describes — it’s the only physical thing.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 96)

Obviously, the woman is right, even if the authors of the book consider that the physician
is correct. Anyway, in the physician’s interpretation, we find again the physicists return to
“probability” of finding the marble in one box and the fact that the only physical thing is
the wavefunction (presented in both boxes). In this case, Einstein’s observation is quite
correct: does it mean that the Moon does not exist? Or it means that the microparticles
interacts/are observed with other particles? But the authors reject this idea, at the
beginning of the book.61
60
Many people (physicists, cognitive neuroscientists and philosophers) have plagiarized my ideas. My
manuscript (posted on different webpages) indicates exactly this fact.
61
At page 36, Rosenblum and Kuttner write about a reductionism view: psychology reduced to biology
reduced chemistry reduced to physics reduced to empirical facts. However, I underlined above that

107
The waviness in a region is the probability of finding the object in that region. Be careful — the waviness is
not the probability of the object being there. There’s a crucial difference! The object was not there before
you found it there. Your happening to find it there caused it to be there. This is tricky and the essence of the
quantum enigma. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 75)

The Moon isn’t there before just because of human observation? Obviously, the essence
of the quantum enigma” is quite a wrong idea! Considering that the object (microparticle)
is not there, it is quite a wrong idea, even if we deal with “the essence of the quantum
enigma”. Working within the unicorn world, Born introduced the “probability”:

It was, in fact, only a few months after Schrödinger announced his equation that Max Born realized that the
waviness in a region was probability, the probability for the whole object being found in that region. Like
probability in the shell game, when we find out where the object is, its waviness instantaneously becomes
unity in the region we found it and zero everyplace else. (idem, 77)

With my EDWs perspective, I completely reject Born’s probability (mainly considered as

an ontological element in QM). If it is just an electron, and its corresponding
wavefunction, the microparticle (the “object”) is (1) either there before our observation
(2) or our observation collapses the wave into the microparticle. The point (2) would be
exactly Copenhagen’s interpretation, but I emphasize that fact that the microparticle does
not interact with other particles. When we talk about an electron among the
microparticles which compose a table/Moon, all the microparticles really exist (that is
point (1)). Anyway, point (1) would be against the Copenhagen’s interpretation.62

“Well,” our physicist replies calmly, “there’s a saving grace. The big things we actually deal with are real
enough. Remember, you need to do an interference-type experiment to actually demonstrate the creation by
observation. And it’s not practical — at least not yet — to do that with big things. So, for all practical
purposes, there’s no need for concern…” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 97)

Indeed, here, the physicist (the Copenhagen interpretation) reduces the conclusion (that
the atom exists in both boxes) only for the Young’s double-slit experiment (interference
of those two electromagnetic wave). In this case, maybe we can consider that our
“empirical facts” of QM were realized in a wrong framework, the unicorn world. Moreover, instead of
“reductionism”, it is about “correspondence”.
62
“But before we looked, an interference experiment could have established that the unobserved atom had
been in both boxes. The atom didn’t have a single position. But, on looking, we find the whole atom in a
single box. The most accurate way of describing the state of the unobserved atom is to put into English the
mathematics describing the state of the atom before we looked to see where it is: The atom was
simultaneously in two states; in the first state, it is in-the-top-box-and-not-in-the-bottom-box, and
simultaneously in the second state, it is in-the-bottom-box-and-not-in-the-top-box.” Putting it this way,
however, boggles the mind. It’s saying a physical thing was in two places at the same time. The quantum
mechanical term for this situation is that the atom is in a “superposition state” simultaneously in both
boxes. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 75) Again, from my EDWs perspective, the atom cannot be
“simultaneously in two states”. In reality, the atom is in one amalgam of microparticles (a box, fir us).
Onto-logically, it is quite wrong to consider the atom in both boxes. Only within the unicorn world, where
there is the correspondence between the wave and the particle, many famous physicists could had
considered that the microparticle is in both boxes. “According to quantum theory, each atom knows the rule
because each atom was in both boxes at the same time.” (p. 79) Again, the same mistake constructed within
the unicorn world. Just because of the correspondence (de Broglie’s association) between the wave and the
particle, working within the unicorn world, the physicists could not explain this “association”.

108
observation/measurement collapses the wavefunction into a microparticle. However, if
we return to the measurement apparatus for the electromagnetic wave, the will observe
the wave not the microparticle! “According to quantum theory, however, before it was
observed, the object was simultaneously in both boxes.” (p. 101) And, moreover, once
central idea of Copenhagen interpretation is that the waviness “in a region (technically,
the absolute square of the wavefunction) is the probability that the object will be found
in that region.” (p. 102) The world is “statistically” (p. 102):

Quantum probability is not the probability of where the atom is. It’s the objective probability of where you
(or anyone) will find it. The atom wasn’t in that box before you observed it to be there. Quantum theory has
the atom’s wavefunction occupying both boxes. Since the wavefunction is synonymous with the atom
itself, the atom is simultaneously in both boxes. (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, pp. 102-3)

Again, we have the same wrong idea that the microparticle is “simultaneously in both
boxes” and we have the ontological probability introduced again here. I repeat, if the
photon is somewhere, then it is in one box and not in both boxes. For the atom to be in
both boxes, it would be a strong ontological contradiction, for us. 63 Obviously, Einstein’s
example with the Moon not observed by somebody would not be a correct example to
mirror the dual-slit experiment. However, from a standard viewpoint, the dual-slit
experiment would involve certain macroscopic objects, the microscopic entities and the
electromagnetic waves, all these ED entities being placed in the unicorn world. I have to
translate this dual-slit experiment in the EDWs language. But even in such cases, we have
to reduce the description of the entire QM only to certain experiments which are similar
to the Young’s double-slit experiments.

There is no “official” Copenhagen interpretation. But every version grabs the bull by the horns and asserts
that an observation produces the property observed. The tricky word here is “observation… The
Copenhagen interpretation considers two realms: there is the macroscopic, classical realm of our measuring
instruments governed by Newton’s laws; and there is the microscopic, quantum realm of atoms and other
small things governed by the Schrödinger equation. It argues that we never deal directly with the quantum
objects of the microscopic realm. (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 100, authors’ italics)

Von Neumann introduced the interaction between the quantum process (through macro-
entities) and the human consciousness. (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 100)

63
“The text we teach from emphasizes the correct point by quoting Pascual Jordan, one of the founders of
quantum theory: ‘Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it’.” (Rosenblum and
Kuttner, p. 103) Again, from my EDWs perspective, this is a totally ontological wrong idea: if the atom
exists, it is in one box but not in both. If the atom does not exist, it is produced in one box by the collapse
of the electromagnetic wave. “More generally, Copenhagen assumes that whenever any property of a
microscopic object affects a macroscopic object, that property is ‘observed’ and becomes a physical
reality.” (p. 103) The same wrong idea: there is no interaction between a microscopic object and a
macroscopic tool of measuring; in reality, there is an interaction between a microscopic particle and an
amalgam of microscopic particles (which represents, for us, the image of the microscope electronic).
Schrödinger did reject Copenhagen interpretation exactly on this observation: “Bohr’s standpoint, that a
space-time description [where an object is at some time] is impossible, I reject at the outset. Physics does
not consist only of atomic research, science does not consist only of physics, and life does not consist only
of science. The aim of atomic research is to fit our empirical knowledge concerning it into our other
thinking.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 105)]

109
He showed that if quantum mechanics applies universally — as claimed — an ultimate encounter with
consciousness is inevitable. Accordingly, Bohr’s separation of the microscopic and the macroscopic is only
a very good approximation.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 100)

I believe that the introduction of human consciousness is an exaggeration; in reality, there

are EDWs (the macro-EW, the micro-EW, the mind-EW) which do not exist one for the
other. Again, it has to be clear that there are no interactions between these EDWs. To
introduce the human consciousness in this complicated equation, for us it seems to be
quite a strong exaggeration. Bohr’s separation between the microscopic and the
macroscopic realms mirrors those two EDWs, the micro-EW and the macro-EW, no
more.
The Copenhagen interpretation generally adopts the simple view that only the observed properties of
microscopic objects exist. Cosmologist John Wheeler puts it concisely: ‘No microscopic property is a
property until it is an observed Property’. If we carry this to its logical conclusion, microscopic objects
themselves are not real things. Here’s Heisenberg on this:

In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, the phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in
daily life. But the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than
one of things or facts. (emphasis added)

According to this view, atomic-scale objects exist only in some abstract realm, not in the physical world. If
so, it’s okay that they don’t “make sense.” It’s enough that they affect our measuring instruments in accord
with quantum theory. Those big things do “make sense,” and we can consider them physically real and treat
them with classical physics. But, of course, that classical description of their behavior is only an
approximation to the correct quantum laws of physics (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 104)

The macro-entities real exist, otherwise, your brain is just an approximation of “correct
quantum laws”, that means, your corresponding mental states are just approximation of
quantum laws and this statement would be quite absurd! Moreover, if the microparticles
exist “only in some abstract realm”, the Einstein’s Moon and your body are just
abstractions in this “abstract world”. Obviously, we cannot accept all these state about the
microparticles and the macroparticles. In reality (the EDWs), all the ED entities really
exist but in the EDWs. In order to avoid the “superposition” of electron in different
places, the authors introduce the idea that they “nevertheless initially ‘observed’ the atom
when we grabbed it and sent it into our box-pair apparatus. The atom’s position in the
pair of boxes is thus an observed reality.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 104)
However, there are certain microparticles not introduced by us in that amalgam of
microparticles (which represents, for us, the box). For Copenhagen interpretation, those
microparticles do not exist at all in that box. The most famous statement on this is often
attributed to Bohr:
There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description. It is wrong to think that the task
of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature. (italics added) (p.
104)

Indeed, there is no quantum world, since there are EDWs. With the EDWs, I describe the
ED entities involve in quantum world. Anyway, from Bohr’s view, I agree with Einstein’s
statement that the Moon would not exist for those who accept Copenhagen interpretation!
Nobody introduced the microparticle to construct the Moon and when the moon
appeared, there were no human beings (as observers) on the Earth…

110
 The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is created within the unicorn world. In
reality, the microparticle has both position and speed and at the same time, but we do not
have tools for investigating them. Because of our macro-tools of observation, we cannot
grasp both the position and the speed of a microparticle, but these properties both exist at
the same time, these properties are not complementary, they exist both at the same time
for the same object.64 Position and speed (energy and time) are “complementary” just
because of our tools of observation, there are complementary features from an
epistemological viewpoint, not an ontological one. In the future, we can think at other
tools of observation with which we can grasp these “complementary” properties at the
same time. Why? Because these properties are complementary just because of our tools
of observation, so they are epistemologically “complementary” properties, but in reality,
these properties are ontological properties which belong to any particle. The “waviness is
probability” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 108) just because of our tools of
observation and the probability is not an ontological element, it is just an epistemological
tool of investigation.

The two aspects of a microscopic object, its particle aspect and its wave aspect, are complementary,’ and a
complete description requires both contradictory aspects, but we must consider only one aspect at a time.
(Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 108, their italics)

Our tools of observation furnish just on “aspect at a time”. I am convince, in the future,
there will be discovered/invented new tools of observation that will grasp both properties,

64
“The uncertainty principle can also be derived directly from the Schrödinger equation. In fact, the
observation of any property makes a ‘complementary’ quantity uncertain. Position and speed are, for
example, complementary quantities. Energy and the time of observation are another complementary pair.
The bottom line is that any observation disturbs things enough to prevent the disproof of quantum theory’s
assertion that observation creates the property observed.” (p. 106) Position and speed (energy and time) are
complementary just because of our tools of observation. However, in the future, we can think to other tool
of observation in which we can grasp these properties at the same time. Why? Because these properties are
just complementary just because of our tools of observation, so they are epistemological complementary
properties, but in reality, they are ontological properties of any particles. “… waviness is probability”(p.
108) just because of our tools of observation. “The two aspects of a microscopic object, its particle aspect
and its wave aspect, are ‘complementary,’ and a complete description requires both contradictory aspects,
but we must consider only one aspect at a time.” (p. 108, their italics) Our tools of observation furnish just
on “aspect at a time”. I am convince, in the future, there will be discovered/invented new tools of
observation that will grasp both properties, the position and the speed. The authors confirm our
interpretation of Heisenberg’s principle: “We avoid the seeming contradiction by considering the
microscopic system, the atom, not to exist in and of itself. We must always include in our discussion —
implicitly at least — the different macroscopic experimental apparatuses used to display each of the two
complementary aspects. All is then fine, because it is ultimately only the classical behavior of such
apparatus that we report.” (p. 108) I emphasize that because of their properties, our tools of observation
furnish certain properties of the observed microentities. Therefore, the complementarity is an
epistemological state of affair, but not at all an ontological problem.

111
the position and the speed at the same time.65 The authors introduce a paragraph related to
our interpretation of Heisenberg’s principle:

We avoid the seeming contradiction by considering the microscopic system, the atom, not to exist in and of
itself. We must always include in our discussion — implicitly at least — the different macroscopic
experimental apparatuses used to display each of the two complementary aspects. All is then fine, because
it is ultimately only the classical behavior of such apparatus that we report. (p. 108)

I emphasize that, because of their properties, our tools of observation furnish certain
properties of the observed microentities. Therefore, the complementarity is an
epistemological state of affair, it does not have an ontological status. Those properties
real exist and are not complementary before our observations.

In other words, although physicists talk of atoms and other microscopic entities as if they were actual
physical things, they are really only concepts we use to describe the behavior of our measuring instruments.
They are not real, independent things like peas or stones, which we can speak about directly. Oh, yes, peas
and stones are, strictly speaking, quantum mechanical. But, no matter, for all practical purposes big things
allow a classical description. And, according to Copenhagen, that’s all we need concern ourselves with.
(Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 109)

The atoms and other microparticles are real physical entities with real (not
complementary) properties in the micro-EW. The microparticles (the micro-EW)
correspond to the macro-objects (the macro-EW), one set of objects does not exist for the
other set of ED entities. Therefore, the microparticles really exist independently from the
macro-objects. The “peas and stones are” the entities which belong to the macro-EW, not
to the QM. With my EDWs, perspective, the “practical purses of big things” has been
transformed in epistemological-ontological purpose of big thing” as is our body/brain.
Within a pragmatical umbrella, only with a “practical purpose of body/brain”, we can
consider that the human beings exist only from a “practical purpose” and all our
perceptual entities (the micro-, the macro-entities) are also just from a “perceptual

65
In the EPR paradox, Einstein indicates “to argue that quantum theory led to an inconsistency and was
therefore wrong, Einstein attempted to show that even though an atom participated in an interference
pattern, it actually came through a single slit. To demonstrate this he had to evade the uncertainty
principle.” (p. 126) It is exactly what I have argued above… “By measuring the movement of the barrier
after each atom had passed, one could know through which slit it went. This measurement could be made
even after the atom was recorded as part of an interference pattern on a photographic film. Since one could
thus know through which slit each atom came, quantum theory was wrong in explaining the interference
pattern by claiming each atom to be a wave passing through both slits. (126-7) Bohr rejected this idea
including the uncertainty principle, but I rejected this principle as being just an epistemological one.
Rosenblum and Kuttner indicates that Bohr’s rejection of Einstein’s observations include macroscopic
apparatus which we can identify their position and speed! However, according to QM, this macroscopic
objects are just an approximation of amalgams of microparticles which respect the uncertainty principle!
The authors introduce certain “practical reasons” for the existence of big objects. Anyway, the EPR
argument argues that QM is not wrong but incomplete! It indicates that you can know a property of an
object even if you does not observe it.

112
purpose”, they do not exist from an ontological viewpoint.66 We can reach even a
meaningless viewpoint of interpreting the micro-entities:

The properties of microscopic objects are inferred from the behavior of our apparatus. Nevertheless, we
talk of microscopic objects, visualize them, and calculate with models of them as if they were as real as
little green marbles. But if confronted with paradox, we retreat to the Copenhagen interpretation that
microscopic objects are just theories. They should accurately explain the sensible behavior of our
macroscopic equipment, but microscopic objects themselves need not “make sense.” (Rosenblum and
Kuttner 2006, 110)

For me, the properties of the microscopic entities are “inferred from the behaviour” of
our macro-apparatus. However, the paradox is created by the fact that we have two kinds
of the ED entities in the same place at the same moment, for instance, a table and its
corresponding amalgam of microparticles. This paradox can be avoided only by
introducing the EDWs perspective. The “microscopic entities ” and the macro-objects
have a sense only within the EDWs; the same statement is available for the existence of
the electromagnetic waves and the microparticles, all these ED entities belonging to the
EDWs.67

Quantum theory has atoms and molecules not existing someplace until our observation creates them there.
According to Heisenberg, they are not “real,” just “potentialities.” If unobserved atoms are somehow not
physically real things, what does it say about things made of atoms? Chairs, for example? Is an unseen
galaxy not really there? We’re confronting the skeleton physics usually keeps in the closet. (pp. 115-6)

Obviously, from my description of quantum world, the microparticles and the

electromagnetic wave really exist, but in the EDWs. Also, there are the macro-entities
(like our apparatus of measuring) in the macro-EW.68 Schrödinger’s cat is not in both
boxes, live and dead! Simply, “Schrödinger’s ‘hellish contraption’ with a mixed-metaphor
image” (p. 118) (with both cat live and dead in two boxes) is constructed within the
unicorn world, and therefore, it is totally wrong since “according to quantum theory,
66
“The Copenhagen interpretation is, of course, more subtle. It claims only that objects of the microscopic
realm lack reality before they are observed. Moons, chairs, and cats are real — for all practical purposes.
And that, according to Copenhagen, should be good enough. But that was not good enough for Einstein,
who wanted to know “God’s thoughts.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 125) Again, for the existence of macro-
object, the Copenhagen interpretation is a practical viewpoint. The EDWs perspective is an ontological
viewpoint for all the ED entities which belong to the EDWs.
67
“But few of our colleagues are willing to abandon ‘scientific realism,’ defined as ‘the thesis that the
objects of scientific knowledge exist and act independently of the knowledge of them.’ Admitting that
quantum theory says that the existence of objects of the microworld depends on the knowledge of them,
they would claim that the ‘knowledge’ held by, say, a Geiger counter is sufficient to bring about that
existence.” (112) In this statement, we have almost an information about the EDWs…
68
Again, I cannot accept the statements from this paragraph: “According to quantum theory, the atom does
not exist in one particular box before you find a whole atom to be in one of the boxes. The atom is in a
superposition state simultaneously in both boxes. Upon your looking into one box, the superposition state
waviness collapses into one single box. You will randomly find either a whole atom in that one box or that
box will be empty. (You can’t choose which!) If you find the one box empty, the atom will be found in the
other box. But with a set of box-pairs, you could have produced an ‘interference pattern’ demonstrating that
before you looked, the atom had been simultaneously in each box.” (117) There is a superposition of the
wave (which it is in both boxes), but not of the microparticle (which it is in one box, not in both). Indeed, in
this interpretation, the superposition of the waviness collapses into a single box, where I will find the atom,
but it has to be very clear, the atom is not in both boxes, before our observation.

113
before you looked, the atom was not in one box or the other. It was in a superposition
state simultaneously in both boxes.” (p. 118) From my viewpoint, the atom is only in one
box, and simply, the cat is either live or dead.69
Rosenblum and Kuttner introduces the human observation as the process which
collapses the “entire system”. Following von Neuwmann’s interpretation, the authors
sustain a subjective interpretation of observation/measurement. The observers cannot be
the boxes or the microparticles, nor the cat, the only real observer is the “human
consciousness”.70 Such interpretation could have been available only within the unicorn
world. I consider the microparticles as being “observers” just because of their
interactions, so there is no need of “consciousness”. This is the reason (rejected by the
authors) that the atom is only in one box before our act of measurement/observation.
Later, the authors introduce an argument very similar to our argument of the ED entities
which interact/observe in each EDW. But working within the unicorn world, they
construct this argument from just a pragmatical viewpoint. (pp. 121-2)71 The authors
recognize they are working within the “unicorn world” when they write that

Since quantum theory admits no boundary between the small and the large, in principle any object can be in
a superposition state. He (along with Einstein) rejected as defeatist the Copenhagen claim that the role of
science is merely to predict the results of observations, rather than to explore what’s really going on. (p.
122)72
69
“Although we sketched a superposed live and dead cat (figure 11.1), you’ll never see a cat like that.
Observation collapses the whole system putting the cat into either the living or the dead state. But what
about just a peek? Can a tiny peek collapse the wavefunction of a whole cat? Consider the tiniest possible
peek. That could be bouncing a single photon off the cat through tiny holes in the box. With a single photon
you can’t learn much. But if that photon were blocked, telling us that the cat was standing, and therefore
alive, it would collapse the superposition state into the living state. Quantum theory tells us that any look,
anything in fact that provides information, collapses the previously existing state. There’s no immaculate
perception.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 119) I will never see a cat in a superposed station (live and
dead) just because this state does not really exist! We know, observation collapses the wave function into
the atom, but before this collapse, the atom has existed only in one box, not in both. The superposition
states for the atom is an invented notion created by physicists working within the unicorn world…
70
“Strictly speaking, all you know for sure is that you are a wavefunction collapsing observer. The rest of us
may merely be in a superposition state governed by quantum mechanics and are collapsed to a specific
reality only by your observation of us.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 120) Strictly speaking, because
of its interactions with other particles, each microparticle which compose each of us is just an “observer” of
the other particles. So, each particle is not in that “superposition” state. Also, each particle is “associated”
with an electromagnetic wave (de Broglie), therefore, there is a collapses of the particle, so the particle is
only in one box before our observation/act of measurement.
71
“Every macroscopic object anywhere near the cat observes the cat. The photons emitted by the warm
walls of the box, for example. Take an extreme example: the moon! The moon’s gravity, which pulls on the
oceans to raise the tides, also pulls on the cat. That pull would be slightly different for a standing, alive cat
than for a lying, dead cat. Since the cat pulls back on the moon, the path of the moon is slightly altered
depending on the position of the cat. It is easy to calculate that in a tiny fraction of a millionth of a second
the cat’s wavefunction would be completely entangled with the moon’s, and thus with the tides and thus
with the rest of the world. This entanglement is an observation. It collapses the superposition state of the cat
in essentially no time at all… ” (p. 121) “Entanglement with the world constitutes observation, and the
atom collapses into one box or the other as soon as its wavefunction enters the box pair and encounters the
Geiger counter. And the cat is either dead or alive. Period!” (idem) In reality, the authors speak, without
knowing, about the EDWs.
72
“Quantum theory is saying that our later choice of observation creates the atom’s earlier history — we
cause something backward in time.” (p. 123) Only working in the unicorn world, the physicists could have
constructed such observations!

114
Obviously, my EDWs “explore what’s really going on” and not only “predict the results
of observation”. The EDWs perspective is an ontological perspective and not an
epistemological one. Moreover, for the EDWs perspective, there are the micro-EW and
the macro-EW, so we accept more than a “boundary” between these two set of ED
entities. It is important to mention here the quantum nonlocality:

Twin-state photons do not have a particular polarization until the polarization of one of them is observed.
Twin-state photons are entangled in a state of identical polarization but have no particular polarization. It is
the observation of the polarization of one of the photons as being, say, vertical that instantaneously
collapses both photons to vertical polarization. (p. 134)73

Two microparticles related before we create a huge distance between them represents the
nonlocality between those microparticles just because these microparticles correspond to
an electromagnetic wave which represents indirectly, through correspondence, the
nonlocality between them!
I want to investigate also the EPR experiment from my EDWs perspective.
Therefore, I introduces this paragraph:

If a physical property of an object can be known without its being observed, then that property could not
have been created by observation. If it wasn’t created by its observation, it must have existed as a
physically reality before its observation. EPR needed to display only one such property to show quantum
theory to be incomplete.
Quantum theory has twin-state photons in a state of identical polarization but with no particular
polarization. Observation of the polarization of one photon supposedly creates the physically real
polarization of both photons. (p. 135)

I can, simply, explain this experiment, from my EDWs perspective: both photons have
physical properties, but, through correspondence of the electromagnetic wave, they are
related, they have that infamous “nonlocality”. Within the EDWs perspective, the
nonlocality and the EPR experiment are explained through this correspondence between
those two photons (the micro-EW) and the electromagnetic wave (the wave-EW). There
is a correspondence between certain ED entities which belong to the EDWs, but not an
“unexplained” nonlocality of the photons/atoms. There is not a “message” which passes

73
“Quantum theory’s denial of physical reality bothered Einstein far more than its randomness. His remark,
‘God does not play dice,’ is often quoted. But the less-easily understood quotation we headed this chapter
with, I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it,’ captures his more serious concern.” (p.
134) In a conversation with Putnam, Einstein said: “Look, I don’t believe that when I am not in my
bedroom my bed spreads out all over the room, and whenever I open the door and come in it jumps into the
corner.” (Putnam 2005, p. 624) From my EDWs viewpoint, indeed, the moon is there even nobody is
looking at it! The microparticles which composed the moon are just interacting each other, therefore, each
microparticle is observing/interacting the microparticles which surrounds it. Also, the “bed” really exists as
a macro-entity in the macro-EW. “And I said (Putnam [1965], p. 157) that the remaining open problem for
quantum mechanics was to say what is so special about macro-observables: ‘The result we wish is that
although micro-observables do not necessarily have definite numerical values at all times, macro-
observables do. And we want this result to come out of quantum mechanics in a natural way. We do not
want simply to add it to quantum mechanics as an ad hoc principle. So far, however, attempts to derive this
result have been entirely unsuccessful’.” (Putnam 2005, p. 625) The answer is given by the EDWs
perspective: there are certain EDWs like the field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-EW and their
correspondences…

115
the speed of light between those two photons (i.e., that “spooky action at a distance”), but
the corresponding electromagnetic wave (which is an indivisible entity, i.e., when one
end of the wave is moved, the other part of the wave moves instantaneously). From
Bohr’s response, I analyse just this idea:

Bohr agreed that there could be no “mechanical” disturbance of Bob’s photon by Alice’s observation. (All
physical forces are included in Bohr’s term “mechanical.”) He nevertheless maintains that even without a
physical disturbance, Alice’s remote observation instantaneously “influences” Bob’s photon. And,
according to Bohr, this constitutes a disturbance violating the EPR condition for reality. Only after Alice
observed her photon as, say, polarized parallel was Bob’s photon polarized parallel. (Rosenblum and
Kuttner 2006, pp. 136-7)

I return to classical notions of “physical reality” and “separability”: there are physical
reality of those two photons and a non-separability given by their correspondence with
the electromagnetic wave. Alice’s remote observation instantaneously influences Bob’s
photon just because of the correspondence with the wave between these two photons. It
means that Alice realizes her observation, at the same time, she acts on the indivisible
electromagnetic wave which related, through correspondence, those two photons. Acting
on that indivisible wave, Alice acts instantaneously on the second photon placed at a long
distance from the first photon. We have the EDWs here and not the unicorn world in
which many physicists (Einstein and his company or Bohr and his company) had worked.
Essentially, within the unicorn world, because of its ontological contradiction imposed by
physical reality and separability, it was impossible to introduce the existence of two kinds
of elements (photons and wave) in the same place, at the same moment. (This is the
reason, the physicists working in QM changed the meaning of these notions!) I repeat,
there is not a “message” ( “spooky action at a distance”) which passes the speed of light
between these two photons, but the movement of the corresponding electromagnetic
wave: the action on one photon “disturbs” indirectly the second photon through
correspondence of both photons (the micro-EW) and the electromagnetic wave (the
wave-EW)! Therefore, I have to change the notions of “physical reality” and
“separability” within the EDWs perspective: these both notions are strong rejected by the
correspondence between the ED entities which belong to the EDWs.

Did Alice’s observation physically affect Bob’s photon? Can what is done at a distant place, even on a
faraway galaxy, instantaneously cause something to happen here? Certainly no physical force affected
Bob’s photon. What, then, did Alice’s observation do to Bob’s photon? Strictly speaking, we should not say
her observation “affected” Bob’s photon or “caused” its behavior because no physical force was involved.
We properly use the mysterious term sanctified by Bohr: Alice “influenced” its behavior. (p. 137)

Yes, Alice’s observation of the polarization of one’s photon physically influenced

instantaneously the polarization of the second’s photon through the corresponding
electromagnetic wave.

To defend quantum theory in spite of its “nonphysical” aspect, Bohr redefined the goal of science. That
goal is not, he later claimed, to describe Nature, but only to describe what we can say about Nature. In his
earlier debates with Einstein, Bohr argued that any observation physically disturbs hat you observe by an

116
amount enough to prevent any experimental refutation of quantum theory. This has been called a “doctrine
of physical disturbance.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 137, their italic)74

Through of the EDWs perspective, we return to the classical (Newtonian) view of

“describing Nature”, i.e., of describing the physical reality of the EDWs, with their ED
entities and their ED interactions, but also with their ED correspondences. The physically
disturbance is instantaneously just because the electromagnetic wave has no parts, it is an
indivisible entity and therefore, when one person moves one end of the wave, the other
end of the wave moves instantaneously (nothing is passing the speed of light in this
process). Therefore, Alice influences instantaneously the behaviour of Bob’s photon!75
Again, there is not a “message” which passes the speed of light, c. There is only the
correspondence between those two photons and the electromagnetic wave (an indivisible
entity - it means, when one end of the wave is moved, the other part of the wave moves
instantaneously).
In this context, let me write some observations about the Bell’s inequalities:

As a result of Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated, a once “purely philosophical” question has
now been answered in the laboratory: There is a universal connectedness. Einstein’s “spooky interactions”
do in fact exist. Any objects that have ever interacted continue to instantaneously influence each other.
Events at the edge of the galaxy influence what happens at the edge of your garden. (p. 139)76

74
“Einstein rejected Bohr’s response. He insisted that there was a real world out there, and science must
explain it. A photon displayed a particular polarization not because some other object was observed but
because that photon actually had a physical property determining its polarization. If that property, later
called a ‘hidden variable,’ was not in quantum theory, the theory was incomplete. He derided Bohr’s
‘influences’ as being ‘voodoo forces’ and ‘spooky interactions’. He could not accept such things as part of
the way the world works, saying: ‘The Lord God is subtle, but malicious He is not’.” (Rosenblum and
Kuttner 2006, p. 137) Working within the unicorn world, for Einstein and Bohr it was impossible to accept
the existence of the photons and the electromagnetic wave in the same place, at the same time. This is the
reason, Einstein introduced his famous slogan “spooky actions at a distance”. Working within the EDWs,
this “spooky action at a distance” is nothing more than the correspondences between those two photons and
the electromagnetic wave which belong to the EDWs. “In the two decades he lived after EPR, Einstein
never wavered in his conviction that there was more to say than quantum theory told. He urged his
colleagues not to give up the search for the secrets of ‘the Old One.’ But he may have become discouraged.
In a letter to a colleague, he wrote: ‘I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious’.” (idem, p. 138) First
at all, God cannot even exist. (See I ’s article free at his webpage) Secondly, there are the correspondences
between the microparticles and the waves which explain this “spooky action at a distance”.
75
“Most physicists paid little attention to EPR, or to Bohr’s response. It did not matter whether or not
quantum mechanics was complete; it worked. It never made a wrong prediction, and practical results
abounded. Who cared if atoms lacked physical reality before being observed? Working physicists had no
time for “merely philosophical” questions.” (p. 139) Being philosophers, we indeed “care” about the
physical reality of atoms and the electromagnetic wave. These ED entities really exist in the EDWs, the
microparticle exist in the micro-EW which it is an EDW than the electromagnetic waves (the wave-EW).
76
“Bell’s central claim was that, if quantum mechanics is right, the measured values of spin on certain
pairs of separated particles (electrons1 in an ‘entangled’ state) would be incompatible with the classical
postulate of ‘locality’. Simply put, what ‘locality’ means is that these experiments could be set up in such a
way that the measurement of the spin of particle 1 produces no physical disturbance in particle 2. As David
Albert explains in an excellent introduction to the topic, locality, in this sense, seemed almost self-evident.
There seemed to be any number of ways you could do it: you could, for example, separate the two particles
by some immense distance so large that there is no time for a ‘signal’ from one of the particles to reach the
other without travelling faster than light, or build impenetrable shields between them, or ‘set up any array
of detectors you like in order to verify that no measurable signals ever pass from one of the electrons to the
other in the course of the experiment (since quantum mechanics predicts that no such array, in such

117
This “universal connectedness” is just an invention within the unicorn world. In reality,
the Bell’s theorem indicated not an “universal connectedness”, but just the
correspondences between the microparticles and the electromagnetic waves; the
correspondences are those elements which produces those “instantaneously influences”
between two microparticles. With the discovery of the EDWs, I furnished on ontological
view about QM, and not a view “for all practical purposes” (Bell’s slogan) as it is his
approach!77 I continue with Bell’s approach:

Bell’s theorem in a nutshell: Suppose that objects in our world do have physically real properties that are
not created by observation. And further suppose that two objects can always be separated from each other
so that what happens to one cannot affect the other. For short, we’ll call these two suppositions “reality”
and “separability.” From these two premises, both denied by quantum theory, Bell deduced that certain
observable quantities had to be larger than other observable quantities. This experimentally testable
prediction of Bell’s theorem is “Bell’s inequality.” (The most common, experimentally observed quantities
here are the rates at which twin-state photons display different polarizations when their polarizers are set at
different angles.) If it is found that Bell’s inequality is violated, one or both of the premises that lead to the
inequality must be wrong. In other words, if Bell’s inequality is violated in actual experiments, our world
cannot possibly have both reality and also separability. (p. 142)78

circumstances, whatever sorts of signals it may be designed to detect, will ever register anything)’ (Albert
[1992], p. 64). The experiment described by Aspect et al. ([1982]), showed that that the ‘non-locality’ that
Bell had derived from quantum mechanics in 1964 really exists, and ever since the question of how to
understand non-locality has been at the very centre of discussions of the interpretation of quantum
mechanics.” (Putnam 2005, p. 616) “However, non-locality can also be demonstrated with experiments
involving other magnitudes than spin and other particles than electrons, and also with experiments
involving fields rather than particles. See Finkelstein ([1987]) for a very clear explanation of non-locality
using photons as the particles and direction of polarization as the relevant observable.” (Putnam, p. 616)
77
“After finding where the no-hidden-variables proof went wrong, Bell pondered: ‘Since hidden variables
might exist, do they actually exist? Is there some observable way in which a world where hidden variables
do exist differs from the strange world quantum theory describes, a world where reality is created by
observation and objects are connected by mysterious influences?’” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 142)
There is neither a “strange world”, nor “mysterious influences” but just the correspondences between he
ED entities which belong to the EDWs!
78
“The gist of Bell’s idea was to get entangled particles to reveal their nonlocal connection—if indeed there
was one—by interrogating them more subtly. This could be done, he saw, by measuring the spin of the
particles along different angles. Because of the peculiarities of quantum spin, each measurement would be
like asking the particle a yes-or-no question. If two separated but entangled particles are asked the same
question—that is, if their spins are measured along the same angle—they are guaranteed to give the same
answer: either both yes or both no. There’s nothing necessarily magical about such agreement: it could have
been programmed into the pair of entangled particles when they were created together. But if entangled
particles are asked different questions—that is, if their respective spins are measured along different angles
—quantum mechanics then predicts a precise statistical pattern of matches and mismatches in their yes-or-
no answers. And with the right combination of questions, Bell proved, the pattern predicted by quantum
mechanics would be unambiguously nonlocal. No amount of preprogramming, no ‘hidden variables’ of the
kind envisaged by Einstein, could explain it. Such a tight correlation, Bell demonstrated, could only mean
that the separated particles were coordinating their behavior in some way not yet understood—that each
‘knew’ not only which question its distant twin was being asked but also how the twin answered.
So what Bell did was this. First, he conceived an experiment in which a certain combination of
measurements would be made on a pair of separated but entangled particles. Then he showed, by an
ironclad mathematical argument, that if the statistical pattern arising from these measurements was the one
predicted by quantum mechanics, then there would be no escape, logically speaking, from spooky action.”
(Holt 2018, pp. 244-5) Again, from the EDWs perspective, those two “entangled” particles correspond to a
particular electromagnetic wave (a continuous, indivisible entity) which represents the “nonlocality”.

118
Within the EDWs, there are, indeed, physical real properties which are not created by our
observation. There are, also, two objects separated from each other (those two photons),
so in each EW, we have reality and separability. Nevertheless, because of the
correspondences between the ED entities which belong to two EDWs, we do not have a
real separability between those two microparticles.79 Indeed, Bell’s inequality is violated
since there is a correspondence between those two microparticles (photons) and an
electromagnetic wave! We do have “physical reality” and “separability” in each EW, but
we also have the ED correspondences between the ED entities which belong to the
EDWs. And this correspondences can indicated, in some cases (for instance, when two
microparticles correspond to an electromagnetic wave), the nonlocality of two entities
from the micro-EW.
This nonlocality strongly indicates that within the EDWs perspective, we have
also to change these notions of “physical reality” and “separability”. The
correspondences between the ED entities from the micro-EW and the wave-EW can
influences the physical reality and their separability of the entities from the micro-EW.
The electromagnetic waves did not strongly influence, indirectly through
correspondences, the macro-entities, therefore the authors could characterized Newton’s
view about the world through that “physical reality” and “separability”. However,
because of these correspondences, there are no separability between two micro-entities
which were post in contact and, because of this contact, an electromagnetic wave is
establish between them, and this wave rejects their separability just because the wave,
through correspondences, can disturb the behaviour of those both microparticles at he
same time. So, there is no “spooky at a “distance, but just correspondence between the
ED entities which belong to the EDWs. No more…

When the experiments were done, Bell’s inequality was violated. Bell’s straw man was knocked down —
as he expected it would be. Our world does not have both reality and separability — one, perhaps, but not
both. And we immediately admit to not truly understanding what the world being unreal or having a
universal connectedness would imply. (p. 143)

Indeed, within the unicorn world, either one or both of “reality” and “separability” can
not be accepted, since Bell’s inequality is violated. It is not that “our world does not have
both reality and separability”, since authors’ world is the unicorn world. Nevertheless,
this “universal connectedness” is nothing more than the correspondence between those
two photons and an electromagnetic wave which belong not to the “same world” (there

“However it works, nonlocality has subversive implications for our understanding of space. Its discovery
suggests that we might live in a ‘holistic’ universe, one in which things that seem to be far apart may, at a
deeper level of reality, not be truly separate at all. The space of our everyday experience might be an
illusion, a mere projection of some more basic causal system.” (Holt 2018, p. 247) The “space” does not
exist (see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016), there is no “holistic universe” but the EDWs and their
correspondences (no ontology), no more.
79
Because of the correspondence with the electromagnetic wave, there is not a absolute “separability”
between two macroscopic objects, but just because of their great magnitude, the indirectly influence
(through correspondence) of the electromagnetic wave can be totally ignored when we want to explain, for
instance, the motions of those two macroscopic objects. Because of their very small magnitude, the
indirectly influence/correspondence of the electromagnetic wave on the microparticle cannot be ignored.

119
would be strong ontological contradictions), but to the EDWs. The Bell’s inequality was
violated just because the experiment was thought within the unicorn world.80
Avoiding those four experiments referring to Bell’s inequality from Rosenblum
and Kuttner’s book, I introduce a note about Clauser’s experiments from their work:

Clauser’s experiments ruled out, in physics terminology, “local reality” or “local hidden variables.” The
experiments showed that the properties of objects in our world have an observation-created reality or that
there exists a universal connectedness, or both. In these experiments, quantum theory survived its most
serious challenge in decades. (p. 148)

Again, I reject both (1) the idea that the properties of the objects from the EDWs have
that “observation-created reality” and (2) the existence of that “universal connectedness”.
There is the correspondence between those two microparticles (the micro-EW) and the

80
Just very recently (2021), Frank Lad indicates a mathematical error regarding Bell’s inequality. (Research
Features, the abstract of the article: “In 1935, Einstein and two of his peers devised a famous thought
experiment which they believed exposed the incompleteness of quantum theory, suggesting that its
probabilistic pronouncements represent our uncertainty regarding further aspects of atomic processes not
yet formalised. After contested discussion, in the 1960s the defiance of Bell’s inequality was proposed as an
enigma that counters this view and has gone largely unopposed since. In three recently published papers, Dr
Frank Lad, at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, identifies a mathematical error in this
proposition, pertinent to three seminal papers of quantum theory. His analysis is controversial, but if
confirmed the results should lead physicists to reconsider Einstein’s long-dismissed concept of ‘local
realism’.” (https://researchfeatures.com/resurrecting-local-realism-new-challenge-quantum-defiance-bells-
inequality/?fbclid=IwAR0QNqd9sRXZ9-O00JwtV5Pe_XOrnwdGH6LLl7VmeDAbeEVxepWjtTPp2xQ)
If Lad is right, his discovery supports my EDWs perspective: there is a “local realism” within the micro-
EW which corresponds to the “non-locality” (real continuity) of an electromagnetic wave (the field-EW).
(Anyway, Bell constructed his approach within the unicorn world.) On the same direction, see Kupczynski
(2020): “Entangled photon pairs cannot be described as pairs of socks nor as pairs of fair dice producing in
each trial perfectly correlated outcomes. Thus, the violation of inequalities confirms only that the
measurement outcomes and ‘the fate of photons’ are not predetermined before the experiment is done. It
does not allow for doubt regarding the objective existence of atoms, electrons, and other invisible
elementary particles which are the building blocks of the visible world around us…. We are unable to
create any consistent mental picture of a ‘photon.’ We have the same problem with many other elementary
particles, but the lack of mental pictures does not mean that they do not exist. These invisible particles are
building blocks of the visible world around us, including ourselves… A completely new approach is needed
in order to reconcile the quantum theory with the theory of general relativity, and it is not certain whether
we are smart enough to find it. I will surely not discover it, however, if we accept quantum magic as the
explanation of phenomena which we do not understand… In this paper, we defend Einstein's position [87–
89] as I believe that the moon continues to exist if nobody looks at it… In this article we explained why the
speculations about quantum non-locality and quantum magic are rooted in incorrect interpretations of QM
and/or in incorrect ‘mental pictures’ and models trying to explain invisible details of quantum
phenomena… the violation of various Bell-type inequalities may neither justify the existence of non-local
influences nor justify doubts that atoms, electrons, and the Moon are not there when nobody looks.”
(Kupczynski 2020) In my previous works, I wrote exactly the same ideas and all these paragraphs send
directly to the EDWs. (For instance, the same ideas are in I ’s PhD thesis at UNSW, Australia, posted FREE
at the university’s webpage in 2007!) This “completely new approach” (which does not “reconcile” but, on
the contrary, separates these two theories - the general relativity and quantum mechanics - in the EDWs) is
the EDWs perspective, an approach against any kind of reductionism. I believe that the EDWs perspective
has already been the paradigm of thinking for many physicists, cognitive neuroscientists and philosophers
from the entire world in the last years, even if the majority of the authors have forgotten to mention I ’s
name. Why? Just because I am Romanian and their envy is too high since they are from USA, Germany,
Canada, etc. etc.

120
electromagnetic wave (the wave-EW), but nothing more!81 “The experiments show that a
single twin-state photon’s behavior is instantaneously connected to that of its twin. That
connectedness can extend beyond the photon pair to macroscopic things.” (149-150) As I
emphasize above, the electromagnetic wave can indirectly influence only the microscopic
particle, but their influences on the “macroscopic things” is totally negligible regarding
their motions.82
Rosenblum and Kuttner present ten interpretations of the QM. I comment these
interpretations and the presence of “consciousness” in just one paragraph just because I
have been interested in the “description” of the QM and not in these ten “interpretations”.
With the EDWs, I introduced a new description of the QM and obviously a new
interpretation. In just few words, I emphasize again that the Everett’s many worlds is a
“interpretation” totally different than our description-interpretation (the EDWs
perspective) of QM. In Everett’s many worlds, one world exist for all other worlds
(Everett’s view is constructed within the unicorn world), while in the EDWs, one ED
world does not exist for any EDW.83 Regarding Bohm’s interpretation, the wave
81
“A decade later, with advanced technology and a more receptive atmosphere for exploring quantum
fundamentals, Alain Aspect in Paris duplicated Clauser’s results with far greater accuracy, showing that the
violation of Bell’s inequality was by precisely the amount predicted by quantum theory. His faster
electronics established that no physical effect could possibly propagate from one polarizer to another in
time for the observation of one photon to physically affect the other.” (143) The same observation are
available for Alain Aspect’s results: the correspondence between the wave and the photon clearly explain
the “spooky action at a distance”.
82
“‘Reality’ has been our shorthand term for objects having physically real properties that are not created
by observation. If the polarization of a photon is not a physical reality until it is observed, neither, for
example, is the living or dead state of Schrödinger’s cat entangled with that photon. Quantum theory has no
boundary between the microscopic and the macroscopic.” (p. 150) From my viewpoint, these statements
are quite wrong, since there is a “boundary” between the microscopic (the micro-EW) and the macroscopic
(the macro-EW), and moreover, the polarization of one photon (the micro-EW) indirectly influences the
polarization of the second photon (this indirectly influences are explained through the correspondence with
an electromagnetic wave which belong to the wave-EW).
83
“Again quoting Albert, ‘The idea of what has become the canonical interpretation of Everett’s paper
Albert has in mind (Dewitt [1970]) is that the means of coherently entertaining the possibility that Everett
must have had in mind (or perhaps the one that he ought to have had in mind) is to take the two
components of a state [such as 1/H2(Live Cat) þ 1/H2(Dead Cat)]14 ... to represent (literally!) two physical
worlds.’ The idea, applied to the thought experiment of Schrödinger’s Cat, is that when the photon reaches
the half-silvered mirror the number of physical worlds there are literally increases from one to two: in one
of the two worlds the photon goes through the half-silvered mirror, the cat is electrocuted, and the observer
has the determinate belief that the cat is dead; in the other the photon is reflected, the cat lives, and the
observer (and presumably the cat as well) has the determinate belief that the cat is alive.” (Putnam 2005, p.
627) Putnam rejects Everett’s “many worlds” interpretation using a simple thought experiment: “Suppose I
perform an experiment. It can have just two outcomes, as in the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment,
except that instead of having a complicated system such as a cat, let us just have two light bulbs, a red one
and a green one, and let the experimental set-up be arranged so that either the red light goes on or the green
light goes on when the interaction takes place (but not both). And the set-up need not be such that the two
outcomes are equiprobable, as was the case with Schrödinger’s Cat. The two outcomes could have
probabilities of 0.9 versus 0.1, or 0.00001 versus 0.99999, or whatever you wish. The probabilities can be
very unequal, and it does not matter. I perform this experiment. Then I perform it again. Then I perform it a
third time. Let us suppose I repeat it thirty times. According to the Many Worlds interpretation, since the
world obeys the Schrödinger equation at all times, in the course of the first trial of the experiment it really
does go into a superposition of the form p(Green Light lights) þ q(Red Light lights), where both p and q
have positive absolute values, and (1 - p) is the probability that the red light goes on, and this means, on
Everett’s interpretation as interpreted by Dewitt, that there are now (after the first trial) two physical

121
influences somehow the microparticle, but for us there is only a correspondence between
these ED entities. Also, the authors insist on the contact between the consciousness and
the processes of QM. I reject any such contact since there are EDWs (for instance, the
mind-EW which includes consciousness, the micro-EW, the wave-EW and the macro-
EW) and nothing else. However, the consciousness (part of the mind-EW) does not exist
for any quantum process/entity since there are the EDWs.

Why can’t we see an object simultaneously in two boxes? Quantum theory provides no answer. Strictly
speaking, an object wholly in Box A can also be considered to be in a “superposition state.” It is in a
superposition (or sum) of the state {in Box A + in Box B} plus the state {in Box A – in Box B}. Notice that
these just add up to {in Box A}. Similarly, the living-cat state is a superposition of the state {living + dead}
plus the state {living – dead}. The missing factor of 2 is accounted for in the actual mathematics of
quantum theory.
All these states have equivalent status as far as quantum theory is concerned. Why, then, do we
always see things in certain kinds of states — states characteristic of a particular position? We never
actually see the weird states corresponding to things being simultaneously in different positions.
(Schrödinger’s simultaneously living-and-dead cat is such a weird state because some of the atoms in a
living cat must be in different positions than the atoms in a dead cat.) (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, pp.
186-7)

I only furnish an answer to this question: “Why can’t we see an object simultaneously in
two boxes?” (p. 186) Within the EDWs perspective, I have the answer: the microparticle
is in one boxes, not in both, as it is the wavefunction. There is not a “superposition” of
the microparticle in two both boxes, there is not a superposition of the microparticle and
the wave, but a correspondence between them since they belong to the EDWs.
In this chapter, I investigated the main notions of quantum mechanics from
Rosenblum and Kuttner’s book, a book for everybody. Anyway, this work presents the
main notions of quantum mechanics. However, the description of quantum mechanics is
realized by the authors and by all previous great physicists within the unicorn world. The
authors investigate the main notions and “mysteries” of quantum mechanics within the
unicorn world. With the EDWs perspective, I furnish an ontological view over the
quantum processes/entities. Therefore, I totally rejects the pragmatism or the
epistemological framework propose by some physicists. All previous interpretations have
been wrong just because the description of the QM has been wrong (it was a description
realized within the unicorn world! The EDWs perspective is a new description of the
quantum phenomena and there is the correct interpretation of this new description. I
believe that the discovery of the EDWs represent the greatest scientific and philosophical
revolution in science and philosophy.

universes, in one of which I observe the green light go on (and only that light go on) and in the second of
which I observe only the red light go on.” (Putnam 2005, p. 629) If Einstein performs this experiment thirty
times, “there will be 230 Einsteins, with 230 histories… I repeat, on the Many Worlds interpretation, there
will be 230 Einstein histories—‘parallel worlds’; science fiction is literally right!” (Putnam, p. 630) The
reader has to clearly understand the huge difference (different frameworks, in fact) between the “Many
worlds” interpretation and the EDWs perspective…

122
Chapter 6

An interrelated explanation of some irreversible thermodynamics

processes, quantum nonlocality and dark energy

6.1 The correspondences between some thermodynamics processes (temperature

and heat), quantum nonlocality and dark energy
From my EDWs perspective, I try to indicate the correspondences between certain
particular phenomena (the ED entities and the ED processes84) which belong to the
EWDs and involve particular theories: the macro-objects and their temperature
(Thermodynamics, the macro-EW), the microparticles and their motions plus the
corresponding electromagnetic fields (Quantum Mechanics, the micro-EW and the field-
EW), and dark energy (my EDWs perspective 2016, probably, the mega-EW and/or the
pre-Big-Bangs-EW). Through identifying these correspondences, I can explain the
reason:
- why the laws of thermodynamics are so certain (and irreversible),
- quantum nonlocality (see our work 2005, 2007, 2008, previous chapter, etc.),
- the spread of galaxies (dark energy, see our work 2016b)
- the correspondences and the evolution of EDWs and many other things in Physics,
Cognitive Neuroscience, and Philosophy. (See our previous works)
Thermodynamics is the “study of the transformation of energy, particularly of
heat, into work”. (Atkins 2004, p. 109) It refers to the laws of heat motion and the
conversion of heat into other types of energy.85 Thermodynamics studies the way in
which a system moves from one state to another state. The classical thermodynamics and
the statistical thermodynamics explain the entities/processes and their interactions which
belong to the EDWs: classical thermodynamics refers to the macro-objects (the macro-
EW), statistical thermodynamics refers to the microparticles (the micro-EW). (See
Vacariu and Vacariu 2016) Before investigating the main “laws” of thermodynamics, I
have to specify that these “laws” aren’t “real”, laws but some unproved principles
(“axioms”) correlated with certain physical “regularities”. Atkins describes the
correspondence between the temperature (a property of macro-objects in the macro-EW)
and some notions of quantum mechanics: temperature corresponds to the energies of
atoms (the micro-EW) on different “shelves” of energies (β parameter).

shelves fixed at different heights on a wall, the shelves representing the allowed energy states and their
heights the allowed energies. The nature of these energies is immaterial: they may correspond, for instance,
to the translational, rotational, or vibrational motion of molecules… the most probable distribution of
populations (the numbers of balls that land on each shelf) for a large number of throws, subject to the
requirement that the total energy has a particular value, can be expressed in terms of that single parameter

84
The entities which form all kinds of “matter” are called fermions; the particles necessary for the
interactions (“forces”) of the fermions are called bosons.
85
There are two laws: (1) the conservation of energy (2) “certain definite function of the temperatures and
pressures and volumes and densities of macroscopic material systems— something called the entropy—
can never decrease as time goes forward.” (Albert 2015, p. 3)

123
β. The precise form of the distribution of the molecules over their allowed states, or the balls over the
shelves, is called the Boltzmann distribution. (Atkins 2010, p. 10)86

Essentially, the “nature of these energies is immaterial”.87 Obviously, within the unicorn
word, Atkins needed to introduce the notion of “immaterial”. In fact, we have, on one
side, the energies (fields, waves, etc. but, as I will see below, “energy” is quite difficult to
be defined), on the other side, the motions of molecules (atoms, microparticles), the
“temperature” (just a property of the macro-objects) and the “correspondences” between
the ED entities/processes which belong to the EDWs: the field/ the field-EW (or the
energy-EW), the micro-EW, and the macro-EW. Related to the temperature (the macro-
objects): it is this parameter β (Boltzmann distribution) which explains the corresponding
micro-entities (the micro-EW). In this context, Atkins defines “temperature” as

the parameter that tells us the most probable distribution of populations of molecules over the available
states of a system at equilibrium. When the temperature is high (β low), many states have significant
populations; when the temperature is low (β high), only the states close to the lowest state have significant
populations… Temperature, then, is just a parameter that summarizes the relative populations of energy
levels in a system at equilibrium. (Atkins 2010, p. 11)

If “temperature” is just a “parameter”, does it refer to something that really exists? In

other words, does “temperature” have an ontological status? Again, it has to be very clear
that the temperature is a property of the entities which belong to the macro-EW (but we
have also the temperature of the “Universe”, 2.725K) and it corresponds to certain
properties (motions) of entities (molecules, atoms) which belong to the micro-EW. The
parameter β (the micro-EW) corresponds (in the opposite direction) to the temperature of
macro-objects (the macro-EW). If “temperature” is “just a parameter that summarizes the
relative populations of energy levels”, then the temperature of our bodies (usually around
37° Celsius ) is just an “approximation” of the motions of microparticles and even our
body (brain) does not really exist (but this hypothesis is rejected by the EDWs
perspective).
McEvoy and Zarate present “Thermodynamics” before “Quantum Mechanics”.
Among other things, they write about the “principle of conservation energy”. (McEvoy
and Zarate 2013, p. 17) I believe the conservation energy is a result of the
correspondence between some EDWs and an EDW/EW0. Within the EDWs perspective,
we have to be aware that the principle of conservation energy has to be, somehow,
changed. In a particular EW, a system can lose some energy in that EW, but this energy
can correspond (in other format) to something else which belongs to an EDW. Also, the
essential notion of “entropy” (a particular case being about heat: heat transferred from a
hot body to a cold one) (McEvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 18) has to receive a new
explanation within the EDWs perspective. (See our work from 2017)
86
“In the latter part of the nineteenth century, physicists like Ludwig Boltzmann in Vienna and John Willard
Gibbs in New Haven began to think about the relationship between thermodynamics and the underlying
complete microscopic science of elementary constituents of the entirety of the world— which was
presumed (at the time) to be Newtonian mechanics. And the upshot of those investigations was a beautiful
new science called statistical mechanics.” (Albert 2015, p. 4)
87
Einstein: “Everything is energy and that is all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want
and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics.” Not
really, everything is “energy”; more exactly, everything (the ED entities from the EDWs) just correspond to
energy (the field-EW).

124
The entropy of an isolated system always increases, reaching a maximum at thermal equilibrium, i.e. when
all bodies in the system are at the same temperature. (McEvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 18)

This famous law has to be re-interpreted within the EDWs perspective. I can consider a
particular case just a system formed by the macroscopic bodies. The second
thermodynamic law (“the heat flows from the hot body to the cold body”, an irreversible
process) has to be translated within the EDWs perspective. I explain the “entropy” for the
electromagnetic waves (the field-EW): the electromagnetic waves (speed c, always) tend
to become straighter and straighter because the “straight electromagnetic wave” is
natural, while a “curved electromagnetic” wave needed a cause (a perturbation,
disturbance) to become “curved”. Probably, there is a phenomenon from the pre-Big-
Bang-EW which corresponded to the straight electromagnetic waves.
Between the correspondences of these EDWs, there is also a correspondence with
the micro-EW. The EDWs perspective furnishes neither a classical view, nor a quantum
view (both constructed within the “unicorn-world”) about the quantum processes, but a
new perspective on the eternal classical problems of quantum mechanics (see previous
chapter). The behavior of microparticles correspond to the behavior of the
electromagnetic waves (the field-EW) and the macro-bodies (the macro-EW). Thus, the
correspondences have to be equivalent to some previous scientific laws constructed
within the unicorn world... About J. C. Maxwell (an atomist) referring to his atomism
about the “kinetic theory of gases”, we have these two statements:
- “But Maxwell’s analysis, based on Newton’s mechanics, showed that temperature is a
measured of the microscopic mean squared velocity of the molecules.”
- “Heat is thus caused by the ceaseless random motion of atoms.” (McEvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 22)
From my viewpoint, the temperature is a feature of macroscopic bodies/entities
(the human body has a temperature) (the macro-EW), while the motions of microparticles
(for instance, “atoms”) belong to the micro-EW, so, there is a correspondence between
the motion of the microparticles and the temperature (a property of macro-entities). The
“fire” and the body belong to the macro-EW, but in the same “place”, at the same “time”,
there are the corresponding microparticles (the micro-EW) and the radiations (the field-
EW). The authors start this chapter with a very problematic statement: “Each involved
the interaction of radiation and matter as reported by reliable, experimental scientists. The
measurements were accurate and reproducible, yet paradoxical…” (McEvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 26) Obviously, I have to strongly emphasize that the “radiation” and the “matter”
belong to the EDWs, and even “matter”, in general, belongs to the EDWs. With this
wrong sentence (constructed within the unicorn world), we can understand the wrong
way of understanding the quantum mechanics, even at the beginning. Certain phenomena
like the black-body radiation, the photoelectric effect, the bright line spectra, and the
“Zeeman effect” could be explained using the EDWs perspective (see our previous
works): it is just the correspondence between the microparticle (the micro-EW) and the
electromagnetic wave (the field-EW). (Again, see our previous works or previous
chapter)
In 1923, de Broglie “discovered” that any microparticles needed to be associated
with an electromagnetic wave (more exactly, it would be the “wrapped up” of a small part
of that wave which better corresponded to that microparticle): “It seems certain to me that

125
the propagation of a wave is associated with the motion of a particle of any sort…
photon, electron, proton or any other.” (de Broglie) (in McEvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 111)
Obviously, in the micro-EW, each microparticle corresponds to a particular “wrapped up”
wave (all the electromagnetic waves represent the electromagnetic field from the field-
EW or wave-EW). Important is that, the next section has the title “An associated wave”.
Within the unicorn world, this expression has no meaning. De Broglie believes that these
“waves I call ‘pilot’ waves which guide the particle in its motion” (McEvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 112), but there are the “phase velocity of wave” and the “group velocity of wave
packet” (McEvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 113). From my viewpoint, a wave cannot directly
“guide” the particle since the wave does not exist for the particle (there are the EDWs).
De Broglie introduces the “pilot wave” that is always “attached” to or “associated” with a
microparticle (an electron, for instance). (Presura 2014, p. 223) That is, a microparticle
has always to be “associated” with a electromagnetic wave (a part of it being “wrapped
up” and this wrapped part corresponds directly with a particle). What does it mean
“attached” or “associated”? Both notions are wrong terms used by the physicists working
within the unicorn world. In reality, the notion has to be replaced with the
“correspondence” between the electron and the pilot wave, since “association” sends us
toward the unicorn world! The entire wave corresponds to the particle88, but the place of
that particle corresponds, in general, to this “wrapped up” part of the electromagnetic
wave. When a particle instantly moves from one place to another (even thousands of
kilometers), it means that the electromagnetic wave becomes straight in the first place
(where the particle was at the first moment) and the wave becomes “wrapped up” in a
part of it which can be placed at a distance of thousands of kilometers further (where the
particles would be at the second time). Through these correspondences, I explained, very

88
The particle really exists even without our measurement/observation. I reject Wheeler’s verdict that no
“elementary particle is a phenomenon until it is resistered.” (McEvoy and Zarata 2013, p. 173) just because
the particle interacts with other microparticles, and because of their interactions/“measurements” all these
microparticles really exist.

126
clearly, the “nonlocality”89, “entanglement” of certain processes and the infamous
Schrödinger’s cat90 from quantum mechanics. (Vacariu 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, etc.)

We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any

classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.
(Richard Feynman)

Until I discovered the existence of the EDWs, all the physicists have been working within
the unicorn world and this is the reason that the famous physicist Richard Feynman
claims the “heart” of quantum mechanics “contains the only mystery”91. Indeed, within

89
Regarding double-slit experiment (see also our previous works), quite recently (2021), Kaku writes:
“How can a point particle, the electron, interfere with itself, as if it had traveled through two separate slits?
In addition, other experiments on electrons showed they vanished and reappeared somewhere else, which is
impossible in a Newtonian world.” (Kaku 2021, p. 50) “Figure 7. Electrons passing through a double slit
act as if they are a wave—that is, they interfere with one another on the other side, as if they are moving
through two slits simultaneously, which is impossible in Newtonian physics but is the basis of quantum
mechanics.” (p. 51) Obviously, from my viewpoint, the electron passes through one slit, and the
electromagnetic wave passes through both slits, but the electron and the wave belong to the EDWs. I
explained quite well the nonlocality (see for instance, his PhD thesis in 2007): between the two particles
(the micro-EW), there is an electromagnetic wave (the wave-EW) and this wave represent, indirectly (that
is, through correspondence), the link, i.e., the nonlocality (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”) of those
two microparticles. In this way, I follow exactly the “Interactions under Non-local Reality: 1. The
interaction does not diminish with distance. 2. It can act instantaneously (faster than the speed of light). 3.
It links up location without crossing space.” (McEvoy and Zarata 2013, p. 170) Importantly, Schrödinger
even doubted the existence of particles, each particle being a superposition of waves. (McEvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 140) He was working only within the wave-EW. For us, the particle does not exist within the
wave-EW; in this EW, instead of particle, we can find indeed a superposition of waves. Anyway,
Schrödinger indicated that Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and his theory are equivalent from a
mathematical point of view. (idem, p. 142) From my viewpoint, this equivalence indicates the
correspondence between the particle-EW and the wave-EW. Heisenberg indicates to Schrödinger that his
“continuum wave theory” cannot explain the photoelectric effect and black-body radiation. (idem, p. 143)
So, we have to accept the existence of both the EDWs, the micro-EW and the wave-EW. We cannot accept
the existence only of “quantum world” (as many physicists claim) just because in this ED worlds, the
micro-EW and the wave-EW, the human being would be unable to think since it does not even exist.
Thinking requires the existence of the mind-EW and the corresponding macro-entities like the brain which
exists as a macro-entity (a condition necessary for the existence of the corresponding human mind). So, we
have to accept the existence of the macro-entities, we cannot reduce everything to the “quantum world”.
Also, gravity cannot be explain at quantum level, we do not have yet a solution to the “quantum gravity”. I
believe, because of the EDWs, the quantum gravity is quite a wrong notion, this being the reason, after so
many decades, nobody have discovered the quantum gravity.
90
“Even today, there is no universal consensus among physicists concerning the cat problem. (The old
Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr, that the true cat emerges only because observation causes the
wave of the cat to collapse, has fallen into disfavor, in part because with nanotechnology, we can now
manipulate individual atoms and perform these experiments. What has become more popular is the
multiverse, or many worlds, interpretation, where the universe splits in half, with one half containing a
dead cat and the other containing a live cat.)” (Kaku 2021, p. 59) Using the EDWs, I have solved this
problem long time ago (2006, 2007, etc.). However, I emphasize again the very strong difference between
Everett’s many worlds and my EDWs: there are different frameworks of thinking, no more… (see the
previous chapter of this work)
91
“But quantum theory’s successes were undeniable. Einstein wrote that ‘the more successful the quantum
theory becomes, the sillier it looks’.” (Kaku 2021, p. 56) Within the unicorn world (the Universe/world),
QM looked indeed quite silly… “Einstein was successful in exposing the cracks in the foundation of
quantum mechanics.” (Kaku 2021, p. 57) Feynman was right: “I think I can safely say that nobody

127
the unicorn world, the relationship between the wave and the particle could be only a real
mystery, no more, since both entities have been posted within the same world! In reality,
the wave and the microparticle belong to the EDWs. The probabilities of finding a
particle somewhere are low just because a microparticles is strongly influenced by an
electromagnetic wave, while the probability to find a soccer ball are great (=just because
the electromagnetic wave does not influence the macro-object.92
In the same way, through the correspondences between phenomena which belong
to the macro-EW and the field-EW, I can explain not only the principles of
thermodynamics and but also the “dark energy”: there is no “dark energy” somewhere,
but only certain correspondences (no ontological status) between the macro-entities and
the electromagnetic waves (always having the speed c). An entire electromagnetic wave
moves with speed c, but mainly, but not only, the “wrapped up” part (inside it, the wave
moves with speed c) corresponds to a microparticle which has a corresponding speed
(obviously, not c). Because of this correspondence, the speed of that particle is constantly
increasing up: the speed c of the electromagnetic wave (the field-EW) “pushes”,
indirectly through correspondence, the microparticle (the micro-EW) to increase
constantly its speed. The same argument is available for the speed of a planet (the macro-
EW): from a galaxy, each planet “is pushed” by the corresponding electromagnetic waves
(which have all the speed c), but because of its mass, the planet or the particle could not
reach instantly the speed c. Anyway, because of these correspondences, all the
microparticles are accelerated, therefore any planet (which corresponds to a huge
amalgam of microparticles) is also accelerating its speed. This is the new explanation of
“dark energy” within the framework of the EDWs perspective: because of these
correspondences with the electromagnetic field (speed c), the speeds of the corresponding

understands quantum mechanics.” (idem) or “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't
understand quantum mechanics.” (Feynman) The quantum mechanics cannot be understood as a real and
correct theory within the unicorn world, therefore such slogans mirror the wrong framework in which this
theory has been constructed! I recall here that I did discover the EDWs working on the mind-brain
problem and later he applied this perspective to the “mysteries” of QM.
92
Again, I mention, in this footnote, that the “probabilities” introduced by Born in quantum mechanics was
just a tool, but not a real description of quantum nature, as Born and many other physicists have believed.
In fact, quantum nature is represented by two EDWs, the micro-EW and the wave-EW and only their
relationships have been represented by these “probabilities”. Heisenberg claimed: “I remember discussions
with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at
the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and
again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?”
Following partial Einstein’s view (“I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality… which represent
things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me
certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model.”) (Both
Bohr and Einstein’s sentences from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxRfDtaot5U), I answer to
Heisenberg: “The unicorn world is indeed absurd. However, the EDWs are not absurd, they represent the
real Nature!” Even Einstein’s last sentence is quite wrong from my viewpoint: we have “complete
localization” in every EW… Einstein indicates to Born: “I do not like the probability theory and believe the
path followed by Born, Heisenberg and yourself is only temporary, of heuristic value, so to speak.”
(McEvoy and Zarata 2013, p. 163) Einstein was totally right with this statement. All alternatives of
quantum mechanics were replaced by the EDWs perspective which rejects the main notions of these
alternatives constructed within the unicorn world. With the EDWs perspective, I do not indicate the missing
part of quantum mechanics (I recall, the EPR argument with the “hidden variables” missing to quantum
mechanics), but I indicate this theory had been constructed/described within a wrong framework, the
unicorn world.

128
microparticles and the speeds of the corresponding planets have been constantly
increasing (this increasing representing the expansion of the “Universe”). In principle, the
planets of one galaxy move toward the same direction, but we have to be aware that all
these planets correspond to a part of an electromagnetic field which moves, naturally,
with speed c in one particular direction. All the galaxies moves in all directions with an
increasing speed since the corresponding electromagnetic field moves in all directions
with the speed c.
This natural motion of the electromagnetic field/wave (its moving in all directions
with speed c) (motion which appeared after the plasma became cooler, approximately
380.000 years after the Big Bangs) corresponds to a phenomena which belong to an
EDW, probably, the pre-Big-Bang-EW. Knowing that the energy tends to move from
being concentrated to being dispersed, I can assume that a curved, wrapped up
electromagnetic wave tends to become “straight wave” just because the straight line of an
electromagnetic wave is its natural status (which surely corresponds to a phenomenon
from an EDW). Therefore, because of the correspondence between an electromagnetic
wave (speed c) and a microparticle (for instance an “atom”), the speed of microparticle
tends toward the speed of electromagnetic wave, c. So, indirectly, through this
correspondence, each atom has an increasing speed toward the speed c. Obviously,
because of its mass, the atom will never reach the speed c, but its speed has been
constantly increasing, exactly because of such correspondences.
The second principle of thermodynamics asserts that the direction of certain
natural processes runs only in one direction (not reversible), the heat always moves from
a hotter object toward a colder one; the energy tends to move from being concentrated to
being dispersed; the entropy cannot decrease in any system, i.e, the entropy is always
increasing in any system. In general, every physicist considers the second principle of
thermodynamics refers to the entropy: “entropy means the moving of something toward
disorder”. However, I emphasize that “entropy” means entropy for us, the human being,
who judges certain phenomena (that we perceive them directly or indirectly). Maybe from
the viewpoint of an electromagnetic field, its continuous “extension” is, in reality, a
movement from disorder to order. Probably, for an electromagnetic field the straight line
is its order, therefore, the entropy of an electromagnetic field is the movement from
disorder (wrapped parts) toward straight lines. The appearances of the macro-entities are
correspondences with certain “perturbations/disturbances” of the electromagnetic field.
Because of its disturbances (which correspond to the appearances of the macro-objects in
the macro-EW), the electromagnetic tends toward recovering its initial state: the
electromagnetic field tends to become straight, to reach the “order state” not the disorder
state. I introduce here the lake-wave analogy. Imagine a lake without any wave. You have
to judge that the water of the lake is in a “stable order” (the water having no movement).
If you draw a stone in that lake, you will “disturb” the water in a particular region of that
lake (“fluctuations in equilibrium”). In that moment, you will judge, the water of the lake
is in a “disorder” state (just because you have thrown a stone in the water). Anyway, after
few seconds, the water will return to its previous state, that of “stable order”, in an
equilibrium state (i.e., without any macro-movement). The water of the lake becoming
straight means the tendency of the water of the lake toward its “stable order”. In analogy,
probable, the electromagnetic field tends from “disorder” (after the Big Bang and plasma,
the creation of many micro-entities (the micro-EW) and later the many macro-objects

129
(the macro-EW)) toward “order”, i.e., toward the “straight lines” of the electromagnetic
waves (in analogy with the water from that lake). So, “entropy” has to be re-defined from
the electromagnetic field’s viewpoint: in a free state, the electromagnetic field always
moves toward a stable “order” (“equilibrium”), i.e., the straight field and not a
curved/wrapped up/perturbed one (as it was after the Big Bangs and plasma). Obviously,
from the viewpoint of a human body or a planet (both macro-entities), the movement of
an electromagnetic field is “entropic”, i.e., its moves toward “disorder” for the viewpoint
of the macro-entity. Therefore, I have to re-write the second principle of thermodynamic:
“The (matter of) ‘Universe’, i.e., the electromagnetic fields tends toward its stable
order .” In this context, within the EDWs perspective, the notion of “entropy” created
within the unicorn world has been quite wrong
To the second principle of thermodynamics, I add another principle, the speed of
light, c, is constant. This speed is constant, it is an element of the “stable order” of any
electromagnetic wave. For a macro-entity, the correspondence to the speed of the
microparticle or the electromagnetic wave would be a “disorder”: the perturbation of the
electromagnetic wave (which corresponds to the macro-objects) returns to its straight
lines (it means a disorder in relationship with the macro-objects). Then, through analogy
to these principles, I will introduce a new principle related to the EDWs, dark energy (and
dark matter), the principle of “correspondence toward equilibrium”:

An electromagnetic field is perturbed when, in the corresponding macro-EW, certain

objects appear. In general, it is something natural, a perturbed electromagnetic
field/wave to move naturally toward becoming straight. The straight state of an
electromagnetic field/wave is its “order state”. Any perturbed energy (the perturbed
electromagnetic waves/fields in the field-EW) moves toward “equilibrium”,i.e., toward
straight electromagnetic waves, toward “order”. The motion toward order of the
electromagnetic field corresponds to the movement toward “disorder” of the macro-
entities, for instance. The existence of certain ED entities like the micro-entities and the
macro-entities correspond to the electromagnetic energy tending to be “dispersed”. All
the microparticles correspond to certain vibrations of the electromagnetic waves (speed
c), therefore, in some particular situations, because of these correspondences, all these
micro-entities tend to move toward the speed of light. Since the microparticles correspond
to the macroparticles, then, in some particular situations, the motions of the
macroparticles tend toward the speed of light (for instance, the “expansion of the
“galaxies”).

With this principle, I hope, I have a new explanation for entropy (stable and unstable
states) and dark energy. After those many “Big Bangs” (which took place at the same
time, approximately 13.82 billions years ago), the cosmic background radiation had
certain “irregularities” (i.e., “anisotropies”) in its directional distributions (Bojowald
2010, p. 156) and these anisotropies indicates “how gravitational attractions led slightly
denser than the average to grow” (idem, p. 156) which led, finally, to the formation of
planets (which “composed” the galaxies). However, each planet corresponds to an huge
amalgam of microparticles and each particle corresponds to a vibrating part of an
electromagnetic wave (all the electromagnetic waves have naturally (i.e., always) the
speed c.). The electromagnetic waves move with speed c, in all directions, since their
electromagnetic field moves with speed c, in all directions. Why an electromagnetic field

130
moves in such way, why any electromagnetic wave has the speed c? Because these
phenomena correspond to certain ED phenomenon which belongs to an unknown EDW
(maybe the pre-Big-Bangs-EW). When we produce a “fire”, the corresponding
electromagnetic field moves in all directions with speed c. Why? Because the nature of a
fire (the nature of the electromagnetic fields) corresponds to a phenomena which belongs
to an unknown EDW.
There are some physicists who, working within de Broglie’s approach, have used
the notion of “correlation” or “association” between the wave (apparently the
“unwrapped up” part but, more exactly, the entire wave) and the particle. Nevertheless,
even using “associations”, all of them have been working within the unicorn world,
nobody discovered the EDWs and rejected the Universe/world until me. Many physicists
have believed that “the electron is both wave and particle”, but this description has been
constructed within the unicorn world and it has lead to some strong ontological
contradictions.

The wave-particle duality

A particle is described between the measurements only by its probability wave. The wave can have a
process of interference with any other wave. At one measurement, I will find the particle localized in one
place or another, with a probability furnished by its probability wave. Now there it is its corpuscular
manifestation. (Presura, p. 229)

With the EDWs perspective: the microparticle is not “described between measurements”
“only” by its “probability wave”. It would means that the particle does not exist between
these measurements. Within the unicorn world, if the particle “exists between
measurements”, there would be, obviously, a strong ontological contradiction. Within the
EDWs perspective, the “microparticle” is just a microparticle between our measurements
because the microparticle has always been an entity before and after our measurements in
its EW, the micro-EW. From my viewpoint, essentially, the electron, for instance,
corresponds to the entire electromagnetic field which is spread in the entire “Universe”.
Moreover, the electromagnetic wave is an indivisible entity, therefore, the electron (the
micro-EW) corresponds to something which exists in the entire “Universe” (the wave in
the field-EW). Because of its correspondence, we can find the particle either on the Earth
or on the Moon, with different probabilities (obviously, there are greater probability the
microparticle to be in the place where it is the corresponding “node” or the “wrapped up”
wave). Presura emphasizes an essential detail: a vibrating small part of an
electromagnetic field can be associated with more particles (not only one), these
microparticles are not classical balls, but discrete packets of energy placed in different
places. (Presura 2014, p. 334) From the “theory of the field”, we move to the “theory of
particles”. (p. 336)

In reality, however, the particle is just a packet of energy of the field which represents it, the packet of
energy that moves from one place to another… If we look with more attention, the “movement” of the
particle does not happen, it is, better said, an illusion. The “movement” of the particle is then, in reality, the
successive observations of the energy of this field in different places in space. All that exists is the field,
according to Steven Weinberg…”. (Presura 2014, p. 338)

Within the unicorn world, the reductionists claim that the macro-objects (the table and the
planet) do not really exist, but only the microparticles have ontological status. However,

131
there are other reductionists who consider that the electromagnetic waves are the only
entities which really exist. In this context, can I believe that an electromagnetic field has
written this book? It would be quite absurd to believe this reductionist statement, anyway,
the EDWs perspective rejects any kind of reductionism. A physicist (Presura, in this case)
can affirm that the microparticle “is just a packet of energy of the field”, so the
microparticle does not exist, from this reductionist viewpoint. However, the unicorn
world framework forced Presura and many other physicists to move toward this
reductionist viewpoint! The question which appears immediately: in this case, how can
we make the difference between two individuals placed very close one to another? Also,
from a reductionist viewpoint, there is no mind, so it is not a mind writing this book, but
just an amalgam of electromagnetic waves, obviously, an absurd statement! All kinds of
reductionism are constructed within the unicorn world, so they are all wrong. Also, as I
showed in my previous works, quantum gravity could not even exist, so we could not
“reduce” a planet to its “microparticles”. Within the EDWs perspective, the macro-
objects really exist (in the macro-EW), a macro-entity is an epistemologically different
entity than a huge amalgam of micro-entities (the micro-EW) which just corresponds to
that planet.
Within the EDWs perspective, on the contrary, temperature is really a property of
the macro-entities (the body/macro-objects) that really have ontological status within the
EDWs framework. I have to change a notion from Atkins’ following sentence:
“temperature, and specifically β, is a parameter that expresses the equilibrium distribution
of the molecules of a system over their available energy states” (2010, p. 13). This
reductionism has to be replaced with the EDWs: β is a parameter which “corresponds” to
the “distribution of the molecules of a system over their available energy states”.

That states of higher energy are progressively populated as the temperature is raised means that more and
more molecules are moving (including rotating and vibrating) more vigorously, or the atoms trapped at
their locations in a solid are vibrating more vigorously about their average positions. (Atkins 2010, p. 15)

The motion of many microparticles (the micro-EW) correspond to the temperature (the
property of macro-objects which belong to an EDW, the macro-EW). The “higher
temperature” means (that is, “corresponds to”) either the molecules extending up to
higher energy states or, in a “solid”, the atoms vibrating more and more vigorously.
Again, different kinds of motion of microparticles (the micro-EW) correspond to the
temperature (the property of macro-objects, the macro-EW). However, these
microparticles correspond to the motions of certain electromagnetic waves (the field-
EW).
According to the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy
(internal energy, U), energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. That is, the amount of
energy in the entire “Universe” is the same. It seems that nobody can deny the existence
of “energy”, even if we are not able to precisely define this notion. Does “energy” have
any ontological status? If yes, what kind? Is “energy” an entity, a process, or a
field/wave? Or, maybe I would better define “energy” as something “immaterial” indeed
(which belongs to a particular EW) and corresponds to something material (the behaviour
of some microparticles or macroparticles or waves). Anyway, the energy is related to
“work”. “Work is motion against an opposing force. We do work when we raise a weight
against the opposing force of gravity.” (Atkins 2010, p. 16, his italics) Obviously, the

132
“magnitude of work” depends on certain physical parameters for certain entities which
belong to the macro-EW: the mass of the object, the strength of the gravitational force
and the height at which the object is raised. All kinds of “work” are “equivalent of raising
of a weight”. (Atkins 2010, p. 17) James Joule established the “mechanical theory of
heat” (Dugdale 1996, p. 19). He was able to show that work could be transformed into
heat. (Atkins 2004, p. 100) Indeed, we cannot consider that “work” has an ontological
status; work is neither an entity, nor an interaction. “Work” is an act/process which
involves some entities (an engine, for instance) that really exist and their actions. The
problem is that “heat” is a process, not a thing or a property of a thing. Heat requires a
macro-object that has temperature and the external environment (or another macro-
object) in which it is transferred. Atkins believes that “heat” is

energy transferred as a result of a temperature difference, with energy flowing from hot (high temperature)
to cold (low temperature). There is no heat stored in the source before the event; there is none stored in the
receiving object after the event. There was energy stored in the source before the event; the heated object
has a higher energy after the event-some water, for instance, might have evaporated or some ice melted.
Energy has been transferred from source to object through the agency of heat: heat is the agent of transfer,
not the entity transferred. (Atkins 2004, p. 103)

The problem is that Atkins’ works in a reductionist framework within the unicorn word:
he believes that the macro-objects are nothing more than an amalgam of the vibrating
microparticles: the “macroscopic, observable motion is the uniform motion of
innumerable atoms”. (2004, p. 103) Thus, “work” has to be associated with the “uniform
motion of atoms”, it is “the transfer of energy that stimulates uniform motion of atoms in
the surroundings.” (Atkins 2004, p. 103) Within this reductionism framework, the macro-
entities (and their “temperatures”) do not really exist, i.e., they cannot have any
ontological status. From a reductionist viewpoint, the temperature cannot be a property of
a macro-entity (it does not exist at the macro-“level”), but just the motions of an amalgam
of microparticles (which “really exist”). From a reductionist framework, we have to push
forward this reductionism and to reduce the microparticles to the electromagnetic fields.
On the contrary, from my viewpoint, the macro-objects really exist and the “temperature”
is the property of these macro-entities (the macro-EW) which just correspond to the
motions of certain microparticles (the micro-EW) which they correspond to the
undulations/perturbations/vibrating of some small parts of electromagnetic waves/fields
(the field-EW).
Atkins also defines the apparently “mysterious” notion of “energy”: the capacity
of a system to do work. (Atkins 2010, p. 18) Anyway, it is quite difficult to define
“energy” of any kind. Energy has to be either a property of certain entities which belong
to a particular EW or a process which belongs to an EDW. However, it is quite difficult to
define this process. Related to the notion of “work” is the notion of “internal energy”:
“the internal energy is simply the total energy of the system, the sum of the energies of all
the molecules and their interactions.” (Atkins 2010, p. 35) Does the internal energy (the
“capacity of a system to do work”), as a kind of energy, really exist? Is this “capacity” an
entity or a process? Does this “capacity” have any ontological status? We have to pay
great attention to the way we interpret the main concepts that are used in
thermodynamics. The internal energy can be changed by doing some “work”, that is by
“heat”: the transfer of energy of system into its surrounding “due to the difference in
temperature caused by the work”. (Atkins 2010, p. 21) We cannot talk about “heat” in

133
itself as having any ontological status. Always, heat has to be associated with something,
it has to be a property of an entity that has an ontological status which belongs to a
particular EW, in general, the macro-EW.
In one form, the first law of thermodynamics is this one: “the internal energy of
an isolated system is constant.” (Atkins 2010, p. 22) Obviously, all these notions refer to
the entities and the processes which belong to the macro-EW. Heat and work, as well as
temperature, are the properties of entities which belong, in general but not always, to the
macro-EW. Obviously, these macro-notions (and their properties like heat) correspond to
certain micro-notions that describe the entities and the processes which belong to the
micro-EW. Rather briefly, Atkins indicates that “work” is the “transfer of energy that
makes use of the uniform motion of atoms in the surroundings” (Atkins 2010, p. 24),
while “heat” is the “transfer of energy that makes use of the random motion of atoms in
the surroundings” (Atkins 2010, p. 25). So, the difference between “work” and “heat” is
the difference between the “uniform” motions of atoms and the “random” motions of
atoms (the micro-EW). Without the EDWs perspective, it seems that, within the unicorn
world, certain notions like “energy” and “work” have no ontological status since,
everything is reduced to the micro-entities (or to the electromagnetic fields/waves like
Penrose). I believe that, within the unicorn world, these concepts have produced strong
(but unnoticed) ontological contradictions.
The notion of “work” can be applied also to “dark energy”: there is some work
regarding the accelerated motions of the galaxies. However, this work corresponds to the
natural motion of the electromagnetic waves/fields (speed c). In reality, the dark energy
does not even exist. It is “nothing” which corresponds to the natural motion of the
electromagnetic waves/fields (speed c). A “fire” (the macro-EW) (which produces “heat”)
corresponds to some electromagnetic waves (the field-EW). The heat corresponds to
those electromagnetic waves. Both the heat and the electromagnetic waves spread in all
directions. There is no “static electromagnetic wave” (all waves have the speed c) and
this is equivalent to the “spread of heat” (having certain masses, like all the macro-
objects, the molecules representing the heat cannot reach speed c). Because the
electromagnetic waves/field always move with the speed c, the corresponding
microparticles and macroparticles constantly increase their motions just due to these
correspondences.
Thermodynamics is related to the notion of “time”. Atkins indicates that
according to Noether’s theorem, any law of conservation is related to the concept of
“symmetry”. The conservation of energy is related to the “uniformity of time”. (Atkins
2010, p. 35) The process of rising entropy cannot be identified with “time”. The entropy
is just a physical process, no more or less, and as I indicated in our book 2016b, space
and time (spacetime) cannot even exist. “Time” is not “bunch up and run faster then
spread out and runs slowly”, since time does not exist at all (see Vacariu and Vacariu
2016). I recall that the “Universe” does not exist. So how can we find the “symmetry”
that would provide the foundation to the conservation of energy? The question is: do we
need such symmetry in order to preserve the conservation of energy? I believe that we
need to replace any kind of “symmetry” with the correspondences between the EDWs. I
have to recall that “correspondence” is an abstract notion which has no ontological status.
The main idea about the entropy is that it cannot decrease in any process. It is quite
common to relate the entropy to the “arrow of time” due to the fact that these

134
thermodynamic processes are irreversible (i.e., they imply the distinction between past
and future). (Uffink 2008, p. 2) This distinction has no ontology, in other words, “past”
and “future” have no ontology. Moreover, “present” has no ontology, therefore “time”
does not exist. Relating the thermodynamics to the “arrow of time” is just a simple
human mind association between a real process (laws of thermodynamics) and an
invented notion (“time”). There are, indeed, the “irreversible processes” (irreversible just
because of their correspondences with the processes from EDWs), but these processes do
not involve/require “time” at all (which anyway does not have any ontological
background). In such cases, as in any case, “time” is not a real process but an invented
notion. I can introduce the “symmetry” in relationship with the “straight position” of any
electromagnetic field: any electromagnetic field moves naturally toward its “straight
state” if it was perturbed by the appearances of the corresponding macro-objects (the
macro-EW).
It is believed that the laws of thermodynamics are not proven, but they are not
wrong. Very roughly speaking, entropy is the measure of (a) a system’s disorder; (b) the
degree the energy is wasted; (c) how much energy is not available to do work. The first
law refers to internal energy (U, the quantity of energy), the second law refers to entropy
(S, the quality of energy): “low entropy means high quality; high entropy means low
quality”. (Atkins 2010, p. 38) If a system is more disordered, it has less energy to do
useful work. That is, the energy is necessary to move a system from disorder to order. If a
“system” changes its phase state naturally (for instance, a piece of ice under higher
temperature changes its phase state from solid to liquid and to gas), the entropy increases.
Essentially, matter and energy disperse over time. I return to our correspondences: the
“dispersion” of some matter or energy has to correspond to the electromagnetic field
returning to its natural position of straight element which correspond to certain unknown
phenomena which belong to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW. We have to be aware that any
electromagnetic wave/field disperses (spreads, naturally, with speed c) over “spacetime”.
This dispersion (spreading) with speed c has to be included in the definition of
electromagnetic wave/field: whenever an electromagnetic wave is produced, in general, it
will spread in all directions with speed c. This is the nature of the electromagnetic field
which corresponds with certain entities/processes which belong to an unknown EDW. A
burning star spreads light (certain electromagnetic waves in the field-EW and photons in
the micro-EW, both kinds of entities having speed c) in all directions, but c is the speed of
light, in its definition.
The processes of the “Universe” (the macro-EW) are all irreversible, while a
system (a local part of the macro-EW) can be in a reversible state. If S increases, the
number of microstates of the system tends to increase with the increases in temperature,
volume, and number of independently moving molecules (of the system). Related to the
second law of thermodynamics is the “heat engine”. Dugdale summarizes the main ideas
about the “heat engine”:
(i) A heat engine requires a temperature difference in order to operate.
(ii) When the engine operates it takes in heat at the high temperature and gives out some
heat at the low temperature so that it tends to reduce the temperature difference, i.e., to
restore thermal equilibrium.
(iii) Any temperature difference can, in principle, be used to produce work.

135
(iv) Temperature differences tend to disappear spontaneously by heat conduction without
producing useful work. (Dugdale 1996, p. 29)
At 0°K, there is no entropy and no energy at all. However, in principle, it is not
possible to construct a heat engine to convert the entire heat to work. In such cases, the
wasting energy cannot be avoided. The “natural order” is to waste energy, i.e., the
processes go in one direction: from the high energy to the low energy, from hot to cold,
from order to chaos (as I indicated above, just in some cases - the electromagnetic field
becoming straight is exactly opposite to this movement). We can construct a system that
goes from “chaos” to “order”, but we need to use energy. In general, such systems are
certain macroscopic systems (the macro-EW). The entropy means the system goes toward
“disorder”, but this disorder is only from the viewpoint of that macro-system. Again, in
my EDWs perspective, from the viewpoint the electromagnetic field, the entropy means
that the electromagnetic field tends toward its natural state, the straight state, so entropy
means that the electromagnetic field moves toward “order”, straight position, its natural
state. The main statements of the second law are the following:

“Kelvin statement: No cyclic process is possible in which heat is taken from a hot source and converted
completely into work.” (Atkins 2010, p. 41)
“Clausius statement: Heat does not pass from a body at low temperature to one at high temperature without
an accompanying change elsewhere.” (Atkins 2010, p. 42)

These statements are logically equivalent. (Atkins 2010) Atkins unifies the statements of
Kelvin and Clausius in a single version of the second law: The entropy of the universe
increases in the course of any spontaneous change. (Atkins 2010, p. 49) Again, since the
“universe” does not exist, I have to replace this notion with the correct EW (either the
macro-EW or the micro-EW or the field-EW, depending on what phenomena do we want
to explain). Moreover, we have to understand what does it mean the “spontaneous change
elsewhere”. From my viewpoint, this expression mirrors certain phenomena which
belong to an EDW (maybe to the mega-EW or the pre-Big-Bangs-EW). Anyway, those
phenomena (changing of certain states from the mega-EW) correspond to the increase of
entropy in the macro-EW. The changes in the macro-EW are “spontaneous” and the
“entropy always increases in the Universe” (the macro-EW, for instance) just because of
these correspondences (which involve, anyway, the natural motion of the electromagnetic
field towards its straight, natural, state).

… because the temperature of the sink is lower that of the source, the increase in entropy is larger than the
original decrease (remember the parable of the quiet library). Overall, the entropy of the device will
increase, because the decrease in entropy of the source is overcome by the larger increase in entropy of the
sink. So, the flow of heat from source to sink is spontaneous. (Atkins 2004, p. 127)

The flow of heat from source to sink is not only spontaneous, but also natural since the
corresponding electromagnetic field tends naturally toward its straight state. The
expansion of a gas increases the space of possibility for the molecules to be in one place
or another; in this case, precisely these increases in the unpredictability of the places of
molecules mean increases in entropy. According to the laws of thermodynamics, the
“Universe” started with a low entropy which increased continuously (even if, in some
places, certain planets and living beings have been created). It seems that there was a
corresponding phenomenon that we have to associate with the Big Bangs and that

136
phenomenon belongs to an EDW (the pre-Big-Bangs-EW) rather than to something from
the field-EW or the micro-EW or the macro-EW. That phenomenon from the pre-Big-
Bangs-EW was ordered and corresponded to the entities and the processes belonging to
the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW. The expansion of a gas increases the space
of possibility for the molecules to be in one place or another. In this case, precisely these
increases in the unpredictability of the places of molecules mean increases in the entropy.
The increases of the unpredictability of places of molecules/microparticles correspond to
the increase toward the straightness status of the corresponding electromagnetic
waves/fields, the natural state for all the electromagnetic waves/fields.
According to the laws of thermodynamics, the “Universe” started with a low
entropy which has continuously increased (even if, in some places, according to different
natural laws (the ED laws or “regularities” belonging to the EDWs), certain planets and
living beings have been created). The increase in entropy means that the energy will
become less usable over time. However, according to the law of the conservation of
energy, the quantity of the energy will remain the same. The “Universe” constantly loses
usable energy and thus it becomes less and less organized. Anyway, we have to be aware
that the Universe does not exist, so I have to rewrite this summary. The “Universe” does
not exist and, in general, the “energy” is just a property of the macro-objects and it
corresponds to the ED entities which belong to the EDWs.
I introduce now Boltzmann’s famous formula of entropy (elaborated by Max
Plank, Atkins 2010, p. 55) in statistical thermodynamics: S = k log W. “W” is the
“number of ways in which the molecules of a system can be arranged to achieve the same
total energy (the ‘weight’ of an arrangement).” (Atkins 2010, p. 54) If the space (volume)
of that system increases, then W increases. The increase in entropy means the increase in
the unpredictability of the positions of these microparticles. Essentially, it is the
“expressions for the changes in entropy correspond exactly to those deduced from
Clausius’ definition, and we can be confident that the classical entropy and the statistical
entropy are the same.” (Atkins 2010, p. 55) In this statement, the expression “the same”
is wrong: only within the unicorn world can we talk about certain “identities” (the
identity between mind and brain, between a planet and a huge amalgam of microparticles,
etc.). Within the EDWs perspective, we can only talk about the correspondences between
classical and statistical thermodynamics. That is, the macro-EW (more exactly, the
entities and processes that represent the macro-EW) only corresponds to the micro-EW
(more exactly, the entities/processes that represent the micro-EW) which correspond to
certain “wrapped up” waves (the field-EW). These sets of the ED entities and their
interactions really exist, but one set of entities does not exist for any epistemologically
different set of entities and their interactions. Importantly, there are

two principal contributions to this increase in entropy. One is the release of energy, which disperses into
surroundings and raises their entropy. The other is the dispersion of matter, as long, orderly chains of atoms
are broken up and the individual atoms spread away from the site of combustion as little gaseous
molecules. The combustion is portraying the content of the Second Law. (Atkins 2004, p. 129)

In this paragraph, Atkins attributes the Second Law to the micro-entities (atoms) which
belong to the micro-EW. The “energy disperses into surroundings” because its moves
toward its natural way, the straight status of the electromagnetic waves (which was
“perturbed” by the appearances of the corresponding micro-entities (the micro-EW) and

137
the macro-entities (the macro-EW)). Also, maybe “the energy disperses into
surroundings” because of its correspondences with certain phenomena belonging to the
EDWs, for instance, the pre-Big-Bangs-EW or the mega-EW. In general, energy and
matter belong to the EDWs. I recall Guggenheim’s “spread” of energy and matter (it
depends which EW is involved) from a previous footnote: the electromagnetic field has
the tendency of “spreading”, from my viewpoint, “of becoming more and more straight”,
its natural status. The “natural” position of an electromagnetic field is being straight,
exactly as the status of the water in a lake without being perturbed by a stone. Why?
Because this position corresponds naturally to the electromagnetic wave/field and
probably it naturally corresponds to the phenomena from the pre-Big-Bangs-EW. If it is
curved, the electromagnetic field tends naturally toward becoming straight without the
need of any additional force because if this correspondence. Maybe the “combustion”
(i.e., the Second Law, the “dispersion of energy/matter”) is directly mirrored by the
correspondences between the phenomena from the micro-EW and the phenomena from
either the pre-Big-Bangs-EW or the mega-EW (or EDWs which we do not know yet).
I would like to furnish more details about quantum mechanics, even if we have
articles (Vacariu 2006, etc.) or chapters (Vacariu 2007, 2008, or Vacariu and Vacariu
2010, 2014, 2017 or previous chapter) or even a book about Physics (2020) in which a
chapter is dedicated to the QM. It is just about an article in “Quanta Magazine” written
by Natalie Wochlover: “What is a particle?”. The title of this article is very attractive,
isn’t it? Of course, every physicist working in Quantum Mechanics, since the appearance
of this domain, has been forced to answer to this question. At the beginning of her article,
Wochlover introduces several alternatives: a pointlike object, an excitation of a field, a
mathematical notion. The microparticles have features like charge and mass, therefore,
we cannot accept the alternative of being a “pointlike object”, writes the author, on the
first page. The problem is that the properties of the “fundamental particles” are derived
from certain mathematical operations and not something empirical. “As points of contact
between mathematics and reality, particles straddle both worlds with an uncertain
footing.” (Wolchover 2020)93 Then, Wolchover introduces a very short history regarding
the relationship between the microparticle and the abstract “wave function”: “evolving
mathematical functions that indicate a particle’s probability of having various properties”.
Obviously, the electron is present in simultaneously. It is about different locations just
because of its relationship with the wave function. Anyway, the author mentions the great
problem of “light duality”: “is it wave or particle?” The answer is light is a “wave
function”: “evolving mathematical functions that indicate a particle’s probability of
having various properties” (Wolchover 2020) Wochlover recalls the well-know fact that
before the measurement, the electron is located in many places, but when we measure the
location of this microparticle (using an apparatus for detecting microparticles but not
waves), the wave “collapses”into a point where we find the electron, therefore, “a particle

93
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality.” (Einstein) “Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.” (Feynman) “Today's
scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after
equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” (Tesla) I agree with both
scientists. It does not mean we can construct a scientific theory in physics without mathematics, but we
have to recognize mathematics is just a tool for us in order to construct the predictions of a physical theory,
but we reject the idea that mathematics constructs new entities and forces!

138
is thus a collapse of wave function”.94 Nevertheless, the author emphasizes that after one
century, the scientists have have no idea about the relationship between the wave function
and the microparticle. Obviously, Wochlover is right since until now the wave function
and the microparticle have been placed within the unicorn world.
In the next section, Wochlover investigates the alternative according to which a
microparticle is just a “quantum excitation of a field”. The main idea of those who have
worked in quantum field theory is that the microparticles are just the excitations of the
quantum fields (which cover the entire space). The particles have been associated with
the electromagnetic fields. Another alternative would be the particles are “representations
of symmetry groups” (“sets of transformations which can be done to objects”).
(Wolchover 2020) The author introduces more physical details about particles (energy,
momentum, spin, or certain “internal properties” like “color”, related to the
representations of symmetry group SU(3)) and “flavor” and electric charges which are
representations of symmetry groups SU(1) and SU(2). (Wolchover 2020) According to
the Standard Model of particle physics:

the quantum field theory of all known elementary particles and their interactions — is often said to
represent the symmetry group SU(3) Χ SU(2) Χ U(1), consisting of all combinations of the symmetry
operations in the three subgroups. (That particles also transform under the Poincare group is apparently too
obvious to even mention.) (Wolchover 2020)

Wolchover indicates that this Standard Model is incomplete because it is missing the
force of gravity and it does not furnish an answer “From where everything appeared?”
Essentially for us, it is the end of this article when Engelhardt asks “What are the
fundamental building blocks of the universe on its most fundamental scales?” — a more
sophisticated phrasing of my question, ‘What is a particle?’ In the meantime, Engelhardt
said, ‘We don’t know’ is the short answer’.” (Wolchover 2020) We can understand that all
these inquiries have been realized within the unicorn world, so there cannot be find the
correct answers to these questions. Only from the EDWs perspective, I have answers to
all these and many others questions referring to the main notions in the entire Physics
(see the majority of our previous works).

6.2 More details about dark energy

“Dark energy” (which is “nothing” in the macro-EW, but corresponds to “something” in

the field-EW that “expands” the “Universe”, which does not exist) is associated with
“time” (which does not exist). So, there is not an “ideal thermodynamic bath”, but the
EDWs. It seems that “the Second Law of Thermodynamics and dark energy might be two
facets of the same phenomenon, some mysterious quantity of our universe that imparts or
requires an arrow of time.” (Jaquith 2016) “It has been suggested that thermodynamic
irreversibility is due to cosmological expansion.” (Peter Theodore Landsberg,

94
From my viewpoint, the collapse of a wave function (the measurement problem) represents the change
from one EW (the wave-EW) to an EDW (the micro-EW), no more. If we take back the measurement
apparatus, the electromagnetic wave appears in the same place. This fact mirrors perfectly the existence of
the EDWs!

139
“Thermodynamics, Cosmology, and the Physical Constants” in J. T. Fraser (ed.), The
Study of Time III (1973), 117-8) We can associate the “thermodynamic irreversibility”
with the “cosmological expansion” but not with “time” (which has no ontological status).
“Dark energy is the name given to the unseen influence that may be causing the
expansion of the universe to accelerate with time.” (Bennett et al. 2010, p. 447) Dark
energy and time cannot have any kind of ontology within the EDWs perspective, but
above, in this chapter, I have noticed the correspondences between the irreversible
thermodynamic processes, quantum processes and dark energy.

Some scientists believe that, like Einstein’s cosmological constant, dark energy is a property of space itself
and that as space expands, more dark energy is created, accelerating the expansion further. Other experts
think that dark energy might make up a changing energy field known as quintessence and other still believe
that our current understanding of gravity itself might be wrong. (Sanne de Boer 2015, p. 90)

Important in this paragraph is that “dark energy is a property of space itself”, but within
the EDWs perspective (space or spacetime cannot have any ontological status - see
Vacariu and Vacariu 2016b), this dark energy does not exist in the macro-EW, but there
are certain phenomena (from the EDWs) which only correspond to (not the “cause” of)
certain “phenomena” in the macro-EW (for instance, the acceleration of galaxies). There
is neither the field as “quintessence”, nor the dark matter “particles”95, but only “nothing”
(no ontology) which “belongs” to the macro-EW but corresponds to “something” which
belongs to the EDWs. If I apply the principle of “correspondence toward equilibrium” to
the galaxies (which do not have any ontological status, at least from my viewpoint), each
being composed of many planets (the macro-EW), each planet corresponds to an huge
amalgam of the microparticles (the micro-EW), each microparticle corresponds to a
vibrating electromagnetic wave/field (the field-EW), we can understand why the
“Universe” is in expansion: because of these correspondences. In other words, a planet
(within a “galaxy”) has a natural increasing in speed because it corresponds to an
amalgam of microparticles which correspond to an amalgam of electromagnetic waves
with speed c. Why “natural”? Because this “natural” motion corresponds to the natural
motion of the electromagnetic field becoming straighter and straighter. So, we have to
apply here the new principle of “entropy”: the energy tends toward becoming straighter
and straighter (i.e., more and more “order” for the electromagnetic field!).
The Earth moves around the Sun96 just because “gravity” is much stronger than
the tendency of the electromagnetic field to become straighter and straighter. However,
the solar system belongs to a galaxy which its speed is increasing. This increasing is due
to the principle of “correspondence toward equilibrium”. It means that the directions of
the majority of microparticles of a “galaxy” tend toward the same direction, therefore, the
“galaxy” has a direction of its motion. I strongly emphasize that, even if any kind of
correspondence does not have any ontology, the relationship between an electromagnetic
field (the field-EW) and an amalgam of microparticles is different than we can even
conceptualize. In other words, the relationships between the electromagnetic field, the
microparticles and the macroparticles is different than we can even think. For an

95
“Across the universe, the discrepancy averages to a factor of six: cosmic dark matter has about six times
the total gravity of all the visible matter.” (Tyson 2017, p. 125)
96
“… our Sun moves in a nearly circular orbit around the center of the Milky Way, taking 240 million years
(sometimes called a “cosmic year”) for each trip.” (deGrasse Tyson and Goldsmith 2004, p. 237)

140
electromagnetic field, for instance, there are other EDWs than there are for all the human
beings: even if the macro-EW and the micro-EW do not exist for the field-EW, these
EDWs do not even exist as the EDWs for the electromagnetic waves, but there are other
EDWs than these two EDWs. (The physicists have to verify this alternative…) The
existence of the field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-EW, for instance, are only from
what we have known until today. From the “viewpoints” of the ED entities, there are
“different sets of EDWs”. The search for such ED entities (the EDWs) is the job of
physicists not our job.
I end this chapter, just with a short conclusion. The expansion of the universe
corresponds to the speed of the electromagnetic field (in all directions with speed c)
which corresponds to the entropy (the increase in “disorder”) and all these processes
correspond locally to the dark matter and generally to the dark energy. There is a
correspondence between the temperature (which is a property of macro-EW) and some
features of quantum microparticles the energies of atoms (the micro-EW) on different
“shelves” of energies. Therefore, many entities from the EDWs are related through
correspondences, but essentially, one EW does not exist for an EDW.97

97
We can see again the difference between Everett’s many worlds and the EDWs: his many worlds are
constructed within the unicorn world, while for us, one EW does not even exist for any EDW! Moreover,
the entities from one world are duplicated entities from another world; for us, an entity from an EW does
not even exist for entities from an EDW and these entities are not duplicated entities at all.

141
Chapter 7

“Nothing” (the origin of “everything”?), energy and matter within the

Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs) perspective98

In this chapter, I will indicate that the origin of everything is, as many physicists
presuppose, “nothing”, but within the EDWs perspective. I emphasize that the notion of
“nothing” from the EDWs perspective is quite different from the common notion of
“nothing”. I will introduce a new framework regarding the “beginning” of the EDWs,
(the “beginning of the universe”). Then, I will shortly present the notions of “energy”, the
“Big Bangs” and “matter”, (for us, as the “indirect observers”) within the EDWs
perspective.

7.1 “Everything from nothing”99

The first EW was the Hypernothing (the EW0), i.e. a kind of “nothing”. Through the
correspondence to the “nothing” (the EW0), the EW1 and the EW-1 were revealed.100 The
equation is the following: EW-1 + EW1= EW0101 (“nothing”).102 In the same place, at the
same time, there were both the EW-1 and the EW1 which corresponded to the
Hypernothing, but the EW-1 does not exist for the EW1. I furnish here a kind of
Parmenides’ viewpoint (everything is “One”, “static and indivisible”) related to
Heraclitus’ viewpoint (everything is in “motion”): the EW1/EW-1 corresponded to the
Hypernothing, but from the viewpoint of the EW0, together the EW1 and the EW-1
represented “nothing”, i.e., these EDWs do not exist for the EW0. Obviously, each EDW
does not exist for the EW0, but from a “neutral viewpoint” (meaningless notion,
anyway), together the EW1 and the EW-1 are “nothing”, even if each of these EDWs just
correspond to the EW0. In other words, “nothing has changed” inside the Hypernothing
(the EW0), i.e., “nothing” always remains unchanged (since nothing can change inside
the “nothing”). Certain changes happened only inside the EW1 and the EW-1 (these
EDWs were revealed not “produced”), but not inside the EW0. Without the EW0, the
EW1 and the EW-1 could have not appeared, but there were only the correspondences

98
Large parts of this chapter (the main ideas) have been published in “Timpul” (2021). I am sure, these
ideas will also be plagiarized very soon by “professors” from different countries.
99
This expression “everything from nothing” sustains a WRONG causality between “nothing” and
“everything”. On the contrary, within the EDWs perspective, between the EDWs there is no causality
between “nothing” (i.e., the Hypernothing) and the EDWs since one EW does not exist for any EDW.
Therefore, this expression “everything from nothing” is quite a wrong one!
100
We can talk about a kind of “symmetry” between the EW1 and the EW-1 but the EW1 did not exist for
the EW-1. The EW-1 has not been discovered yet, since nobody has thought about it within the EDWs
perspective until now. In the last decades, the physicists have been looking for the “anti-matter”, but “anti-
matter” is a notion totally different than the “EW-1”! Within the EDWs perspective, I am talking about the
EDWs, one EW does not exist for any EDWs. Moreover, there was no separation between the EW1 and the
EW-1 (or between the field-EW and the anti-field-EW).
101
The sign “+” is not an “adding” but a “correspondence”!
102
The EW1 and the EW-1 could represent the matter and the anti-matter for the Standard Model. However,
within the EDWs perspective, between these types of matter is a totally different relationship than that
considered by the Standard Model: again, there are “correspondences”, not “interactions”, i.e., “matter” did
not exist for the “anti-matter”, therefore, it is meaningless to talk about the “separation” between “matter”
and “anti-matter”…

142
between the EW0 and those two EDWs. All the EDWs have been just indirectly revealed
(through the correspondences of the EW0 which does not exist for any EDW). 103 Because
of such correspondences, we do not need an “external force” which “produces” the
“appearance” of any EW. Again, inside the EW0, “nothing happened” in order the
EW1/EW-1 to be revealed. The “beginning” of a particular EW is “inside” of that EW,
there is not any “external Big Bang” to an EW. Between the EW0 and the EW1/EW-1
there was no “direct causality”, but only certain correspondences, since there was 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 to be a correspondence to the previous EW, other previous EDWs and finally to the
EW0.
Obviously, the Hypernothing is not Aristotle’s “Prime Motor” (even if his “motor”
was “unmoved”). For us, the Hypernothing is not even “unmoved”, this EW is something
beyond “moved-unmoved” distinction (beyond any distinction available for the ED
entities/processes which belong to the EDWs). The EW0 is the Hypernothing and nothing
else. Again, something can happen only within an EW, but not within the EW0, since this
EW is “nothing” and nothing else. We could think that a kind of “Prime motor” takes
place in each EW, not in the EW0, but we have to replace this “Prime motor” with
“revealing” not “produced”. Also, a “Prime motor” could not even exist for the EW0,
otherwise, according to Aristotle, “today” would have already been in the past.
(Following Aristotle, we have to avoid the regress ad infinitum!) Even if one EW does
not exist for an EDW, the correspondences between the ED entities/laws impose certain
new “qualities” or “features” to some of the ED entities which can be explained only
based on such correspondences. In some cases, there are some new ED phenomena or
even new EDWs which are just revealed, not produced (see below).
The 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 observe, indirectly, certain ED entities which belong to some of the EDWs). The
EW0 is the Hypernothing with its hyperontology. What does it mean this
“hyperontology”? The Hypernothing is “nothing” and its corresponding ED
“manifestations” (which have been revealed, not produced), i.e., the EDWs. There was
not a separation of “matter” and “anti-mater” (as many physicists have believed), nothing
would have a hyperontology (it means, nothing would be “superior” to something), while
the ED ontologies would be something inferior to “nothing”, all the EDWs would
correspond to the EW0. From the viewpoint of Hypernothing, we are “nothing”, we do
not exist. This is the reason, in all the EDWs, nothing could “exist” eternally: the
“existence” is something “inferior” to the “nonexistence”, i.e., “something which exist” is
inferior (ontologically speaking) to the Hypernothing. Any “something” is, indirectly
through correspondence, a “perturbation” of the Hypernothing, exactly as a microparticle
(the micro-EW) is a “perturbation” of an electromagnetic field (the field-EW). Without
such perturbations, the microparticles would not even exist. However, the EW1 and EW-
1 did not appear as a result of some “perturbations” of the EW0, since “nothing” could
have changed in the EW0. The EW1 and the EW-1 were revealed only for us as indirect
observers, but not produced. Certain “perturbations” could take place only in each EW,
but not in the EW0. Again, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, I answer: we,
103
See Vacariu and Vacariu (2016).

143
as indirect observers, can notice that “somethings” (perturbations) are only within the
EDWs, “nothing” is the Hypernothing which, finally, corresponds to all the EDWs. If we
add the signs of all the ED entities from the EDWs, we need to get “nothing”, since all
the EDWs have corresponded to the Hypernothing (which has no sign, since it is
“nothing”), but these EDWs have been revealed for us (as indirect observers104), not
“produced”, in correspondences to the EW0. Again, from the EW0’s viewpoint, the
“existence” is negative, it is something “missing”. Also, the existence corresponds to a
“perturbation” of something from an EDW. For the existence of the first EW, the EW1, it
was necessary the EW-1 to exist (EW0 = EW1 + EW-1 which means EW1 = EW0 - EW-
1, BUT, again, the sign “+”, for instance, refers to “correspondence” and not to
“adding”!). Nevertheless, the EW1 and the EW-1 existed “in themselves” only for us as
indirect observers, in the past since, in “reality”, there was only the EW0!105 In other
words, “the EW1 is” (for us) just because “something” is missing, indirectly through
correspondence, from “nothing” (the Hypernothing, the EW0): it is “missing” (through
correspondence) the EW-1. For instance, a particle exists just because there is a
corresponding “perturbation” of the electromagnetic wave/field. Without this
perturbation, the microparticle would not exist. There are the ED processes (missing
something for the appearance of the EW1; the perturbation of a field for the existence of
a microparticle; the accumulation of microparticles which correspond to the appearance
of a macroparticle) which correspond to the appearance of the ED entities. I emphasize
that there are no “rules/laws” for such processes. In reality, these processes are quite
aleatory, accidentally, exactly as the appearances of the EDWs are accidentally, for us as
indirect observers. More exactly, the processes of the revealing of the EDWs are certain
aleatory process exactly as have been the appearance of animals species on the Earth. The
processes of revealing of the EDWs are, for us as indirect observers, spontaneously
appearances of the ED entities/processes and their interactions. In general, the revealing
of “something” is something “negative” in the relationship with the previous EDW. The
creation of “first entities” (which belong to a particular EW, let call it the EW1) would be
something negative in relationship to the phenomenon which belonged to a previous the
EDW; it would be the EW0. “Negative” is given by the “perturbations”, “discrepancies”,
“disturbances” of certain parts of the EW in relationship with the entire EW. The
perturbations/discrepancies are against the uniformity of an EW. An entity, a
microparticle, corresponds to a discrepancy of a small part of the electromagnetic

104
“As the physicist Werner Heisenberg, of Uncertainty Principle fame, once wrote, ‘What we observe is
not Nature itself but Nature exposed to our methods of questioning.’ What we can say about Nature
depends on how we measure it, with the precision and reach of our instruments dictating how ‘far’ we can
see. Therefore, no theory that attempts to unify current knowledge can seriously be considered a ‘final’
theory or a TOE, given that we cannot ever be sure that we aren’t missing a huge piece of evidence.”
(Gleiser 2021) His last paragraph: “The moral of the history here is not that unification ideas are useless or
impossible but that the notion of achieving a final unification is. Science is an ongoing process of discovery
that is fueled by our lack of answers. The very process of discovery leads to more unknowns, not fewer. As
science advances, it creates new lines of questioning that feeds our curiosity and creativity. How awfully
boring if, one day, we arrived at a complete fundamental understanding of matter and its interactions. It is
much better to look at the world through our myopic eyes, always wondering what lies beyond what we can
see.” (idem) Obviously, Gleiser is missing the EDWs perspective…
105
In this chapter, there are many words with commas just because I would need a new “language” for these
ideas…

144
wave/field in relationship with the entire wave/field (which it has its uniformity106). For
us as indirect observers, from nothing (the EW0), something is “missing”, in order certain
entities (the EW1 and the EW-1) to appear for us, but this “missing” belongs to the
“conditions of possibility” of existence, not to the EW0 (since “nothing could change” in
the EW0). For us as observers, the spontaneously processes of revealing the EW1 and the
EW-1 happened accidentally and both these processes of revealing corresponded to the
EW0. (There was not a Big Bang (a ‘trigger’) which started the existence of the EW1 and
the EW-1.) This “correspondence” means that nothing changed in the EW0 with the
revealing of the EW1 and the EW-1 (nothing could chance in the EW0). The uniformity
of the EW0 (i.e., nothing) was not perturbed by the spontaneously processes of revealing
the EW1 and the EW-1. The processes of revealing the EW1 and EW-1 were embodied in
their “self-organization” (which “belongs” to the EW1 and the EW-1) out of “nothing”,
and this “self-organization” just corresponded to the Hypernothing. The spontaneous
processes of revealing certain EDWs (“out of nothing”, at one “moment”) have just
corresponded to the Hypernothing-EW. Through correspondences, the ED “pseudo-
variations” of EW0 are just the “spontaneous revealings” of the EW1 and the EW-1.
There were “pseudo-variations” of the EW0 since nothing could change in the
Hypernothing. There were not appearances from/in/at the EW0 since the EW1 and the
EW-1 did not exist for the EW0. The EW1 and the EW-1 existed in themselves (for us as
observers, since for the EW0 these EDWs did not exist). The EW2 could appeared
through the correspondence to the EW1, but the EW2 corresponded to certain variations
of the EW1. The EW1 was only the corresponding ED “pseudo-variations” of nothing,
but “pseudo” indicate nothing changed in the Hypernothing. So, in the above part, using
the EDWs perspective, I showed that everything (the ED entities/processes from all the
EDWs) appeared through correspondences to the Hypernothing (which have always
corresponded to all the EDWs which existed only in themselves! For us, as observers,
their existences, “beings”, are not about “real existences”, but about the
“existences/beings in themselves”…

7.2 Energy
Everybody knows energy is the capacity to do work; energy (like the electromagnetic
field always with speed c in the field-EW) is not a “matter” like the table in front of me
(even if Planck introduced his “quanta”). However, the corresponding particles (like
photons and electrons) are really matter (the microparticles in the micro-EW) which
correspond to a table, for instance, (“matter” in the macro-EW) in front of me. Energy is
the capacity do to work (to do “something”) just because this energy (the electromagnetic
field) has naturally the speed c, this energy is the speed c, and any kind of “energy” or
entity corresponds, somehow, to the electromagnetic field. Energy was neither be created
nor destroyed, since energy was either the electromagnetic field (speed c, and this field
was not created by Big Bangs but revealed, indirectly, for us as indirect observers) or
“nothing” (from the EDWs) which corresponded to the field-EW. But this field
corresponded to the anti-field (the anti-field-EW) and, together, these two EDWs
represented “nothing” (if we supposed, there was nothing before the so-called “Big

106
I recall, within the same framework, the “uniformity of the Universe” after the Big Bangs. There is also
the uniformity of the electromagnetic field in correspondence to the discrepancies which represented,
“later”, the microparticles and much “later”, the planets…

145
Bang”). “Gravity” (which does not exist, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2017) travels with the
speed c just because it corresponds to the electromagnetic field (speed c) (and not
because gravity is the curvature of “spacetime”, since space and time or spacetime cannot
have any ontological status, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016). All the ED entities have their
ED energies which correspond to the electromagnetic field (the field-EW). The photons
have the energy of speeding c because they correspond to the electromagnetic field
(speed c). The complex entities (the living organisms) have their proper energy; any EW
(and its set of ED entities) has its owner energy which corresponds, finally, to the field-
EW. Again, the field-EW together with the anti-field-EW represent “nothing” before the
“Big Bangs”.

7.3. The Big Bangs and matter

All the “matter” did not appear from the Big Bangs.107 In reality, for us as indirect
observers, 13.82 billions years ago, the Big Bangs represented the beginning of
revealing/uncovering the first parts of the electromagnetic field (the field-EW108).109
(There has not been any “expansion” of the “space/Universe”, but just the revealing of
the field-EW.) This revealing has been a continuously process until today and it will
continue in the future, but I emphasize again, this process of revealing has happened just
for us as indirect observers. The revealing process of the electromagnetic field from the
field-EW was not the process of “producing” this field from “nothing”. The
electromagnetic field has “always” been there in the field-EW (there has been no “time”
for the electromagnetic field with speed c), but, if we consider that, before the Big Bangs,
there was “nothing”, together with the anti-field-EW, for us as indirect observers, these
two EDWs represented nothing, i.e., the EW0. Therefore, with the EDWs perspective, we
exclude the idea that the entire “matter” appeared from an infinitesimal point (from
“nothing”) as a result of the “Big Bang”. The matter of the electromagnetic field (the
field-EW) has been continuously revealing, the beginning of this process of uncovering
the electromagnetic field was produced by those “Big Bangs” (again, quite strange
notion), a process of revealing which it has been happening until today. If we consider
that, before the Big Bangs, there was “nothing”, the electromagnetic field has not been
produced from nothing, but it has been uncovering in correspondence to the anti-field-
EW. The uncovering of the electromagnetic field corresponded, “later” (obviously a
pseudo-notion within the EDWs perspective), to the appearances of the microparticles
(the micro-EW) which corresponded, “later”, to the appearances of the planets (the
macro-EW).

107
I could talk about the “Big Bangs” and the field-EW only from my viewpoint, as indirect observers; the
Big Bangs and the field-EW did not exist for the EW0 or for other EDWs. We, the human beings, are the
results of the “chain-of-correspondences” (see below), but we do not exist for the EW0, the human minds
do not exit for the macro-EW or the micro-EW. How then we can talk about the “history of the universe”?
108
I can replace the field-EW with the EW1 and the EW-1.
109
As I indicated in our previous works, the inflation period did not exist. I replace “inflation” with more
Big Bangs in different places but, in this chapter, I replace “inflation” (which it would surpass the speed of
light c) with “fast revealing” of the field-EW. (This “fast revealing” is strong relate to our explanation of
the quantum entanglement. See our previous works) The process of revealing could be faster than the speed
of light since it did not involve any physical motion: revealing is not motion of something physical, it is
just the process of revealing of some physical phenomena. At the beginning, this process of revealing was
faster than later because of some corresponding phenomena which happened in the pre-Big-Bang-EW.

146
 For us as indirect observers, all the micro-entities and the macro-objects (and the
human beings) are the “indirect results” of this “chain-of-correspondences” (for us as
observers): the electromagnetic field (the field-EW)-the microparticles (the micro-EW)-
the macroparticles (the macro-EW). The electromagnetic waves, the microparticles and
the macroparticles have been the results of the revealing (not the producing “out of
nothing”) of the electromagnetic field (the field-EW), but in the same place, at the same
time, there have been the anti-field-EW, and for us as observers, through
correspondences, these two EDWs have always represented “nothing”, i.e., the EW0.
Therefore, from the viewpoint of the Hypernothing (the EW0), all the matters (the
electromagnetic field, the microparticles and the macroparticles) did not exist at all,
everything has always been nothing” until now just because of the anti-matter (the anti-
field-EW).110 Anyway, we, the human beings, and all the ED entities do not exist for the
EW0, since “nothing” (i.e., the EW0) has always remains nothing and nothing else. From
the Hyperverse’s viewpoint or from “my viewpoint”, the so-called “Big Bangs” did not
happen, i.e., for the EW0 (or for us), the Big Bangs did not happen, the Hypernothing
remained nothing and nothing else.111 The Big Bangs (i.e., the start of revealing the
110
The Hypernothing represents Parmenides’ “One”, the unmoved and the indivisible, but it is not a real
“One”, it is “nothing” (the EW0). The field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-EW both represent
Heraclitus’s everything in motion (since the electromagnetic field has the speed c and the corresponding
ED entities like the microparticles and the macroparticles, because of their mass, have less speed than c, but
all these ED entities have always been not static in correspondences to the electromagnetic field.
111
Einstein’s general relativity indicates the expanding of the ”Universe”, i.e., it refers to the entities (the
galaxies/planets) from the macro-EW, but it does not explains the cause of this expansion. Anyway, the
“Big Bang” could have not produced the accelerations of the galaxies after 13.82 billions years. I indicate
the cause of this expansion here: after the Big Bangs, because the electromagnetic field has the same speed,
c, for all different frameworks, we can consider this speed as an “absolute speed”. The electromagnetic
field could represent the “absolute EW” in relationship to the micro-EW and the macro-EW. (Related to
this “absolute framework”: “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.” (Putnam 2005, p. 632) Nevertheless, “time” could not even exist…) For
us, as indirect observers, the field-EW appeared before the micro-EW and the macro-EW and all the
microparticle and the macro-objects corresponded to the electromagnetic field. The formation of the micro-
EW and the macro-EW depended, indirectly through correspondence, to the existence of the field-EW. (The
field-EW was revealed (not created from “nothing”) by the so-called “Big Bangs”. This revelation created
the possibility the electromagnetic waves to interact and because of these interactions, through
correspondences, the microparticles appeared only within the micro-EW.) Obviously, without the existence
of the field-EW, the micro-EW and the macro-EW would have not appeared. The fundamental motion is the
speed of light/electromagnetic field c and the motions of all other ED entities (all motions being less than c,
because all these ED entities have masses, so physicists believe “time” exist for these entities but not for
the electromagnetic field) have corresponded to the speed of electromagnetic field, c. Because of this fact,
we can take the electromagnetic field (with its speed c) as an “absolute framework”. For us, the field-EW is
the first EW after the Big Bangs and, with its constant speed of light, c (no “time”), we can consider the
field-EW as the “absolute EW”. If we accept there was nothing before the Big Bangs, together with this
“absolute framework”, there was also the anti-field-EW (I would not talk about “antimatter”, but about
“anti-energy”, the energy was first released by the Big Bangs) and both the EDWs corresponded to
“nothing”, i.e., the EW0. (With the EDWs, we cannot talk about “symmetry”; we can talk about the
“charge-parity-time” symmetry within the unicorn world, but it would be meaningless for the EDWs. The

147
electromagnetic field) “happened” only for the electromagnetic field (the field-EW), but,
as I emphasized above, for us (as indirect observers), there was just a process of revealing
the electromagnetic field112 (the field-EW) (not of “producing” it out of “nothing”) in
correspondence to the anti-field-EW.113 Neither the electromagnetic field (the field-EW)
nor the anti-field-EW114 did exist for the EW0 (these EDWs, like any EW, exist in
themselves). Also, the human beings do not exist for the EW0, we are just “illusions” for
this EW. Nothing has changed within the EW0, these “Big Bangs” did not exist for the
EW0.115 Anyway, there is that chain-of-correspondences (not “causalities”) from the field-
EW to the micro-EW, the macro-EW and the life-EW: for instance, for us as indirect
observers, without the field-EW, the macro-EW would not have existed, even if the field-

“Universe” would be “out of balance”/in an “asymmetry” just because it does not exist!) Also, it is
meaningless to talk about the “symmetry” between “matter” and “antimatter” (in our framework, there is
no “symmetry” between the EW1 and the EW-1 since on EW did not exist for any EDW). “Nothing” (the
EW0) is a kind of “framework” before this “absolute EW” (represented by the field-EW). However, for us
as indirect observers, the field-EW (with no “time”) does not exist for any EDW, there are only
correspondences between the field-EW and the EDWs, but the correspondences do not have any
ontological status. Each EW exists in itself, but in correspondences to the EDWs. We cannot talk about the
“history of the Universe”. (see a footnote below)
112
The speed of the electromagnetic field is c (the speed of light), therefore, “time” (from the EDWs
perspective, “time” means just “internal interactions”) does not exist for this field. So, we cannot talk about
the “history” of the field-EW.
113
Since “spacetime” cannot have any ontology (see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016), we have to replace Witten’
superstring theory (11 dimensions) with the EDWs… (For the EDWs perspective against the (super)string
theory, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2010)
114
Since the anti-field-EW is an EW which does not exist for any EDW, the physicists have not founded the
“anti-matter” yet. Moreover, the human being is the last element in the “chain-of-correspondences” (field-
micro-macro-mind) and this is the reason we have not been able to “discover” yet the anti-field-EW.
115
For us, as indirect observers, the “causalities” exists only among the entities of each EW; among the ED
entities, there are only correspondences. Therefore, there is not a “history” of the “Universe”, but for us, as
indirect observers, there are “histories” of some EDWs. (The field-EW has no “time”, so it has no
“history”.) The history of the macro-EW (and the causalities among its entities) did not exist for either the
field-EW or the EW0. For us, as indirect observers, there is the “chain of correspondences”, but it does not
involve a real “causality between”/“history of” the EDWs. The “age” (“history”) of a human body does not
exist for the field-EW/EW0. Nevertheless, the self/human being/mind has no “history”; it just acquires
knowledge, but this is not “history” and, in its essence, the self does not change it remains the same during
its entire life, even if we can talk about the development (the increasing of knowledge, for instance) of the
same self. The self/mind corresponds to the body and (the macro-EW) and to the electromagnetic field (no
“time”): the body has “time” (i.e., there are certain processes with quite small speed) and it “dies”, while
the mind has no “time”/“space”: there are no processes “inside” the mind (there is no “inside” or “outside”
the mind), but the mind/life-EW corresponds to certain bodily processes (with illusory “spacetime”) and to
the electromagnetic field (no illusory “time”). (About the self, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2017) At the first
side (for us as indirect observers), the notion of “local histories” for the EDWs could have a meaning, but
only apparently (these local histories have meaning only for us as observers). We can talk about your
“birthday”, but your mind/life existed long time before this day. We cannot identify exactly when your
life/mind (through the combination of two bodies which corresponded to two self-EDWs) appeared. Your
life is in correspondence to other lives/material things (bodies). Working within the unicorn world, the
human mind has included itself within the “history of the Universe” (each mind being a part of a “history”
of continuous interactions/causalities among all “its” entities) since the “Big Bang” until now, but this
“history” and these “interactions”/“causalities” are all wrong, fictive notions (created by the human mind).
The “Big Bang” did not exist for the actual “Universe” (anyway, it did not exist for your mind), therefore, it
is meaningless to check for the “Big Bang of the Universe”, in general. All the EDWs have always
corresponded to the EW0 (i.e., nothing and therefore, it is meaningless to talk about the “beginning” of
nothing).

148
EW did not exist for the macro-EW. For us as indirect observers, these “chain of
correspondences” rejects the chain of causalities, the “passing of time” and the “history
of the Universe”. Within the unicorn world, the “history” of each human being (her
“age”) has been extrapolated to the “history of the Universe”, but such “history” did not
exist. The scientists have believed that that the “history of the Universe” had “13.82
billions years”, but the Universe did not exist and this “history” could not even be applied
to all or some of the EDWs (since one EW did not exist for any EDW). Therefore, the
“age of the Universe” (“13.82 billion years”) did not exist, it has been just a “fiction”
created by the human minds under the umbrella of the “age” of each “human being”.
Exactly as the mind does not exist for the corresponding body116 and each mind-EW does
not exist for the macro-EW (where it is situated its corresponding body), the same is true
for each EW in relationship with any EDW. There are no causal relationships between the
EDWs (only correspondences), “time” does not exist, therefore, the “history of the
Universe” (“13.82 years”) is quite a wrong notion.117

7.4 The “history of the Universe”

The mind-EW has its own ontology, it really exists, but not in the illusory “spacetime”
(i.e., “nothing” in which we place the microparticles and the macroparticles, but
“nothing” corresponds to the electromagnetic field). The mind-EW does not exist for the
field-EW, the micro-EW or the macro-EW. For us as indirect observers, the
electromagnetic field, the microparticles and the macroparticle have all the property of
“extension” (Descartes’ slogan), but the mind has no extension (and not even the illusory
“time”), it has the property of “thinking” (again, Descartes). Then where is the mind-EW
placed? Nowhere in the relationship to the other EDWs (including the EW0), it just exists
in itself, no more. Then where is the EW0 placed? Nowhere, exactly like the mind-EW.
The electromagnetic field, the microparticles and the macroparticles are all placed
“somewhere”, but aren’t these ED entities just “phenomena” inside the mind, and outside
there is that Kantian “think-in-itself”? According to the EDWs perspective, for us as
indirect observers, the ED entities mentioned in the previous sentence really exist in their
EDWs. Then what it would be the relationship between the mind-EW and the EW0, for
instance? There is no relationship between any two EDWs since one EW does not exist
for any EDW. The ED entities exist in their corresponding EDWs, no more. Does the
116
The “age of a human being” is the age of the body, the mind or both? The cells of a human body change
several times during a life of “70 years”, for instance. Can we say that it is not the same “body” in this
period?
117
For the field-EW (the first EW after the Big Bangs) (and the mind-EW), even the physical notion of
“time” does not exist (because the electromagnetic field has the speed c). The “passing time” has been
imposed to the human minds by the “passing days and nights” (in reality, the rotation of the Earth around
its axis), by the “passing year” (in reality, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun) and by the “passing
time” for any organism during “years” (in reality, there are certain processes of the organism which it is not
even the same during “its” entire life!). Together with the fact that the mind-EW preserves its identity
during the entire life (it is about correspondence not causality or identity), even if the organism is changing
during the same period, the mind has the illusions of passing “time” for the
brain/mind/organism/“Universe”. The correspondence between the mind and the brain/body created the
illusions of space and time (the extension of the brain created the illusion of “space” and the processes of
the brain created the illusion of “time” for the mind) and because the brain/body is a macro-entity, the mind
perceives the macro-entities. Instead of the “Universe”, there are these EDWs, one EW does not exist for
any EDW, so how could we talk about the “age of the Universe”? The “passing time” (time does not exist)
and the “age of the Universe” are artificial notions created by the human mind within the unicorn world.

149
EW0 really exist? But the EW0 is the Hypernothing (i.e., “nothing”). Could we say that
the EW0 has its own ontology? As I wrote in our previous works, the Hypernothing has
its own hyperontology (i.e., it hypercorrespond to all other ED ontologies), while all the
other EDWs have their own ontologies, but one ontology does not exist for any ED
ontology. However, the microentities (the micro-EW) would not have existed without the
existence of the electromagnetic field (the field-EW), but there are correspondences
between these EDWs (not “causalities”). We realize that the microparticles and the
macro-entities are all placed within the same illusory “spacetime framework” which
corresponds to the electromagnetic field (there is that “chain-of-correspondences”), while
the EW0 and the mind-EW are not placed in the same “framework”. If we accept the Big
Bangs (13.82 billions “years” ago), we have to add the anti-field-EW which together with
the field-EW represent “nothing”, i.e., the EW0. The revealing of the existence of the
field-EW is not a “real revealing”, it represent just the introduction of the “Big Bangs”
and of the field-EW from my viewpoint (in our framework of thinking, using our
instruments of observation) within that “chain-of-correspondences”. We have been able
to discover the motion of the electromagnetic field (its movement with speed c without
“time”) because we (our bodies) have been part of this chain-of-correspondences (field-
micro-macro-mind). The micro-entities and the macro-entities are not placed in “space”
but in “nothing” which corresponds to the electromagnetic field.118 Again, for us as
indirect observers, this chain-of-correspondences have not existed either for the EW0 or
the anti-field-EW (this EW has something against the “extension” and the speed of the

118
There are different types of sets of the micro- and the macro-entities with different types of processes
(these sets involves different types of illusory “times”), therefore, we cannot judge the same “time” (i.e.,
the same type of processes) for all these different types of sets. For all the ED entities of the “Universe”,
there are different types of “time” (i.e., different types of processes). So, there are not only different illusory
“spaces”, but also different illusory “times” for many different types of entities (recall Einstein’ special
theory of relativity in which “spacetime” becomes “relative”, but for us the relativization of “spacetime”
rejects any ontology of the “spacetime”), i.e., there are the EDWs and not the “Universe” (with only one
“spacetime”). (See Einstein’s both relativities without “spacetime” in Vacariu and Vacariu 2016) During the
“history of the world” (wrong notion, of course), the human beings have judged there is only “one
Universe” (with one “spacetime framework”) because each mind is an EW which has the same identity
during its entire “life”. (For this topic, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2017) In reality, there are so many
“histories” for so many ED entities/processes that it would be meaningless to talk about the “history of the
Universe”. I would ask the reader to indicate us a history of this kind: the formations of planets, for
instance. The formations of planets involve EDWs, and moreover, there are EDWs according to the special
relativity… Can we talk about the history regarding the formation of one planet? Again, there are EDWs
involves in this process, so which one would represent the “formation of that planet”? We can talk about the
“history of the Earth” (4 billion years), don’t we? Again, for us as indirect observers, there are EDWs (with
certain correspondences between the ED phenomena), the existence of the Earth being just an one entity in
the macro-EW which corresponds to many ED entities (from the EDWs). The “history of the Earth” is just
an event within a particular EW, but if we judge this process within the EDWs perspective, we cannot even
identify this particular “event” in the macro-EW… We cannot identify exactly the “identity” of the Earth
during these 4 billions years: could we talk about the Earth as being an entity during these four billion
years? In other words, could we talk about the Earth as being an entity with particular identity in this
period? I believe, we cannot. Then, how could we talk about the history of the “Universe”? (Each human
body does not have the same identity during its entire “life”…) Nevertheless, the Earth existed as an entity
in the macro-EW due to its direct interactions with other planets (like the Sun), but its “identity” is given by
these indirect (corresponding) interactions (like “gravity”?), not by our perceptions. Anyway, we have to
accept the mind/self really exist, therefore, the Earth as a planet has its ontology in the macro-EW (due to
its interactions with other planets).

150
electromagnetic field from the field-EW in order both these ED entities to represent
nothing, i.e. the EW0 - if we accept before the “Big Bang” was nothing).
When we use certain instruments of observation and we see, in the past, certain
events like the “cosmic microwave background radiation”, we have to be aware that we
“discover” what our apparatus permit us to “observe” some ED events in the “past”,
events which belong to certain EDWs. For us, as indirect observers, the Cosmic
Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is the “oldest electromagnetic radiation in the
universe” filling all space” and it “is landmark evidence of the Big Bang origin of the
universe”. (Wikipedia, 2021) We see the CMB radiation (part of the field-EW) using
certain instruments of observation, but in the same place, there are ED events which
belong to the EDWs. In fact, the “history of the universe” is created by us looking back
(using certain instruments) in “time” at the light coming from the past toward us, but, in
this way, we observe only certain past phenomena which belong to some, but not all, the
EDWs. These observations could not reveal us the “entire history” of the “entire
Universe”, i.e., of all the EDWs which existed in the past or have existed from the “Big
Bangs” until today. Observing only the light from the past in the field-EW, we cannot
consider that we observe the entire history of the “Universe”.
The question “From where did appear everything?” is a question created within a
wrong framework, therefore, this question is quite a wrong one.119 The answer (a
statement accepted by the majority of physicists today) “everything appeared from
nothing” is a strong ontological contradictory statement created within the unicorn world.
The EDWs really exist in themselves, but they exist for us as indirect observers. In this
context, we have to recall, again, that one EW does not exist for any EDW. Did the Big
Bangs really happen 13.82 billions year ago? These Big Bangs did not happen, in
“reality” (i.e., it did not happen directly for “us”), exactly as the self (as an EW) exists
only for itself, not even for the corresponding body (an entity in the macro-EW). In this
way, we avoid the necessity to give a “real” answer to the question: “What did produce
the Big Bangs 13.82 ago?”. You can talk only about your appearance, i.e., about your
birthday, but even in this case, it is not about the birthday of your “self”, but it is just
about a symbolic “birthday” of your “body”. However, the 380.00 years after the “Big
Bang” (13.82 billions years ago), it was not the birthday of the “universe”, but the
revealing, from my viewpoint as indirect observers, of the field-EW (which it really exists
as an EW), just an EW among many “real” known (like the micro-EW and the macro-
EW) and unknown EDWs (which exist only in themselves, but not for “God”120 or an

119
Recall Powell’s article (2019): “The Big Bang is a description of how the universe began, not an
explanation of why it began. It does not assume anything about what (or who) made the universe, and it
does not assume anything about what (if anything) came before. To modern cosmologists, the Big Bang is a
model describing how the universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense early state into the reality that
we see today. The evidence for this interpretation is overwhelming…” The “universe did not begin” at all.
There was no “Big Bang” at all, but certain processes of revealing certain phenomena belonging, only from
my viewpoint to some, but not all, the EDWs.
120
In my paper posted at his webpage (a chapter from our book 2019), I indicates that, within the EDWs
perspective, “God” cannot even exist: http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015-Vacariu-God-
cannot-even-exist.pdf In this book, in three chapters, I indicated that “God”, infinite and nothing could not
have any ontological status. Also, there is no “universal”, “neutral” viewpoint”. Therefore, we cannot talk
about an “universal ontology”! Moreover, the “unification” of those four physical forces is a wrong idea
since there are EDWs and not the “Universe”. Even the Standard Model refers to the EDWs (the micro-
particles, the electromagnetic waves, etc.).

151
“universal world” or unicorn world, both notions being just the human minds’ creations
during the last millenniums until I discovered the existence of the EDWs, first article
about these EDWs being published in 2002)…
I emphasize, again, that the “existence” is a “negative” concept: to exist means,
apparently, to loose “something”, exactly as the physicists claim that matter dissociated
from anti-matter. Anyway, from my viewpoint, this dissociation did not happen (in
principle, the Big Bang could not happen).

152
Chapter 8

The self and the Hypernothing

I wrote a book about “self”121 in 2016. I introduce here more details about this notion. Let
us imagine somebody “perceiving” an EW. Is that person “outside” or “inside” that EW?
In previous works (Vacariu 2005, 2008, etc., Vacariu and Vacariu 2010), I indicated that
any “perception” (which itself is part of the self (an EW) corresponds to a kind of
physical “interaction”. I extended this notion of perception/interaction to any kind of
entity: a particle interacts with (“perceives”) other particles; a planet interacts
with/“perceives” other planets. The particles are in the same EW, the micro-EW; the
planets are in the same EW, the macro-EW. So, someone “perceiving” something from an
EW, it would be just an entity “inside” the same EW. Therefore, it is quite impossible for
an entity to “perceive” its EW as a whole. Moreover, except for the mind-EW and the
EW0, any EDW is not, there are only the ED entities and their interactions which
represent the EDWs, but such “representations” have no ontology, there are mental
representations in the mind of a human-perceiver, no more.
Let me push further this status and “imagine” someone “perceiving” her own
mind/self (the mind/self-EW) from outside (the self/mind-EW). What does it mean “to
perceive your Self”? Any “perceptual scene” is part of the mind-EW and it corresponds to
the interactions between the eye, the brain with nothing (which corresponds to the “light”
which belongs to the field-EW and the micro-EW). The mind does not have “nothing”
inside or outside it, like the micro-EW or the macro-EW (these EDWs do not exist,
anyway) (“nothing” is between two microparticles or two planets and this “nothing” we
called “space”). The mind does not have “space”, since space is “nothing” which cannot
have any ontological. (See our work 2016) Therefore, “nothing” cannot be part of the
mind. “Nothing” is “part” of the brain, nothing is part of a table, but nothing is not part of
the mind. So, what does it mean to be outside your mind? What would you “perceive” in
this case? It would be something like the snake Ouroboros that bites itself completely.
However, at least some teeth cannot bite themselves. An eye cannot see itself. An EW
cannot “interact with”/“perceive” itself. So, all these questions are really meaningless.
Maybe the same situation is about the ontology of the Hypernothing: we cannot answer
the question referring to its ontology, even if the Hypernothing is the EW0. That is, we
cannot claim that, as an EW, the Hypernothing is or is not, exists or does not exist. The
Hypernothing is beyond “is” and “is-not”, and beyond all the attributes mentioned for the
EDWs. I repeat, if I would associate these properties to the Hypernothing, then strong
ontological contradictions appear. So, a self cannot perceive itself completely.
How does the self (which is an EW) maintain a unity and an identity, since
obviously various mental states are present (and these various mental states are all the
self)? Aren’t the presence of all these various mental states incongruent with the “unity of
self”? Within the EDWs perspective, the answer is “No”: these mental states are the self
which is an entity having an unity and an identity. Therefore, any kind of “composition”
for the self is rejected. Moreover, the self does not even have the “illusion of space”: we
121
For me, there is no difference between self, mind and life. However, I introduce a definition of “life”
given by two physicists: “Life consists of sets of objects that can both reproduce and evolve.” (deGrasse
Tyson and Goldsmith 2004, p. 484)

153
cannot attribute the notion of “distance/space” (or Cartesian extension) between two
mental states, as we can attribute the “distance” (i.e. an illusory “space”) between two
cars running on the street. I can say that those two cars are placed within an illusory
“space” (it is “nothing” which corresponds to EDWs). However, as we saw in other
works or the previous chapters, “space” has no ontological status; we can talk only about
“nothing” which corresponds to “something” that belongs to an EDW. On the contrary,
the mental states are not “placed” in “nothing” which corresponds to something that
belongs to an EDW. All the mental states are the self-EW. Because all the mental states
are the self and these mental states do not have such “places” or “distances” (both notions
are excluded from the self-EW or the mind-EW), the identity and unity of the self are
saved. More importantly, the self-EW necessarily requires the correspondence to an entity
(the brain/body) which belongs to an EDW (the macro-EW). We have to know that the
mental states correspond, very approximate, to certain neuronal states, but the self
corresponds to the entire brain and body (and the interactions with its environment). This
correspondence is the most important notion here: even the neuronal states are “placed”
somewhere, the body is placed somewhere in nothing (“space”), there is a
correspondence between the brain/body + the external environment and the self-EW,
which does not have any kind of “place” or “nothing”. The human being have created the
notion of “space” based on the mental perception of the “external world”: between two
objects there has to be a “space”.
As an EW, the mind-EW disappears at the end of life. However, the principle of
conservation of energy is preserved within the corresponding EDW, the macro-EW,
where the body and its environment are placed. I have to apply exactly the same principle
regarding all the EDWs and the Hypernothing. That is, all the EDWs can disappear in the
future, but the principle of conservation of energy is preserved within the Hypernothing:
merely, in this EW, nothing appears, nothing disappears; the Hyperverse nothing change,
nothing becomes unstable, nothing remains stable. The status of the Hypernothing-EW is
beyond all these dichotomies. Within the EDWs perspective, I believe that “I think” is
possible just because “I am”. We can think the “being” of all the EDWs, but we cannot
think of the hyperbeing of the Hypernothing, exactly because it is the EW0. A corollary
to the principle of “negative epistemology” would be:

I am (or my corresponding body exists), therefore I cannot think the hyper-ontological

status of Hypernothing.

So, the famous Cartesian slogan, “I think, therefore I am” is transformed into the
following corresponding statements which refer to the ED entities/processes that belong
to the EDWs. The self has an ontology which corresponds to the brain, body and its
interactions with the environment.

“The self really is”, therefore the self cannot even think the Hypernothing.

The condition for a self to think the Hypernothing would be: the self has to be beyond “to
be or not to be”. This state is quite impossible, since the self always has to correspond to
a body (a macro-entity which belongs to the macro-EW). Corresponding to a body, the
self cannot even think the Hypernothing. “I am, therefore, I cannot even think the

154
Hypernothing.” My body/brain exists, therefore because of the ontology of the
brain/body, there cannot be certain neuronal processes which would correspond to the
mental thoughts about the Hypernothing. In general, the ontology of being or existence is
contrary to the Hypernothing. If something is or exists, then there is a strong ontological
contrariety between “is”/“exists” and “hyperis”.
Let me explain the movement of a human body on the street. Within the field-EW,
there is no movement, but only the oscillations of the electromagnetic waves. The
electromagnetic field is continuum and the body (the macro-EW) does not exist within
this EDW (the field-EW). Also, the mind does not move. The movement exists in the
macro-EW, for instance. On a screen of a TV, there is no motion; there is only our illusion
of seeing motions of certain “entities” on the screen, but on the screen there are only
activation of different points and not motions of certain objects or human beings. The
movement of a body on the street corresponds the activation of various parts of
electromagnetic field which corresponds to the body. Also, the masses of the macro-
entities exist only within the macro-EW, but not in the field-EW. The self cannot move
because it has no place to move, since the self is not placed in a place (it does not matter
how we identify this “place”). So, since the self is not placed somewhere, it means the
self cannot move. Moreover, the self and all the EDWs do not exit (are not) for the
Hypernothing (which hyperis). But only through the hyper-correspondences between the
EW0 and the ED entities, there were possible all the ED entities to exist and all the
EDWs to be.
The mind corresponds to the brain (a macro-entity), and this is the reason the
mind (an EW) “perceives” as an observer, indirectly, the macro-objects. Without the
brain, the mind would not exist. We, as indirect observers, are forced to accept the
existence of the macro-entities just because the human mind corresponds to a macro-
entity (the brain).122 Without such correspondence, the mind would not exist. If I accepted
the reductionism (the macro-objects do not exist), I would not be able to agree that the
human mind corresponds to an amalgam of microparticles! I cannot reduce everything
(including the brain) to the microparticles or the electromagnetic field. If I accepted this
reductionism, I would accept the mind does not exist. However, only your mind can read
these sentences, not your brain.123 Also, we cannot reduce the mind to the brain. (We
cannot explain a perceptual color image in the brain!) We have to accept the macro-
objects, but these entities cannot be placed within the same world (place) with the
microparticles; there would be a strong ontological contradiction to accept the existence
of the macro-objects and the microparticles in the same place (“the unicorn world”) at the
same time.
The conclusion is unavoidable: because of the existence of the human minds (as
the EDWs), for us (indirect observers), we have to accept the existence of the EDWs
(these EDWs exist in themselves) and to reject completely the idea of the “history of the
Universe”. We observe certain EDWs having structures which fit directly or indirectly
with the structures of our mind, brain and our measurement apparatus. However, because

122
In order to solve the innate-acquired problem, I indicate that, at birth, the brain/body is innate, the human
mind is “tabula rasa” or “blank slate” (Locke).
123
The mental image of this page does not exist in your brain but only in your mind. Therefore, we cannot
reduce the mind to the brain. Each mind is an EW (the mind-EW), the brain belongs to the macro-EW, so
the solution to the eternal mind-brain problem is: there are EDWs.

155
of development of other measurements apparatus within the EDWs framework, in the
future, I will be able to observe, indirectly, other EDWs.

156
Conclusion

A MANIFESTO: NEW RELIGION = Philosophy = Science

Matter will be spiritualized when the true theory of physics is found.
Gödel

[Dear Kurt Gödel, it is not about the “metaphysical truth”, but about
the hypermetaphysical truth.]

A madman is not someone who has lost his reason but someone who has lost everything
but his reason.
G. K. Chesterton

At the end, with my EDWs, I have united science (Physics and CNS) with philosophy
and religion. This work is about the Metaphysics of the “Hypernothing”, the first EW,
i.e., the EW0. This Hypernothing is the EW0, but also it replaces “God”, any kind of
“God”. With the EDWs, I have solved all the great problems of main sciences (Physics,
CNS, and Biology) and Philosophy. My EDWs can be considered a new religion in which
“God” becomes naturalized: we have to pay attention that the EW0 does not exist for any
EDW, therefore, the new “God” does not exist for any human being (mind/life), but it just
corresponds to all the EDWs. Obviously, without the EW0, the EDWs would not be, even
if we have to reject any kind of causality between the EW0 and the EDWs (between any
two EDWs).
From my viewpoint, the relationship God-man was quite similar with the mind-
brain problem and wave-particle dualism. Anyway, God cannot be in the same “world”
with man (could you imagine God knowing the facts of Hitler and Stalin?) since there are
the ED ontologies. But, the EW0 does not have an common ontology (like all the EDWs)
just because it is the first EW. Being the first EW, its ontology has to stop the regress ad
infinitum. Following Aristotle, with the EW0, I stopped the regress ad infinitum. The
EW0 cannot be observe just because it hyperis an EDW and, moreover, it is the first
“nothing”. Only something “composed” can observe, indirectly through correspondences,
something “outside” itself. And the man is something “composed”: the body/brain which
belongs to the macro-EW and the self which is an EW. The human being “observes” her
external world only through correspondences. Also, an eye cannot observe itself. The
eyes do not “perceive” the body (the eyes just interact with the body, no more), only the
mind perceives, through correspondences, the body. Each of the self is an EW which
corresponds to the body.
Space and time cannot have any ontological status, otherwise, there would be
strong ontological contradictions. For instance, a person cannot observe the “space” in
front of her body since there is nothing (we exclude the air, molecules, etc) which
corresponds to an electromagnetic field (which belongs to the field-EW). So, the
ontological presence of a spacetime in front of you would produce strong ontological
contradictions with the presence of the electromagnetic field, present in the same place, at
the same time. The photon moves only in the micro-EW, but this motion is just the
corresponding activation of an electromagnetic wave (field) which it already exists

157
somewhere, but in an EDW. The photon has the speed c just because of its
correspondence to the electromagnetic wave (by definition, all the waves/fields have the
speed c) and because, similar with an electromagnetic wave, the photon does not have
mass. As I indicated in this book, the dark energy can be explained in two ways:

(1) I introduce certain phenomena in an EDW, the mega-EW and because of the correspondence between
the macro-entities (the macro-EW), we can talk about this dark energy.
(2) The macro-objects (the macro-EW) correspond to the microparticles (the micro-EW) which correspond
to the electromagnetic waves (always with speed c). Because the macro-objects have great masses, the
planets cannot move with speed c. Neither the microparticles which have masses can move with speed c.
However, because the microparticles correspond to the electromagnetic waves (speed c), the speed of the
microparticles increase all time. Because of their correspondence to the microparticles, the speed of the
macro-objects (planets, etc.) increase all time. In this way, we explain dark energy. (In our previous works,
we explained dark matter discovering the existence of a mega-EW.) In reality, everything is in motion since
everything corresponds, directly or indirectly, with the electromagnetic field (speed c).

We cannot find any “structure” of these EDWs since one EW does not exist for any EDW
and, moreover, the “structure” of each EW can be quite different than the “structure” of
EDWs. So, I have to exclude this notion from our vocabulary in explaining the EDWs.
We have not to forget that the unity of a microparticle (the micro-EW) (or the unity of a
planet, the macro-EW) corresponds to the unity of the electromagnetic field (the field-
EW) (since the microparticle does not exists for the electromagnetic field, the planet does
not exist for any microparticle). The expansion of the universe corresponds to the speed
of the electromagnetic field (in all directions with speed c) which corresponds to the
entropy (the increase in “disorder”) and all these processes correspond locally to dark
matter and generally to dark energy. Through analogy, the unity of the mind (i.e, the
mind-EW) corresponds to the unity of the brain/body and its interactions with the
environment (the macro-EW). “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn
you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” (Werner
Heisenberg124) I can reply to Heisenberg: “Dear Werner, you were wrong: it is not God
waiting for us, it is nothing, i.e, the Hypernothing, the EW0 which is waiting us to return
to it!” So, “What reality is ?” Let me take the example:

'Hovering ship' photographed off Cornish coast by walker; “Images of what appears to be a hovering ship
have been captured as the result of a rare optical illusion off the coast of England.

David Morris took a photo of the ship near Falmouth, Cornwall. BBC meteorologist David Braine said the
“superior mirage” occurred because of “special atmospheric conditions that bend light”. He said the illusion
is common in the Arctic, but can appear “very rarely” in the UK during winter. “Since cold air is denser
than warm air, it bends light towards the eyes of someone standing on the ground or on the coast, changing
how a distant object appears.” https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-56286719?
fbclid=IwAR0jLZCIDpxgnLNaq_8yU8tbCF_lp09SnaBkUGeRAerMaGViM8_QiCYhNWQ

124
“Not only is the Universe stranger than I think, it is stranger than we can think.” (Werner Heisenberg)
With this slogan, Heisenberg is quite close to the idea that the “universe” does not exist at all… However,
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained through the correspondence between the wave and the
particle: the interaction between the measuring wave and the wrapped wave (the corresponding particle)
produces the uncertainty principle; if the measuring wave is quite close to the wrapped wave, we can see
clear the “particle” but we cannot predict its velocity and vice-versa. The electromagnetic wave acts very
weak on a car in motion, therefore, we can see the position and the speed of a car.

158
Stefan Hell (Nobel Chemistry 2014):

I felt that it’s not great to be a professor or an accomplished scientist. It’s great to make DISCOVERIES. So
the path to making discoveries is actually the enjoyable path, in the life of a scientist. And I must say, the
most rewarding moments for me were when I realized THIS IS GOING TO WORK OUT… So my advice
for young scientists is not to think about what the goal is in the end, but to enjoy THE PATH towards the
goal. If you can’t enjoy that for some reason DON’T DO IT. It’s not a goal that is the goal, it’s actually the
path toward the goal. (https://www.facebook.com/nobelprize/videos/1270815203290300)

So, what is the reality? The “reality” is in fact “realities” which are all the EDWs
(including, of course the Hypernothing), but one EW does not exist (isn’t) for any EDW.
One EW does not exist for any EDW. It means that we can put together all the great
philosophers, each one explaining phenomena which belongs to a particular EW.
Parmenides was right (“motion does not exist”) regarding some of the EDWs (the EW0
or the mind-EW) just because any “motion” would produce changes. If we accept the
motion within the EW0, we have to accept the causality between the EW0 and the EW1
and the causalities between EDWs. In this way, I would fall in a regress ad infinitum
argument. Therefore, we have to accept that “nothing” changed within the EW0, but there
were some changes within the corresponding EW1 or the EW-1, we don’t know. Anyway,
with the EDWs perspective, we put together both Parmenides (static) and Heraclitus
(motion). From a particular viewpoint, Heraclitus was right (“everything is in motion”)
since in particular EDWs (the micro-EW or the macro-EW), indeed, everything is in
motion. Within the same framework, we can put together other opposite philosophical
approaches.

I once thought that if I could ask God one question, I would ask how the universe began, because once I
knew that, all the rest is simply equations. But as I begun older, I became less concerned with how the
universe begun. Rather, I would want to know why he started the universe. For once I knew that answer,
then I would know the purpose of my own life. (Albert Einstein)

Our reply: “Since God cannot even exist, dear Albert, I prefer the second statement (“nature”
does not even exist). It will be available for my EDWs theory for the next 300 years...” From
the EDWs perspective, what is then the answer of the question from the title of this book: Is
nothing the origin of everything? The answer is: No, “nothing” is not the origin of
everything, and I agree with Parmenides’ slogan: “Nothing can appear from nothing”.
However, “nothing”, i.e, the Hypernothing just corresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1 (and
maybe other pairs of EDWs, I don’t know), and these EDWs corresponded to other EDWs
which corresponded to other EDWs and so on. So, the reader has to understand this notion
“correspondence” which is so important in the EDWs perspective.

If nature does not coincide with theory, it is all the worse for nature. (Einstein)

Einstein is right: the “nature” (“Universe”) does not exist, what really is it? There are these
EDWs, no more or less. The answer to this fundamental question, “Why is there something
rather than nothing?” depends on the viewpoint accepted. From the viewpoint of
“nothing”, all “something” do not exist. So, within my paradigm, there is no relationship
between “nothing” and “something”. However, from the viewpoint of something (from
its viewpoint, something really is), both nothing and something have really existed.

159
Gödel was right: “The discovery of metaphysical truth will benefit mankind”. Obviously,
the human kind will benefit enormously from our discovery of the being of EDWs! Anyway,
the final verdict is the following:

The Hypernothing (“nothing”) was not the “origin”, but it corresponded to the EW-1 and
the EW1 (which corresponded to the chains of EDWs until our days).125

125
I end this book with a remark on the first quotation of this book, “Everything we call real is made of
things that cannot be regarded as real” made by Niels Bohr. Within the unicorn world, indeed, Bohr was
right. However, within the EDWs, Bohr’s famous slogan is quite wrong, since the macro-objects (our
bodies included), the micro-entities, the electromagnetic waves and our minds are all ED entities which
really exist in their EDWs. Indeed, within the unicorn world, the existence of all these ED entities have
produced strong ontological contradictions, contradictions eliminated by the discovery of the EDWs
realized by me. All problems like mind-brain problem, quantum entanglement or nonlocality, the
relationship between the macro and the micro-entities (quantum mechanics vs. Einstein’s general theory of
relativity) and many other problems from Physics and Cognitive (Neuro)science are just pseudo-problems
within the EDWs perspective. (See Vacariu and Vacariu, forthcoming) Indeed, “everything you can imagine
is real” (Pablo Picasso), since “there are no facts, only interpretations”. (Friedrich Nietzsche). However,
“intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them”. (Albert Einstein) “I have spent my life travelling
across the universe, inside my mind.” (Stephen Hawking, Brief Answers to the Big Questions) Why I
preferred to be a philosopher and not a scientist? “The man of science is a poor philosopher.” (Albert
Einstein)

160
Bibliography

Administrator (2021), Scientists Claim To Have Discover What Existed BEFORE The
Beginning Of The Universe!, https://www.physics-
astronomy.org/2021/06/scientists-claim-to-have-discover- what.html?
fbclid=IwAR0xciQ6jv4gq2ulWiyHnVrVr_MfkWBlpvYxwaeSusRnoV
ERWWEG0VB3s60
Albert Z. David (215), After physics, Harvard University Press
Atkins Peter (2010) The Laws of Thermodynamics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford
University Press
Atkins Peter (2004) Galileo’s finger - The ten great ideas of science, Oxford
University Press
Baars J. Bernard and Gage M. Nicole (2010), Cognition, Brain and Consciousness –
Introduction to Cognitive Neuroscience, Second edition, Elsevier Ltd.
Ben-Naim Arieh (2010), “Discover Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
- A Playful Way of Discovering a Law of Nature”, World Scientific
Bennett O. Jeffrey, Donahue O. Megan, and Schneider Nicholas (2010), The Cosmic
Perspective, 6th Edition, Addison-Wesley
Bojowald Martin (2010) Once before time: a whole story of the universe, (originally
published in Germany as Zurόck vor den Urknall: Die ganze Geschichte des
Universums by S. Fischer Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, in 2009)
Barrow John (2002), The Book of Nothing – Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about
the Origin of the Universe, Vintage Book
Clark, Andy (1997), Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Close Frank (2009) Nothing - A very short introduction, Oxford University Press
Cornea Andrei (2010), O Istorie a Nefiintei in Filozofia Greaca - De la Heraclit la
Damascios, Humanitas, (A History of Nonbeing in Greek Philosophy – From
Heraclitus to Damascios)
DeGrasse Tyson Neil (2017), Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, W. W. Norton &
Company.
Dugdale, John Sydney (1996), Entropy and Its Physical Meaning, Taylor and Francis
Ferreira, Becky (2019), There’s Growing Evidence That the Universe Is Connected by
Giant Structures, https://www.vice.com/en/article/zmj7pw/theres-growing-
evidence-that-the-universe-is-connected-by-giant- structures?
fbclid=IwAR0_wBrLM9KDTJIkn3p-
IdhyhVcSorh6ilL1d9nC064ODqbKGbENxveF3QQ
Fodor, A. Jerry: 1974, “Special sciences or the disunity of science as a working
hypothesis”, Synthese 28, pp. 77–115, reprinted paper
Fodor, A. Jerry: 1981, “The mind-body problem”, in Scientific American 244, no. 1, pp.
114-23 reprinted in: R. Warner and M. T. Szubka (eds.), The Mind-Body Problem,
Blackwell Publishing Inc, 1993
Fodor, A. Jerry & Pylyshyn, W. Zenon: 1988, “Connectionism and cognitive
architecture”, Cognition 28, pp. 3–71

161
Friedman, Michael: 2001, Dynamics of Reasoning, CSLI Publications, Standford,
California
Gleiser Marcelo (2021), “A ‘Theory of Everything’ doesn’t make sense”,
https://bigthink.com/13-8/theory-of-everything- 2/?
utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2fgfCqok_41sGH
2Zw6kZgYzwS9LWgRGXWtO2v0m-
eXCWmEIdm2N3BGOMI#Echobox=1638460722-1
Grossman Lisa (2021), “An arc of galaxies 3 billion light-years long may challenge
cosmology”, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/galaxy-giant-arc-3-billion-light-
years-long-cosmology-space
Hawking Stephan and Mlodinov Leonard (2010) The Grand Design, Bantham Books,
NY
Holt Jim (2018), When Einstein walked with Gödel: Excursions to the edge of thought,
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York
Jaquith Todd (2016), New research suggests dark matter might be the reason time runs
forward”, Futurism, http://futurism.com/new-research-suggests-dark-
energy-might-be-the-reason-for-times-arrow/ (September 20th 2016)
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
Kaku Michio (2021) The God equation - The quest for a theory of everything, Doubleday
- New York (Penguin Random House LLC, NY)
Kaku Michio (2021-Interview) Michio Kaku Shares About His Lifelong Quest for a
'Theory of Everything', https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/michio-
kaku-shares-about-his-lifelong-quest-for-a-theory-of- everything?
utm_source=dscfb&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dscfb&fbcl
id=IwAR3SjvpyiGYIX0FUUAsZOcM_WJs907q7Wl2QyYkMn2UuoK3M9rN26
2doDTs
Kossylyn, S. Michael (1997), “Mental Imagery”, in Michael S. Gazzaniga, (ed.),
Cognitive Neuroscience, second edition, MIT Press.
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)
Kupczynski Marian (2020), “Is the Moon There If Nobody Looks: Bell Inequalities and
Physical Reality”, Front. Phys., 23 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.00273
Lee Joon Hyeop, Mina Pak, Hyunmi Song, Hye-Ran Lee, Suk Kim, and Hyunjin Jeong
(2019), “Mysterious Coherence in Several-megaparsec Scales between Galaxy
Rotation and Neighbor Motion”, The Astrophysical Journal, 884:104 (16pp),
2019 October 20, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-
4357/ab3fa3/pdf
Lorenz Konrad: 1941, “Kant’s doctrine of the a priori in the light of contemporary
biology”, in H. Plotkin (ed.) Learning, Development and Culture, Chichester:
John Wiley and Sons, 1982
McEvoy J. P. and Zarate Oscar (2013), Introducing Quantum Theory – A Graphic Guide,
Icon Books Ltd.

162
Metcalfe Tom (2020), “Maybe 'dark matter' doesn't exist after all, new research
suggests,” https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/maybe-dark-matter-doesn-
t-exist-after-all-new-research-n1252995
Penrose Roger (2017), “Correlated ‘noise’ in LIGO gravitational wave signals: an
implication of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology”,
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1707/1707.04169.pdf
Powell S. Corey (Jun 16, 2019), “Could the Big Bang Be Wrong?”, Discover Magazine
Presura, Cristian, (2014) Fizica povestita, (The Physics told as story), Humanitas
Price Huw (2004), “On the origins of the arrow of time: Why there is still a puzzle
about the low-entropy past” in Christopher Hitchcock (ed.) Contemporary
Debates in Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishing
Putnam Hilary (2005), “A Philosopher Looks at Quantum Mechanics (Again)”, Brit. J.
Phil. Sci. 56 (2005), 615–634
Putka Sophie (2021), “This Cyclic Model of the Universe Has Cosmologists Rethinking
the Big Bang”, Discovery Magazine, https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-
sciences/this-cyclic-model- of-the-universe-has-cosmologists-rethinking-the-
big- bang?
utm_source=dscfb&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dscfb&fbclid=Iw
AR3ABlXsxXVry1m6PkkkMVecN8ANEO4gjzUjIOaanXo8AAm7QhmHtjKW2
MI
Ramachandra N. S. Vilayanur and Blakeslee Sandra (1998), Phantoms in the brain,
William Morrow and Company Inc., New York.
Research Features (2021, October 21) “Resurrecting local realism: A new challenge to
quantum defiance of Bell’s inequality”, https://researchfeatures.com/resurrecting-
local-realism-new-challenge-quantum-defiance-bells- inequality/?
fbclid=IwAR0QNqd9sRXZ9-
O00JwtV5Pe_XOrnwdGH6LLl7VmeDAbeEVxepWjtTPp2xQ
Rosenblum Bruce and Kutttner Fred (2006), Quantum enigma, Physics encounters
consciousness, Oxford University Press
Salah Maha, Hammad Fayçal, Faizal Mir, Farag Ali Ahmed (2017), “Non-singular and
Cyclic Universe from the Modified GUP”, https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00560
Sanne de Boer (2015), Complete History of the Universe Vol. 1, Single Issue
Magazine – January 1
Saunders Simon (2005), “Complementarity and scientific rationality”, Found Phys 35,
417–447
Searle John (1992), The rediscovery of the mind, MIT Press
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/
Sporns, Olaf in “Good Information? It's Not All About The Brain”, November 2006,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061027081145.htm

163
Steinhardt J. Paul and Turok Neil (2002), “A Cyclic Model of the Universe”,
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111030v2
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
Trosper Jaime (2021), What Einstein meant by “Time is an illusion?”, What Einstein
Meant By "Time is an Illusion" (interestingengineering.com)
Tyson Neil deGrasse (2017), Astrophysics for people in a hurry, W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
Tyson Neil deGrasse and Donald Goldsmith (2004), Origins: Fourteen Billions Years of
Cosmic Evolution
Uffink Jos (2008) "Bluff your way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics",
arXiv:cond-mat/0005327v2 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 4 Jul 2001
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (forthcoming): "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 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

164
 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
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
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” (PhD 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 at
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
Wikipedia, “Cosmic microwave background”,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Wolchover, Natalie (November 12, 2020) “What is a particle?”,
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-a-particle 20201112/?
fbclid=IwAR1cyZEzsZKuC_PA7HLF9FExlG-
FQyhNcy0XWIjT6kk3DG1Qm1brY-0G2eM

165