Français Français Français                               more readable page                     😀?!NO COOKIES!?😇     

Introduction to General Epistemology

Arrow allowing to navigate from page to page. An image map gives the links for each arrow. Index of this story. Jumping several stories backward. Previous story. Next story. Jumping several stories forward.


Introduction to General Epistemology
Fourth part: physics


Why a section on physics in a book on consciousness?

The first reason is that this consciousness manifests itself in a physical world, and interacts with it through physical organs. It is therefore essential to elucidate this relationship, if we want a complete science of consciousness.

The second reason is that the theory of logical self-generation explains very well how this physical world exists and functions, and why it is so, without escaping in mysteries like «before» the Big Bang. It even allowed itself to make predictions (in 2000) which have been verified since then in physics laboratories.

IV-1 Purpose of this part


The purpose of this fourth part on physics is to see in which extend our metaphysical system can predict the laws of physics of our universe. Our physical universe is a self-generation process, which obeys to rigorous physical laws. But a lot of facts tell that it is a logical self-generation process, without the need for some mysterious underlying «matter» making it magically more «real» than a vector space or a dream.

Which physics?

Of course I carefully step away from these pseudosciences. This books is based on today physics.

We must however be aware that any new theory attracts sociopaths. Hence possible accusations. Ignore them.

IV-2 Quantum physics


This chapter presents how quantum mechanics, Copenhagen interpretation, matches with the metaphysics thesis of the third part, while no other interpretation of physics can.

Basis of physics for beginners

An electron does not really «rotate» around an atom. It does not have either the appearance of a small ball of matter. Quantum physics says that the electron propagates like a wave, forming a blurred cloud, called an orbital.

The dimensions and angles of orbitals are responsible of the dimensions and shapes of the molecules, and of all the chemical and mechanical properties of bodies.

The equation which defines the shape and dimensions of the clouds is called the equation of Schrödinger.

An electron around an atom can occupy any solution of the equation of Schrödinger, but it will usually occupy the lowest available energy level.

However the electron can receive light, which will then make it jump on another energy level. The exchanges happen by energy jumps,: the energy quanta. This is Quantum Mechanics.

So these emissions of light happen by grains, called photons. That light is formed of grains goes straight against our intuition. Everybody can however check it, with a simple experiment, although delicate to succeed:

A quantum experiment on our kitchen table

When it is dark enough, but not too much, for instance our window, shutters closed, at nigh, we can notice a snow effect of this weak light. I think this snow effect is a manifestation or the quantum grain of photons of the light, visible with the naked eye.

Left: perception of photons. Middle: neuronal background. Right: photons in an interference pattern

Left image is the snow effect we should see. Middle image is the neural activity that we need to ignore for this experiment.

The right image is what we should see with the interferences experiment. Ideally, a good handyman may arrange the interferences in such a way to see the snow effect, bringing the two experiments in one!

The elusive behaviour of the photons

The individual wave of a single photon reaching our retina does not at all behave like a wave on water. Indeed, we cannot detect it! If we place a detector on its trajectory, then we do not see it!

Light interferences

We can see the wave nature of light with interferences experiments: in a well parallel beam of light, we interpose an opaque screen with two thin slots. The light passing through the slots falls on a screen. Into certain conditions, the light wave coming from each slot arrive in phase (in rhythm) or in phase opposite (off beat). Into the first case, they add, and we have on the screen a luminous fringe. Into the second case, they subtract, and we have a dark fringe. These luminous or obscure fringes are called interferences.

But there is better...

Interferences between electrons

After all, light being immaterial, a vibration, we can admit that it can interfere, and self-cancel, like a sound, or like a wave. The problem is that material particles can also do this! A similar method also allows for making an electron to interfere with itself. The experiment was made, and we really observe interferences, including dark fringes.

Tunnel effect and de-materialization

Normally, an electric current is the passage of electrons through a conductive material. The current cannot pass through an insulating material: the electron and the insulating material being two different matters, then cannot occupy the same place.

However, if the barrier is thin enough, the electron can go through without breaking anything. How? The common comparison sees the barrier as a bump: a ball rolling on the ground does not have enough speed to cross it. However, if the barrier is sufficiently thin, it happens that an electron goes through, without requiring extra energy, without breaking anything. How? The electron ceases existing on a side of the barrier to re-materialise on the other side.

The Aspect experiment

This time, photons are emitted by pairs of two photons of the same frequency, but with opposite direction and polarisation. So these two photons go away of each other at twice the speed of light. The first will pass through a polarizing glass, and the second through a detector, situated in the same distance, but in the opposite direction.

The result is that the second photon has the reverse polarisation of the one imposed to the first... despite they have no mean to communicate! This is called quantum simultaneity: the two photons in facts form only one quantum system, which will manifest simultaneously in two separate places. It is said that the quantum world is non-local.

After the theory of the logical self generation, the arrival of each of the two photons is in facts an unique quantum event (an unique nib), which however manifests in two separate places. Then the equations of Special Relativity explain exactly what we observe. And an unique event is an unique causality, and not a «communication at infinite speed».


Classical interpretation

Since the end of the 19th century, scientists made numerous efforts to try to conciliate such strange observations with a classical vision of the world where the fact that a particle is «material» magically gives it the property of being «real».

The debate raged for several tens of years into the science community, before a group of scientists, gathered around Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, in Copenhagen, resolve the problem.

The Copenhagen interpretation

This Copenhagen interpretation relinquishes any attempt to try to understand what is underlying the experiments like the electron going through two slots at a time.

The electron as seen by the Copenhagen interpretation has no determined place, and it exerts its existence only at the time of its emission or its reception (which are quantum interactions). Between the two, everything happens as if it did not existed.

The reappearance place of the electron is however determined by the waves of probability of presence. Then, nothing forbids that the reappearance place is determined by the interferences of these waves.


Ultimately the only defined physical reality is the quantum interaction. The quantum interactions are events with a null duration, happening at a precise time and in a precise place. After the interpretation of Copenhagen, there is simply no sense to search for anything which would be «between» the quantum interactions, or «smaller» or «more fundamental».

The quantum interaction

We saw a little higher that when a photon is emitted, a «wave» is emitted, which propagates in every directions. When it arrives somewhere, then all what constitutes the photon is instantly reported into this place. All the other waves disappear! This is what is called the wave function collapse.

What is important to understand, is that between two quantum interactions with other particles, a quantum particle has no defined state, it does not interact with others, and we can not detect it.

The state which will appear is then a random draw among all these states. This is the quantum randomness.

Why Quantum Mechanics looks absurd, while it is very logical

Today, the large majority of the physicists think, after the Copenhagen School, that we need to give up all the prejudices we got from our common experience, and just accept that the microscopic world of the particles behaves like this. Into these conditions, all the «illogical» quantum mysteries effectively disappear, as soon as we stop trying to explain them with the matter of our daily experience.

Interpretation after the metaphysical thesis of this book

An ultimate explanation to physics is necessarily beyond physics, that is meta physical. From there my smile, as our physicists are much closer of the ultimate truth than they think!

Without the taboo on metaphysics, the scientists would normally have found circa 1940 the metaphysical thesis explained in the third part. This would have been much more useful than atom energy, at least...


As truth is very simple: this metaphysical thesis explains precisely quantum mechanics, without any need to modify it, without any need for any unknown ingredient, without any «alternate physics».


We just have to admit that, as we saw in the third part on metaphysics, particles and photons are NOTHING ELSE than the effect of logical relations.


Our physical universe would be a logical self generation process, like the ones seen into the third part, especially in chapter III-4 of the long book.


So the quantum interaction would be quite simply the «nib» of our universe (¤ symbol).


So our universe self-generates, just like the nibs system seen in chapter III-4.


Even the particles, which seem to exist continuously, exist only as a succession of quantum interactions, which transmit to each other the properties of the particle, such as its charge, mass, energy, etc. giving the illusion that the particle continuously exists and moves along a path in space.

And between two nibs, there is no defined reality, not of objects, and even not of space and time. So the wave of the photon does not exist as a physical object, this wave is quite simply a mathematical relation, and nothing else, which describes the way in which the photon will reappear somewhere.



I thus propose here a new formulation of the Copenhagen Interpretation, which would be nor negative neither masochistic: The relationship between its elements are enough to describe the observable universe, without needing anything else, especially without supposing that any of its elements would exist absolutely.



All this is in fact extremely simple, once we stop to make knots in our brains, seeking an «ultimate explanation of matter» which would distinguish our universe of all the others.

Comparison with the chess game

A game of chess, which is a logical self-generating system, also has «quantum» properties: quantized time and space, interaction at a distance, etc.

IV-3 The nature of time


The metaphysical frame explained here allows for reasoning on the causes of physics, and thus on the cause of physical laws. Curiously, it is the most enigmatic of the laws of physics, time, which will give way with the less effort.


There is no natural reference mark of time. Thus we have to measure time with ad-hoc instruments: clocks, where a physical phenomenon is expected to always reproduce according to the same interval of time. For that, at each beginning of cycle the same causes are gathered, which will always produce the same effects. That this phenomenon can reproduce «identical durations» is connected to the fact that the fundamental properties of the particles do not vary. Therefore the cyclic phenomenon proceeds always in the same way, and thus we can now say that it does it according to the same duration.


In a movie, the unfolding of the film is the absolute reference of time. However, all the scenes of a movie have only one cause, atemporal relative to the movie: the author. And the characters have no free will to modify this story.


But our universe behaves very differently of the movie: at every moment, varied phenomena produce the causes of future events, in a constant chaining. These events are always different, but their unfolding and chaining happens after always identical ways and properties. This is what makes that the resulting apparent flow of time is «seen» by the clocks and by all the physical phenomena, as an absolute time passing continuously at a constant speed. So, to the difference of the movie, we can at every moment create the causes of future events, and thus modify the History.


Into our physical world, there is no absolute beacon of time, but a relative time, where the phenomena reproduce in very constant and accurate ways. This makes that we can use for instance a pendulum, giving the illusion of an absolute and perfect time.


A proof a contrario of this hypothesis on the flow of time is that certain phenomena seem to escape from it. For instance the «ageing» of radioactive atoms, which is a quantum phenomenon. And each disintegration can «choose» to take place at any time, completely independently of the date. The must is that it is with these timeless phenomena that we can obtain the most precise dating in geophysics and archaeology, by the mean of their statistical properties.

Interpretation after our metaphysical hypothesis

A logical self-generation process, such as the one seen in chapter III-4, has the same properties as a mathematical series, save that, instead of a simple series of numbers, it produces complex sets of events. However, each event can influence only the following ones in the series. This situation is totally equivalent to the one of quantum physics: quantum interactions happen at random moments, but each influences only the following ones.


The cause to effect law, which says that the cause is always before the effect, is a direct consequence of the fact that our physical universe is a logical self-generation process.


For a being who would live into such a logical self-generation process, as seen in chapter III-4, this succession of events is totally indiscernible from a time, as we perceive «concretely» into our «real» physical world. We can state that the flow of time is nothing else than the unfolding of the logical self-generation process.

In this way, anybody existing into this logical self-generation process will perceive the process as happening into a time.

It is however indispensable to note that each logical self-generation process has its own time, just as it has its own space. Nothing forbids that the different parts of a logical self-generation process has different times, and it is really what Relativity predicts, and which was tested by satellites, in daily applications like the GPS. So there is no mystery in the way Relativity distorts time, either general or special.


And, the logical self-generation process necessarily having a start, its internal time starts only at this moment. This is exactly what the astronomers found, with the Big Bang, which sees the creation of the universe and the beginning of time, without «before».


So we got with a simple and complete explanation, not only of one of the deepest enigma of existence, but in more of all its troubling exceptions. And all this without any «alternative physics» or ad-hoc hypothesis. Just with removing the useless taboo on metaphysics, and the old hackneyed materialist dogma.

Time seen by consciousness

Each instantaneous element of consciousness is carried by a physical phenomenon, the synchronous discharges of neurons. This makes a physical clock, which gives to the related consciousness a feeling of a continuous flow of time. However, this subjective time is not precisely related to the physical time: the rythm of synchronous discharges changes, depending for instance on our emotions.

But why do we perceive only the present moment, and not our whole life at once? I do not think there is something metaphysical here. Simply, the structures and capacities of our brain has evolved as a tool to analyse and act according to the current event.

Also, from this very intricate link to physics, consciousness perceives the world in the way of a local observer, in the sense of Relativity. But a consciousness not linked to our physical world may be able to observe it in its entirety, past and future, as we do of a movie where we can select a scene at will.

Time seen by physics measuring instruments

A physics measuring instrument, especially a clock, is an integral part of the self-generation process. As such, it is forced to obey the self-generation law, and thus each cycle it uses will recurs in a constant and identical way. This makes that a physical clock is forced to always measure the local time (in the meaning of Relativity) of the place of the physical universe where it stands.

Of course, this is also true for any other instrument: whatever it measures, it will do it in the way of a local observer, in the meaning of Relativity.

Logical self-generation process and Relativity

However, according to the Theory of Relativity, two clocks in different frames of reference (speed, gravitational field...) can show two different times.

That Relativity can produce different times is consistent with the theory of the logical self-generation process. Indeed, nothing imposes that these two processes occur at the same rate. Just that the clock located in each of them (the local observer) will measure a «normal» time, the one of the local process (of the local space-time, says relativity).

This statement was checked many times, and we have to account with this effect in the operation of everyday devices such as the GPS.

Time into a psychical universe

The metaphysical theory developed in the third part predicts the existence of psychical universes, which nib is an element of the consciousness experience. A common example is simply the dream, but the theory also predicts the existence of such universes, independent of the physical world, where consciousness may continue to exist and to live after death. We can expect that such a universe also have a «quantum» behaviour, though of course with very different self-generation laws, specific to the elements of the experience of consciousness.

IV-4 The nature of space


A common analogy is with the surface of a fair balloon, a kind of rubber membrane, on which the phenomena, objects, etc. are painted. This is called the space-time continuum, and a common image to view the gravitational field of a planet is a ball which distorts the three dimensional «membrane».


But does this match a reality? Is it there really a «membrane», and if so, what is its nature? Quantum mechanics explains very well how particles and fields behave, without requiring anything else. The theory of the logical self-generation process clearly explains quantum mechanics, without requiring anything else. We can certainly assume that the membrane would be «something» which would maintain the phenomena in the three-dimensional space, while obeying Relativity. But this makes that this «membrane» would have very complex properties! As a super-aether, but which, this time, would be relativistic.


However, we saw in chapter III-4 that the logical self-generation process is perfectly able of generating the equivalent of a three-dimensional space, quite similar to ours, and indistinguishable from ours.

So we will pose that the structure of the three-dimensional space that we observe in our universe is simply, to speak the language of the Sets Theory, the structure of the set of the nibs.


So our three-dimensional vacuum is just the place where our mathematical particles always meet, compared with a larger vacuum with four dimensions or more.

The vacuum

However the reality is more complex. Indeed, quantum mechanics says that the fields in the vacuum (electric field, magnetic field, etc.) have a complex structure, quantified. This results into virtual particles, appearing and disappearing into the vacuum. And this even when these fields are all null. This is what is sometimes called vacuum energy.

The theory of the logical self-generation process easily accommodates these virtual particles, if we consider each of them (from its appearance to its disappearance) as a single nib (or pair). Their relationship are then ordinary quantum relations, the same as those which occur between «real» particles. The only difference is that a real particle is formed of a succession of nibs in time. As mass cannot disappear, a nib with a mass necessarily produces another with the same mass. Thus a real particle is a chaining of nibs which transmit their mass and other charges, the one to the other. But in the case of virtual particles, there is no continuation to the chain, because there is no mass to pass.


As to the «properties» of vacuum, like the dielectric constant, this dielectric constant is not a property of the vacuum, but of the matter which is there, that is, ultimately, of the logical self-generation process which is creating the appearance of this matter and vacuum. The vacuum itself has no properties, even not to have three dimensions.

At a pinch, if we could put together into the same vacuum chamber, two different measurement apparatus belonging to two different self-generation processes, then each would measure its own constant, into the same vacuum.

To do things into the right order

We, since the beginning of this part, reasoned as if the nibs, or the particles, had a specific place, and figured their behaviour as moves in our familiar three-dimensional space. However, this way of thinking does not really allows to understand what the space is, and how it appears.

Indeed, if we place particles in the coordinates of a Galilean space, it is strictly impossible for them to curve this said space. Thus, une simulation only allowed to calculate the mass indirectly, without explaining how matter curves the space around it.


It is then clear that we must first calculate the relations between the elements of the simulation.


Only after, we can try to see how they place themselves in space, without prejudice about the form or the number of dimensions of this space.


This would require to calculate in the reverse way than usual. In place of having variables as functions of x, y, z and t, we would in the contrary have the relationship between each pair of particles, which would be functions of the quantum state of each particle. Only after, those particles take a position in a space.

Space as an emergent property

So we come to a completely different vision of the usual spatiocentrism: nibs which self-generate in direct logical relation the one with the other, without any notion of space or time, with just causal logical relationship between each other.

Let us continue on the same image as before: If the number of nibs (and thus of particles) becomes important, then the notion of distance gets a meaning: it is likely that the nibs with intense interaction are «close», and those with weaker interactions are «far». What we should then observe, is that the nibs organize themselves in a structure very similar to our relativistic space-time with three dimensions of space and one of time.


Thus our three-dimensional space would be only the statistical average of the positions of the particles.


In this way, we say that space is not a fundamental property of the universe (continuum, membrane...) but an emergent property.

A simulation to prove it

The idea would be to do a simulation of an entire universe, including a small number of particles. However, their relationship would be calculated nib by nib, without a priori placing the particles into a space.What I predict is that the application of statistical regression functions to all the nibs should allow to discern a three dimensions space, obeying the known laws of physics, with the known properties of space (gravitational constant, dielectric constant...).

If in more we use the relativistic nib seen in chapter IV-5, then this universe will obey the laws of special and general Relativity.

So, Relativity should be deduced from quantum mechanics, in this way, without any need to add something to it.

IV-5 The Relativistic space-time


Reminders about Relativity

The only real difficulty to understand Relativity is accepting a change of paradigm: what we see, our familiar flat space and time, is not the reality, but a perspective effect, a local vision of a more complicated space-time.

Our familiar perspective makes far building look smaller than closer buildings. But these buildings are not altered! In a very similar way, Relativity makes perceive differently Relativistic objects. However, the Relativistic perspective does not affect far objects, but moving objects (the faster, the stronger). So, a passenger of a Relativistic spaceship, looking at another spaceship, will see it crushed (in its length) and heavier.

And the speed of light is not a speed by itself, but the maximum speed that the Relativistic perspective allows us to see, for any moving object.


The notion of a curved space around a mass is also hard to comprehend, as long as we grasp to notions such as straight lines.

However, a good way to think is that the free path into space of, for instance, an apple, is curved by Earth, instead of being parallel to Earth's path. This makes that this apple will look to us as falling toward the ground. This is what we call gravitation, but it is in facts a direct and visible consequence of the curvature of space-time around Earth.


One of the first, and more important consequences of Relativity, was to force to abandon the view of an absolute space, which would be «something» containing the objects, like a sheet of paper contains drawings. This goes well in favour of space appearing only as a consequence of the behaviour of the particles.


This makes the theory of the logical self-generation process directly compatible with Relativity, without any need to adapt it, without any need to add any ad-hoc entity, created mysteriously, or self-existing.

Nibs into the classical approximation (non-Relativistic)

The following diagrams show quantum interactions, and their cause to effect relations. Space is from left to right, while time is from the bottom to the top.

For now, we suppose that things happen in a classical way, that is, in a non-relativistic way.

Non-relativistic nibs exchanging photons.

Each red ¤ symbol is a quantum interaction (a nib). Purple arrows are electromagnetic interactions between these particles: photons, which move at the speed of light. Into this drawing, the speed of light is represented by an angle of 45 degrees. The green waves show the transportation of the charge and mass of the electrons, the «waves» of quantum mechanics, between two quantum interactions. The «material» electrons appears to our observation only as chains of quantum interactions, linked by these waves. Each chain of quantum interactions forms the observable trajectory of one electron, into space and time.

Interpretation after the Logical Self-Generation theory

So that we now have the «shape» of each nib.

Shape of a non-relativistic nib

Each nib (quantum interaction) can receive photon influence coming from any other nib situated in the «light cone» of the past (in the drawing, the two purple arrows in the bottom).

Conversely, the nib will emit photons on the «light cone» of the future (the two upper purple arrows).

These properties are summarized into the symbol of the nib ¤ by the four cross-like antennas, which represent the past and future light cones of the nib.

How the nibs generate the space-time

The big flaw of classical physics is to place all these things into a pre-existing space and time. This of course makes impossible to explain how these space and time exist, and of what they are made of. But this especially makes impossible to understand how physical phenomenon bend this space and time. This is however required, as, after General Relativity, mass is bended space. So if a mass appears somewhere, we must be able to explain how it bends space...


For this reason, we must revert our usual reasoning. We must think at nibs as existing independently of space and time, like the elements of a mathematical series. And only after, we need to ask how they will organize relative to each other.

This is how an exact equivalent of space and time are generated, how they are the structure of this set of numbers (In the language of the Sets Theory).

So, we can postulate that our nibs have ultimately no place, it even has no sense to speak of the place of a purely logical event. However, they are linked by their «light cone». So they will organize into a set structure (in the meaning of the Set Theory) equivalent to our familiar space-time, with chaining of nibs (quantum interactions) describing mechanical trajectories.


Still a problem remains, thought: the bending of space-time. The nibs seen above generate an Euclidian (flat) space-time, when we know that our universe is relativistic, with curved space. So let us see about this.

Nibs in Special Relativity

Let us simply draw the graphics of two nibs interacting in a relativistic way. Left, from the point of view of the red nib, right from the point of view of the blue nib.

Relativistic nibs exchanging a photon

What strikes me first before anything else, is that these nibs are simpler than the previous non-relativistic nibs. Indeed, non-relativistic nibs had to receive the light from several different directions, depending on their speed. Problem, how a nib can know that it is moving? For this, it needs to be in constant contact with a continuum of space... A certainly very familiar notion, but which does not make sense in the theory of the logical self-generation. The relativist nib, on the contrary, always sees the light coming on it from the same direction, and always sends it in the same direction, regardless of its orientation (speed) in space. This thus makes four directions, which are symbolized by the four branches of the nib symbol.


So we can say that the relativistic invariance principle is a direct consequence of the logical self-generation theory: the property of an object are the same everywhere, since there is no place defined in an absolute way

Nibs in General Relativity

What is interesting with the nibs and the theory of logical self-generation process, is that space is not pre-existing, but it appears as the structure of the set of all the nibs (structure in the meaning of the Sets Theory). Thus, there is no mystery to the nibs generating this bizarre curvature of space around a mass. They could easily generate much more complicated space structures. Thus, there is no need to ask how an Euclidean space can be folded. Quite simply, this Euclidean space does not exist as such, it is only a projection of the relativist space, in our usual references frame (coordinates of the local observer), the only thing that our mind is able of perceiving or conceiving.


The energy of a particle, relative to another, would simply be a function of the angle they do in the relativistic space, angle which tells their relative speed. This angle cannot change spontaneously, as the logical self-generation process is forced to keep it. However, it can change with an interaction.

If we have a gravitational field, it is the whole local self-generation process which makes an angle, with respect to others around. This is enough to explain the space distorted by gravity.

A general view of fields

A particle bearing an electric charge would see the relativistic space in a different way than an uncharged one. In the language of Relativity, it would be a different local observer than a neutral particle, although with the same place and speed.

If so, there is nothing astonishing if a neutral particle and a charged particle behave differently, as their «universe lines» are totally different.

IV-6 Anthropic principle, logical feedback and Creation


Important: use of the words «anthropism» and «Creation» into this book

Throughout this book, without other notice, «anthropism» means the meaning 1 explained under, the weak anthropic principle.

However, «Creation» clearly refers to an intentional act (thus posed by a conscious entity, whatever it is, God, angel, extraterrestrial, etc.).

Weak or strong anthropic principle

We name «anthropic principle» the fact that some laws of physics, or some cosmological events, seem «made for» allowing the existence of Mankind. There are two versions:

1) The weak anthropic principle, after which a large number of universes exist, with different laws of physics. We would then necessarily be into one which allows for life. (In all the following chapters, unless told otherwise, the word «anthropism» always refers to this case).

2) The strong anthropic principle says instead that there would be only one universe (or a few), which laws were adjusted to allow the emergence of human life. This time, it is a valid argument for the Creation of our universe by an entity having an intent, a «god».

The logical feedback

There is however a third possibility, which may seem subtle or bizarre, but which seems plausible to me, and even necessary.

We saw in chapter III-4 a simulation of an universe, based on the principle of creative absurdity explained in chapter III-3. In this simulation, a creative absurdity was isolated at the very beginning of this universe, starting a logical self-generation process leading to the formation of a logical and coherent universe, without paradox. In this universe, the founding paradox was just a singularity placed at the beginning of the universe, where we could ignore it.

History of the Universe seen after the logical self-generation theory, directe without feedback

Here the founder paradox is confined in the beginning, and the development of the logical self-generation process is linear.

(0) is the notion of absolute and infinite time, that our mind projects onto the physical reality.

(1) is the founding paradox, h

(2) is the zero time of the Big Bang.

(3) is the running of the logical self-generation process.

(4) is the final state of the process, here a «Big Crunch».


However we can imagine that the whole logical self-generation process is in the loop. In this case, the very existence of the whole process depends on a «final state» of this process, and more generally of the realisation of specific criteria.

History of the Universe seen after the logical self-generation theory, with a logical feedback

The founding paradox here has feedback from the whole process. In this case the logical self-generation process is looped.

We note some additional logical implications:

(5) is a logical implication from the final state to the founding paradox, which validates it. Unlike the previous case, this universe exists only for a given value of this founding paradox. It therefore has a strong anthropism. This feedback can for instance enforce laws of physics leading to a consistent universe, compared to an universe where laws of physics would lead to chaos.

(6) is a logical implication of a final state to an intermediate state. We will see some lines ahead a striking example, with the flight of birds.

(7) is a direct intervention, intentional, by a Creator who seeks to push things toward a given final state.



Is such a thing possible in the case of a physical universe? Yes, according to the theory of the logical self-generation process (which applies to our physical universe). But if our universe is actually into this case, so we can expect some observable consequences. For example, some laws of physics would result from such a situation.

So this makes us a third version of Anthropism:

3) The logical feedback (the apparition of our universe is conditioned by its evolution) predicts that some physical laws could be «adjusted» in order to obtain a coherent evolution, see a defined result.

This case may also involve the evolution of life, giving the appearance of a creationist «grand design». However, this case should not be confused with the strong anthropic principle 2), which mandatory requires a divine Creation. The logical feedback 3) does not necessarily require a Creator God, as we shall see in the following example:


An excellent exemple of logical feedback is the seemingly impossibleappearance of the flight of birds. Today we now much better know that things happened in a progressive way, each function allowing for the next.

And all this happened only because of the only logical possibility of flight, a fantastic biological utopia, which however looked impossible to achieve!

We could say that: logical feedback = creative absurdity + Darwinian evolution. It thus combines the power of both, in a fantastic creative force!


Going back to physics, we must either not be surprised if some physical laws were selected by logical feedbacks, such as «if the universe was like this, then it would be inconsistent». Such conditions may reduce the number of possible universes, or possible laws of physics. Such logical conditions may also pose very strong constraints on the laws of physics of our world, in a way to make possible the evolution of living beings like us.

We may even be ourselves into such a loop, and that it may have enormous consequences on our lives, as we shall see in the chapter VI-16 on the future evolution of mankind.

Divine Creation?

What the traditions saw like the hand of a creator God would be only a logical feedback process?

Must we conclude that this creator God does not exist? Or that we can reduce Him to a Darwinian selection process, unconscious, blind and often cruel?


What we can say, in this part on physics, is that physicists have found no clear evidence of intentional acts in the evolution of our universe (nor of its inhabitants). So, physics cannot scientifically say that our universe was created by a God. Should we conclude to the absence of such a creator God? We can neither scientifically conclude to this absence.

Indeed, what would happen if an evolved being tried to create an universe? He would build a good foundation to start, and then intervene as little as possible, to give His Creation some good chance to evolve spontaneously. All the gamers know this rule of non-interference. Especially, if the Creator has a vision of love, He will propose various aids to His creatures, which will be given only discreetly, to the only concerned persons, in order to break as little as possible the rule of non-interference:

-The Big Bang is the only physically inexplicable act which is clearly visible.

-Many automated processes have created a conscious life of an incredible complexity and variety.

-A clear meaning of life is immediately and spontaneously visible to anyone who stops his inner chatting and purposeless strategies (see chapter V-5).

-Many people meeting certain spiritual criteria report discrete and elusive magical helps (premonitions of danger, interesting meetings, inner experiences, etc.)

Thus we can scientifically hypothesize, not only that our universe has been created intentionally, but in more that it would still be actively maintained. If this is the case, then the religions would be right on their spiritual basis.

IV-7 Causes of the laws of physics


Laws or physics entirely arbitrary, or in which extent can we deduce them from the theory of the logical self-generation process?

Conservation laws

The main laws of physics are absolute conservation laws: of energy, mass, charge, motion, etc. But also, the constants of physics and the laws of physics never change. This would be a direct logical consequence of the rule 5 seen in chapter III-3: in a system of logical implication, once solved the founding paradoxes, then each logical implication is strictly determined.


We could wonder, after chapter IV-5, why the nib has this «form»?

It is because, if it had no such relativistic properties, there would be no gravity. Gravitation is not a «field» like the electric field, but deformation of space. Relativity and Gravitation are linked. Without relativity, there would be no gravity.

So we can say that the law of gravitation is anthropic in the weak sense (chapter IV-6). Gravity being a consequence of Relativity, thus the later is also essential for the emergence of life. Relativity is also anthropic.

The Heisenberg uncertainties and fuzzy space at small scale

We said repeatedly here, in previous chapters, that the particles always remain in the three-dimensional space, with a perfect precision. Actually no, because at small scale, space is rough, bumpy. The Heisenberg uncertainty also allow particles to exist for a short time.

Why is it this way?

Larger differences would lead to inconsistencies. Thus, those departures would be quickly corrected. In this case, it is remarkable that something as abstract as a logical feedback could be the most powerful actors of physics.

The properties of vacuum

The physicists use to say that vacuum has properties, such as the speed of light, the constants of physics, etc. This implies that vacuum would be «something», a «rubber membrane», or even an «aether», which this time was cautiously given relativistic properties, not to be caught again by Michelson and Morley. And regardless of how this aether would be squashed by the equations of Einstein.

In fact, we really saw in chapter IV-4 that the nibs generate space, and even the relativistic space-time. In doing so, they necessarily do in a specified way, always the same.

Thus, not only space is the structure (in the meaning of the Sets Theory) of the whole sets of nibs, but in more, these nibs confer it properties, such as being relativistic, to be traversed by electric fields, magnetic fields, weak or strong fields etc. in proportions determined by physical constants such as the permittivity of vacuum.

And when we try to measure the properties of vacuum, our measuring instrument shows in facts the properties of the nibs of which this instrument is itself made. It is remarkable that we actually always find the same result, even if we build another device.

Can we demonstrate the whole physics
with the Theory of the Logical Self-Generation?

The previous reasoning allowed to find back some of the most bizarre properties of photons and vacuum.

My intuition commands me to look forward into this direction. It may only miss only one item, to end connecting this part to known physics. We shall already see, in the next chapter IV-8, some encouraging results, such as to predict two types of particles which actually exist: bosons and fermions, and some of their more bizarre properties, such as to be unobservable on their path.

Could we predict other entities, such as the electric field, the weak interaction, the strong interaction?

Could we, from simple geometric considerations on the shape of the nibs, predict the exact values of constants of physics?

I'm not sure of this. Indeed, we saw that the nibs can have «ad hoc» non-demonstrable properties, set randomly (an anthropic random, chapter IV-6,) in the time of the the Big Bang (or creative absurdity, see chapter III-3, rule 3). These nibs are then logically constrained to produce other identical nibs, transmitting their properties, without changing them.

We even have a recent experimental demonstration of this, with the RHIC experiment (chapitre IV-9) where we precisely witnessed the arbitrary attribution, at random, of a value to a parameter of a law of physics. This validates the idea as what the numerous parameters of the laws of physics cannot be predicted, but that they were determined in the Big Bang.

So, after the theory of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces would have appeared only a few tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, during a special event, called «symmetry breaking», a time where, as says the logical self-generation theory, the previous laws were taken in default, forcing the apparition of new different laws.


It is therefore not sure at all that we can demonstrate all the physics, if it includes such arbitrary elements, see local and accidental elements.

However we might try, for example by posing that a nib with an electric charge is the same than a nib with a neutral charge, but with a different orientation in the relativistic space. Thus, a neutral particle and a charged particle would have different universe lines, which then easily explains their very different behaviour, without invoking anything else than Special Relativity. It would be fascinating to find the electric field, see the weak and strong interactions, out of such simple geometry considerations into the space-time!

The Sets Theory master of physics

To understand this, consider that some sets have logical structures. Let us see how.

To understand this, consider that some sets have logical structures. For example the set of real numbers has a structure of, say, a one-dimensional space. If we combine three numbers, for example the Cartesian coordinates, they form a three-dimensional space which is totally indistinguishable from our physical world!

Hardly more complicated structures (addition of velocities with a maximum c, the speed of light) give Relativity, which makes possible energy, gravitation, black holes, etc. in the Relativistic space.

Thus, our space would not be only a homologue of a mathematical space, it would be directly a mathematical space.


At this point, any student learning Sets Theory wondered if there were no other structures than the simple R3. Yes there are. They are not taught at school because they are more complicated. But there are some, corresponding to other invariances or symmetries of the elements of the sets.


The thing is, there are not many.


And that mathematicians most probably discovered all of them, as for the Platonic solids.


The idea here is that each of these structures would generate a law of physics!

Thus their list matches the one of all possible laws of physics, including the ones which occur at levels of energy impossible to attain today.


This has various consequences:

-All physical universes would have roughly the same laws of physics

-However, the preceding mathematical considerations do not specify the values of the different parameters of these laws. Thus each physical universe would have different parameters, and thus a different physics (chapter IV-9), although based on Relativity and the same Standard Model as us.

-The universes of consciousness, which do not contain particles, but elements of consciousness experience (sensations, ideas, etc.), could also have the equivalent of «laws of physics». Some may even resemble our physical world, for the same reasons, for example space and space invariance. However, the non-Aristotelian nature of the elements of the consciousness experience certainly leads to other laws, different from our physical world. At this point it is difficult to speculate, given the little experimental information (NDE, RR4), but these worlds would function rather like dreams, about which we saw in chapter III-8 that they also have self-generation laws, and even more rigorous as one might think. See also in Chapter V-10, under «Dissolution of Consciousness».

String theory and Supersymmetry (speculation)

Summary: the Strings Theory is not compatible with the Logical Self Generation Theory, while Supersymmetry is.

IV-8 Theory of fields


The photons do not exist

Let us see again Figure 1 of chapter IV-5: material particles appear as trajectories formed by series of nibs, connected by a «mechanical» wave. However, photons do not appear like this. They are a single arrow linking two observable quantum interactions, without any observable effect on their trajectory.

But there is worse: according to Special Relativity, an observer riding a photon would see no time elapsing between his departure and arrival. In addition, he would see the start and end in the same place... Even if for us they are at billions of light years!

So it is not necessary to suppose that photons are particles existing on their own. It is enough to note that they combine two quantum interactions in a single event. So we can legitimately pose that they are the same and single quantum event.

This explains very well several very intriguing fundamental properties of the photons: that they can be superimposed in an infinite number in one place. Or that they can be unobservable (we see only their departure and arrival). Or, similarly, that they have no influence on matter, along their trajectory.


So long as we are here, we can do the same reasoning for all the fields known by physics: each field has its own way of transmitting energy, and possibly other charges between the «material» particles such as the electron or the neutron.

Metaphysics which allows you to write stuff like that, it goes a little beyond the astrology rubric of the TV, doesn't it?

We can even go further: the relativistic perspective unfolds a single point into a trajectory! It is this infinite unfolding (from zero to a given dimension) which makes appear, to our eye, all the stuff like photons and electromagnetic waves moving at exactly the speed of light.

There is a simple proof: when light undergoes refraction, the angle is such that the trajectory is still the fastest speed for the photons! This can happen only if the photon «knew» in which direction to start. The unfolding explained above is an elegant explanation of this apparent transfer of information backward in time.

Fields do not exist

One of the basic concepts of physics is the «field», such as the electrical field. These fields explain everything, because it is them which govern the movement of particles, their changes of state, etc.

However, these fields are new elements, and inherently different of others, that classical physics does not explain, just being happy to observe them, measure them, etc. For the theory of the logical self-generation process, they pose a problem, as they would require to add ad-hoc elements.

It is enough, however, to note that what transmits the interaction is the abstract wave sent by the the nib. Thus, it is no required to invoke the influence of «something» which would be a field. Everything comes down to the nibs, and to their abstract waves.


And we have a practical evidence of this (fields being only consequences of photons or bosons): it is impossible to directly measure, or even detect a field, without taking some energy of it, that is without exchanging some real photons (or other bosons).

Why a Relativistic nib system, and not a continuum?

We could have very well imagined, in chapter III-4, instead of nibs, a continuum of space, a «membrane», which state in a given point and time would be a function of previous states.

Would such an universe allow for the evolution to life? I doubt it, because there are several serious arguments against this.

-How could «fields» of matter react chemically to give new molecules? The incredible variety of our chemistry is based on the availability of a large number of different atoms, which can combine in millions of possible molecules. However, atoms are quanta of matter. Without Quantum Mechanics, therefore, there is no chemistry, and, therefore, no life.

-Worse, with no molecules, no DNA, and therefore no way to store information in a small scale!



But the most serious is that a universe formed only of continuous fields, contains a logical indeterminism: for a law of cause and effect to play, where the cause should be, in relation to the effect? One second before? One microsecond before? Mathematicians elude this problem in equations, by naming this time «dt» (delta t), which can be made arbitrarily small. But in a real system, nothing allows to lift the logical indeterminism, when dt connects a cause and its effect, since nothing allows to assign a value to dt.

It is therefore needed that each present moment in a peculiar spot is influenced by really past elements, excluding the present. The cause must also be within a certain distance (in space). Rule 5 of Chapter III-3 requires that this relation is constant. The simplest solution is that an action at a given instant and precise spot has its cause in another unique instant and spot in the past.

This is exactly what happens in a... quantum interaction. Here is the origin of the quantum organization of our universe! However, a much richer solution was that the time and distance ratio remains constant, that is a speed. From there comes the speed of light, the absolute maximum, at the origin of Relativity, which also allows for gravitation. This relativistic world is far more interesting (anthropic), because there is no maximum distance for the quantum interactions to occur. So, electromagnetic waves can bring us the heat of the Sun, Internet, images of distant galaxies, etc.

So, it appears that the quantification of matter, quantum mechanics (and Relativity), is forced by the greatest mathematical difficulty of continuous systems, or even perhaps by the logical impossibility of a non-quantum physics able of producing an History and stable micro-structures.

This impossibility is a strong argument, if not a demonstration, that any field is necessarily quantified.


A last, we note that even the «universes» of pure consciousness, such as the dream, are also, in a way, «quantum», that is, consisting of individual elements arranged in a chain of cause and effect, to give a time and an History. We shall see in the fifth part, that consciousness itself is also «quantum» (note 91), that is, composed of a succession of instant scenes, even though we are usually not aware of this.

What the physicists say about fields

What is above seems to be in contradiction with physics, which essentially considers continuous fields, such as the electric field of the radio lessons.

In facts, physicists reason as follows: If we consider continuous fields, interacting with matter, then there is no analytical solution for the manner in which these fields behave. The physicists therefore stumbled on their side on the same «absurd» conclusion than we found in the beginning of this chapter. Then they use another tool: the perturbation theory, where the field is modified by jumps, by small individual disturbances.

But what is astounding is that this artifice of calculation can be visible to the naked eye, for example with the scintillations emitted by a radioactive body (which excites a fluorescent screen, as in a spinthariscope), or directly with the experience described in chapter IV-2. That a mathematical artefact appears as a physical object to our senses (chapter III-5), really shows the ultimate logical nature of our universe, without any need of a mysterious «material reality» to explain it.

Incompatibility between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

The hardest problem that physicists have to solve today for obtaining an unified theory of all the forces, is the incompatibility between the Theory of Relativity (gravitation/geometry of space) and Quantum Mechanics (electrical, weak and strong forces). The vision presented in this chapter and in chapter IV-6, leads to a possible solution to this problem: gravitation and the geometry of space are an emerging property.

Thus, if the content of these chapters is correct, then we can obtain an overall knowledge of physics, if we however accept that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics remain two incompatible conceptual systems (chapter I-9).

Wave Mechanics

In this whole book, I deliberately avoided discussing Wave Mechanics, its concepts and descriptions, in order to avoid confusion or overloading the text. But I could not totally ignore it, hence this subchapter.

My reply is that Quantum Mechanics and Wave Mechanics are just two different conceptual systems (Chapter I-9), which describe exactly the same reality. Despite their apparent incompatibility, there is no contradiction between the two.

Physicists have long sought to reconcile the two theories, which seemed to give totally contradictory results according to the experiments, for example, light which sometimes behaves as a particle, sometimes as a wave. They finally succeeded: the equations of one theory can be derived from the other.

IV-9 Can we create laws of physics?


Position of the problem

For anybody with some scientific knowledge, the laws of physics are inherently something which does not change: they were created once and for all in the Big Bang, making vain any questioning on the how and the why they exist. With in more a cultural background of creationist religion, then we shall more easily see here a mysterious creation, impossible to match, rather than a process accessible to our understanding, see reproducible.

However, the theory of the logical self-generation process predicts that this can happen, and that we can even cause it. Indeed, rule 6 of chapter III-3 forces the appearance of new laws of self-generation, when a paradox appears.

Similarly, modern physics describes the appearance of the laws of physics in several steps, called symmetry breaking, which took place successively in the first moments after the Big Bang. So, each of these appearance of new laws of physics (symmetry breaking) does not result from magical or mysterious causes, but only of the physical conditions existing in the time when they happen!

These metaphysical considerations are thus definitively not gratuitous: the process of creation of laws of physics was scientifically reproduced, and physicists allow themselves today to titillate the creation of the most recent symmetry breaking, the matter-antimatter symmetry. A process that I predicted in the version 1 of this book, in 2000, although for entirely different phenomena.

But we shall also see that consciousness itself produced the same process, and generated its own laws, which then explain its non-physical properties, while remaining logically connected with physics.

Example: the three generations of particles

Physics has found that the known elementary particles gather together into three generations.

To my knowledge, there is no explanation to these three generations, nor to the masses of the particles which make them.

So I guess what may have happened, thanks to the theory of the logical self-generation. The logical event which created our nib would have occurred three times. And, having no reason to give each time the same results, it actually gave three different systems. The three systems then got mixed and superimposed, creating the three generations.

However, that these three systems produced each exactly the same base pattern indicates that there was a very strong constraint for this pattern. If this hypothesis is correct, then we even have a strong evidence that many other universes (if not all) would also reproduce the same pattern (two quarks, an electron and a neutrino).

What i predicted:

In 1999, the idea that we could artificially modify the laws of physics looked «demented», and it was certainly the most daring prediction in all my book (Version 1). I thought at observing the phenomenon at a very low temperature, because it never happened naturally in the Universe.

What was effectively found

'Bubbles' of Broken Symmetry in Quark Soup at RHIC

Physicists May Have Broken a Law of Nature

(Experimental confirmation) Just when I was releasing the previous prediction, in 2000 in the version 1 of this book, physicists of the RHIC experiment at Brookhaven started to collide gold nucleus at very high energy, creating a plasma of quarks and gluons.

But what is interesting here is that physicists observed in this plasma several bubbles of matter which were breaking the matter-antimatter symmetry in different ways. Just like in my prediction, we see domains (textures) appearing, fighting, until only ordinary space remains.

That domains with different symmetry breaking rates appear is a clear evidence that this law of physics is created into the quark-gluon plasma. And, at the very fast relativistic speed at which it evolves into the experiment, it does not have the time to be created equally everywhere. So, several domains form, with each a different rate of symmetry breaking.

Why free will must violate the laws of physics,
and how it does it

Sadomasochist scientistists (note 92), and everybody in the world who is stuck, sociopathic or fascist, all actively fight the idea of free will.

However this arrogant scientistism is not necessarily the position of science. Today scientists (2012) are also digging the idea. In a general way, they recognize that free will is incompatible with the physical functioning of neurons. So, either they consider it impossible, or they admit that there is a mystery. Let us see about, without posing arbitrary metaphysical dogma such as the absolute supremacy of matter over consciousness (chapter III-1).


To speak scientifically of the free will, we must start by not mistaking its definition. The free will is not about making choices between identical buttons. For instance, in the Christian conceptual system (chapter I-9), free will is to choose to engage freely in the path of the good and abandon the evil. Since, the notion of free will quickly emancipated itself of religious concepts, toward philosophy, especially humanism, and in the modern law. However it is psychology and neurology which allow to assess the more modern definition (2012): the free will is precisely to escape any neuronal or psychological conditioning.


But what is the relation of this with the creation of laws of physics, of domains of space with different laws?

It is that, precisely, neurons are physical objects, which obey to the laws of physics. So, we must be able to explain how a physical phenomenon is affected by consciousness.

Therefore, to allow the free will to happen, this law of physic must be violated. And how can it be violated? In the same way as in the RHIC (but less brutally!): by creating physical conditions containing a logical indeterminism, as seen in chapter III-3, rule 6.

The non-psychoeducated brain does no handle facts, but opinions: we desire or we hate something (chapter V-12). Normally, the brain has evolved in a way to propose a desire or an aversion adequate to the situations in the world, as for instance to desire food, or to be afraid of a predator. Thus, the animal will always perform the right action. But human civilizations created many situations which were not foreseen by evolution. Then the neurosis engine runs without beacons, labelling all this as «good» or «bad», at random... From there comes the multitude of desire/aversion for such or such opinion, anyhow, resulting in so much suffering and illusions.

But if two neural signals of desire/aversion, for two different opinions, have a similar energy? There is then a logical indeterminacy. However, there must be a single nerve output, to one of the two behaviours. The theory of neural determinism says that a «drawing lot» would take place in this case. Pure chance, without any reference to good or evil, therefore not a free will.

What might however happen at this point, is that it would be an element of the experience of consciousness which would logically force one of the two solutions to the undetermined physical behaviour of neurons. For instance, a scientist will do the free will choice of preferring heliocentrism to geocentricism, a spiritual person will make the free will choice of preferring altruism to egocentricity. Oh, nothing spectacular, no explosion of plasma, no disaster... just a small stealth domain, only some neurons large, which lasts only a moment, the time to say «Eureka», before collapsing. Then the brain resumes its normal functioning, obeying the material determinism, but with modified connections, to apply the neurosis of desire only to the new view, more accurate.


And how to reproduce the phenomenon? We can cause it, through meditation, which precisely is about cancelling the neurosis of desire/repulsion: the various options then produce all equal neural signals, of zero energy, thus easily realizing the logical indeterminism at the physical level. This is how meditation is liberating us.

IV-10 Cosmology




It is difficult for an amateur to write scientifically about topics such as astronomy and cosmology. Indeed these are domains where things move very fast, and what seems «scientific» or «reasonable» today may seem ridiculous in three years. For this reason, please consider the publishing date of this chapter (January 2016).

This non-essential chapter is strongly summarized. It mostly deals with classical science.

Section I: Cosmology


The original singularity

In the Big Bang theory, a difficulty is the one of the original singularity. The Theory of Logical Self-Generation offers a simple explanation, with the notion of a founding absurdity, in chapter III-3 and following.

As to the passage of a zero size to a finite size, this problem simply does not arise any more: at the stage of the single element, there are no dimensions, nor null neither finite. But as soon as two elements exist, there is a finite dimension. In more this geometry can be any, spherical for the classical Big Bang, or Euclidean for a flat universe.


The curvature of the universe

The emergence of the concept of the Big Bang brought the idea that our universe would be a hypersphere, that is the equivalent of the surface of a sphere, but in three dimensions instead of two.

However in the 2000s the precise measurements by NASA of the curvature of the universe shown that it is very low, less than 10%. Thus the visible universe is nearby Euclidean!

To save the hypersphere, it then needs to have an incomprehensibly large radius.

So, we need to consider again that the Big Bang may have occurred in a point of an Euclidean universe. Yes, but then how this infinite universe was created? At this point the logical self-generation theory is useful. We saw in the previous subchapter how it predicts the appearance of space and time. According to this process, there is no problem for any geometry to appear, which can be a totally Euclidean universe, as well as the classical hypersphere.



Inflation would be a fantastic increase in the volume of the universe, which happened immediately after the Big Bang, between a sub-microscopic state and the huge dimensions it has today. It is understood as the thermodynamic expansion of the universe as a result of its temperature and pressure, just as a gas in a piston.

This situation does however not explain why the universe is so uniform today. This is why physicists assume an additional inflation, the cosmological inflation. Personally I keep other simpler assumptions open, like thinking that, before the Great (dis)Unification, the universe would have remained a while in a metastable state.


The accelerating expansion

I would very timidly venture into hypothesis, like the appearance in progress of a new physics, still unknown and incomprehensible for us.

To start with, the curves showing the expansion are hardly distinguishable from non-accelerated expansion: both curves are within the measurement errors. See one curve of the University of Alberta site,

We remark that galaxies have gathered in clusters. In thermodynamic terms, the number of particles in the galaxies «gas» decreased, which always result in a decrease of the pressure. At a pinch, the gathering in clusters may have raised the «temperature» of the galaxy «gas», thus producing the small observed acceleration.

The picture facing cosmologists today is becoming more complex. Among the different hypotheses, one is evoked: our universe would not be homogeneous, and its curvature would not be the same in all directions. Finding a non-homogenous universe would be an extremely interesting result, giving a glimpse of phenomena which may have happened during Inflation or even before.


Dark matter

Can the logical self-generation theory predict hypothetical particles of dark matter? Perhaps:

In the early stages of the Big Bang would have existed unified particles interacting by a single force (probably gravitation). During the Great (dis)Unification, these particles have been transmuted into our existing today particles: quarks, photons, electrons, which would start to interact according to the four forces existing today (gravitational, electric, weak, strong). However, since this transmutation released a fantastic amount of heat, it would have produced a gigantic inflation of the universe.

Scientists generally admit that particles of dark matter are «ashes» of this fantastic conflagration. I however propose another hypothesis: the particles of dark matter would not be «ashes», but remaining «fuel», that is grand-unified particles which survived the Great (des)unification, because they had not enough time to react at this moment. Thus they would still be there today, but almost undetectable.

However none of the experiments designed to detect dark matter has been able to find any. According to the theory explained above, the reason would be that these particles would transmute into ordinary matter, by simple contact, either in space, or even... in the detectors! Which would then only see ordinary cosmic rays!

In 2020 this theory was  independently rediscovered  as the «frozen» dark matter. 


Is there dark matter in our solar system?

The navigation data from interplanetary probes do not currently allow the detection of measurable amounts of dark matter. The analyses in the previous sub-chapter explain why: any dark matter entering our system would be rapidly transmuted.


The heart of the black holes

The Logical Self-Generation Theory sees no obstacle to the core of black holes being a point. However, it proposes that collapsing matter would go backwards through all the stages of the Big Bang.


The origins of comets

There are two problems with comets:

-They do not orbit the solar system, they fall towards the sun (sometimes literally).

-That there are still virgin comets encountering the sun for the first time, after 4.5 billions years in orbit.

Both of these mysteries are easily explained, if we consider that comets were formed recently, at a fixed point relative to the Sun. For example, the shock wave between the solar wind and the interplanetary wind.


What 'umuamua is made of


Its low density can be explained by the fact that it is made of rock «expanded» by the heat of a star, as it is often observed in volcanic rocks. Except that in a vacuum, the bubbles are much larger.


Mars climate, water and bizarre geology features

If liquid water cannot exist on Mars from almost the beginning, still a massive emission of steam from a volcano could form a temporary atmosphere. Such an atmosphere would resolve itself into heavy rain and mudflows, forming valleys such as Maadim Vallis, which partially filled the Gussev crater.

Also, Mars has many deposits of dust or frozen mud. With geothermal heat, the bottom of these layers can melt and destabilise the whole, forming chaos and massive flows. So the best place to look for possible Martian life underground would be Athabasca Vallis or Marte Vallis.


Nuclear life

This is a very daring speculation on life appearing, not out of chemistry, but from nuclear reactions happening in the surface layers of a neutron star. If this is possible, those people would have an experience of their world radically different of ours.

section II: the structure and evolution of galaxies

This section was removed, because it was based on a «simplification» very common in popular magazines, that the rotation speed of stars around a galaxy would be constant as a function of the radius. Such a law would lead to a simple and universal explanation of the shapes of galaxies, in terms of a «gas» in thermodynamic equilibrium with its own gravitational field. We could even be able to deduce the state equation of dark matter! However, I became suspicious when I solved the differential equation, and found that this state equation would be a... logarithm, which makes no physical sense. Worse, this law is simply not true, and there are strong variations in velocity, and even in density, such as evanescent galaxies, or compact galaxies (with a very sharp edge), pointing to a variety of processes. Complete retraction was therefore unavoidable. This expresses the difficulties of amateur scientists, who have only a truncated view of scientific knowledge.

IV-11 The delayed choice experiment,
or WHEELER experiment


I decided to add this 11th chapter here, because I thought that the Wheeler's Experiment contributes to validate the whole Logical Self-Generation Theory (Experimental confirmation). I even proposed a similar experiment in the version 1, in 1999, without knowing that physicists imagined it as early as 1971. Then, not including it in version 2 would have been a regression. Hence this chapter added after the others, a sort of keystone for the whole.


This experiment was devised in 1971 by John Archibald Wheeler, as a test that quantum mechanics is just as weird as it sounds. It has brilliantly confirmed the said Quantum Mechanics, Copenhagen's interpretation, pure and fast line. But I think that it also confirms the Logical Self-Generation Theory presented in this book.


There are many ways of doing this experiment. However the «reference» is the Young's slits, which we saw in chapter IV-2.

Copenhagen Electron in the interference experiment

Remember that in this experiment, a photon passes through two slits before reaching a screen. Depending on whether one or both slits are opened, the photon behaves as a particle or as a wave when it reaches the screen. At the time, 1971, nobody knew how or why the photon «chose» to appear as a particle or as a wave. But Archibald Wheeler had the idea to search when it does so. For this purpose, he equipped himself with fast shutters capable of opening or closing one of the two slits during the photon's flight time, after it had passed through the slits.

Our daily intuition tells us that once the slits are passed, opening or closing them would have no effect on the photon. But Quantum Mechanics says that the operation of the fast shutters controls the photon even after it has passed through the slits. And this is what the experiment has shown!


Wheeler's experiment was carried out with a laser on a 40m table, then with satellites, over distances of around 3000kms. All versions confirm the expected result: the photons react to the state of the slits when they arrive on the screen.

What i had proposed in Version 1

I presented a very similar experiment in the version 1 of this book in 1999 (registered in 2000 at the Library of Congress in Washington). More precisely, I proposed, chapter 38, an Aspect Experiment at an inommensurable distance. (This meaning out of the light cone). I don't have something simple to quote, but the idea was very similar to Wheeler's, except that I was starting from the Aspect experiment (chapter IV-2) rather than Young's.

Interpretation according to the of Logical Self-Generation Theory

We tend to think that the photons «decide» their behaviour as they pass through the two holes. However, the opening of the holes occurs after this passage. We then feel that this modification influences the «choice» of the photon in the past, that is a causality towards the past! This expression is often found in literature.


In the theory of Logical Self-generation, time does not exist in an absolute way. There is in fact no defined time, only a series of quantum interactions (called «nibs» in this theory) according to a law of cause and effect (called laws of physics for the physical world). It is only the succession of quantum interactions which creates the appearance of a continuously elapsing time.

The conclusion is that in Wheeler's experiment, only the reception of the photon constitutes a «nib» (quantum interaction), even if the different influences, such as the opening of a slot, took place at different dates, or are very far away. There is therefore no «temporal return», even if it looks like it. At a pinch, we could speak of the «atemporality» of quantum interactions, by analogy with «non-locality». Thus each nib is non-local and atemporal.


What it must be possible to say is that each nib instantly creates a new state of the entire universe. These nibs then create waves and fields. And the next nibs will therefore appear under the influence of these new wave and fields.


What Relativity says is that, since the photon goes at the speed of light, in its relativistic frame of reference, the point of emission, the slots, and the point of reception all are in the same place. There is therefore no violation, neither of Relativity nor of the principle of causality.


Finally I am not displeased that my simple metaphysical intuitions have relevant enough to provide the same result as the complex equations of Quantum Mechanics, especially on such a sharp and strange experiment. However, nothing in classical physics allowed to imagine Wheeler's experiment and its astonishing result.

Aspect experiment in parapsychology

Well, yes, sorry to speak about parapsy in a chapter on physics. But if we want to know how consciousness can bend physics, we have to start by knowing how physics can be bent. And personally, I observed several times such phenomena, including a «big one», also seen by tens of persons. So for me the discussion on the existence of these phenomena is moot, and I shall no longer lose time at trying to «debate». If somebody does not trust observation, let him manage himself.


Warning: to write that consciousness is «quantum», with big quotation marks (note 91) requires to keep a safe distance from the pseudosciences which put quantum in all the soups, without knowing what it is.

What the Theory of Logical Self-generation says is that consciousness is also a self-generation system, and as such it is also made up of successive states, linked by a law of cause and effect.


Since the physical world and consciousness are different logical self-generation systems, they should by principle not communicate. However, they do, at least when information from the physical world reaches consciousness via the sensory organs. But this point by point bijection between neurons and the consciousness experience they produce, implies that communication in the other direction is also possible, though less common.

And when it happens, it then appears to us as free will (chapter V-3), ESP, moments of super-consciousness, a «parapsychological phenomenon».


My purpose in the first version was to see what would happen in the Wheeler experiment, if we observed parapsychological phenomena instead of physical ones.

The Logical Self-generation Theory predicts a much more astonishing result in this case: since there is no definite relationship between the flow of time in the physical world and the spiritual world, it is possible to observe real retrograde causalities! That is, the future acting on the past, via the spiritual world. But only via the later.


Amazing? Yet we already have clues in this direction:

☻ Some UFO cases, like the Valdez affair.

☻ The prophecy about the invasion of Tibet, chapter IV-3.

☻ The telepathy experiment attempted by astronaut Edgar Mitchell from the Moon. According to some sources, he did a timing mistake, but three of the four receivers still received the message.

☻ The PEAR experiment (Archive of the original censored site) also explored time shifts, and the results suggest that some were observed.


Any of these experiments should be enough to demonstrate that consciousness has its proper time, independently of the physical time, and thus it exists independently of the physical world, especially from the brain. The problem however is that we find on the Internet as contradictory as uncheckable statements on these experiments. This uncertainty is the cost of the idiot prejudice against parapsychology, especially of not having academic checked and sourced reports on such experiments: Either we miss interesting results, or we cannot eradicate falsehood. See chapter II-9.


Despites this, we therefore have here a theoretical framework which can be used for a scientific study of parapsychology.

In the longer term, understanding how these interferences between the physical and the spiritual occur, would lead to a mastery of extraordinary things like the psychic spaceships that I describe in the wonderfull world of the Eolis.



Introduction to General Epistemology

Arrow allowing to navigate from page to page. An image map gives the links for each arrow. Index of this story. Jumping several stories backward. Previous story. Next story. Jumping several stories forward.




Scenario, graphics, sounds, colours, realization: Richard Trigaux (Unless indicated otherwise).

As every independant author I need your support to be able to continue to work on this site and allow for a freedom of expression to exist on the net:

Legal and copyright notice.

Modified in 2024

1) Unless indicated otherwise, all the texts, drawings, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programmation, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to do commercial use, or other evil purposes.

2) You can use the expressions marked with a copyright sign ©, to the conditions 2-1) to tell that the author is Richard Trigaux, 2-2) to make a link toward the definition, et 2-3) not to distort the meaning.

3) If this site disappears, you will then be free to make a mirror of it, of the whole or a part, to the conditions of: 3-1) tell that Richard Trigaux is the author, 3-2) only the rights owners can do a benefit, as guaranteed by the laws, but I forbid them to oppose the publication 3-3) do not distort or denigrate the meaning. This point also applies to the media, Artificial Intelligence and crowd-sourcing systems. cliquer pour verifier


Sceau officiel