Friday, January 29, 2016

What is Time?

Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron).---Antiphon the Sophist (5th Century BC)

. . . fast forward to our century and this is about the best definition one will ever see . . .

Time: the equation of motion to a preconceived cycle of motion that is assumed to occur regularly. 
Time is a relation. First we conceive of regular, repetitious motion. Then we relate other irregular action to the regular cycle and by counting the repetitions of the cycle, we derive a number that can be considered "time". 
Seconds, days, years, etc. are all abstractions referring to regular, repetitious cycles that we have conceived of as constant and dependable. 
Even atomic clocks, which are considered "the most precise" are based on the assumption that the atoms of the clock are performing an action in cycles that are regular and dependable. 
Time is based on assumptions and artificial, idealized relationships. ---Mike Huttner (21st Century AD)

For Time to qualify as real it would have to have form and stand out implying three dimensions. So in other words it would have to be some invisible fundamental subatomic object, and the particle physicists and disciples of Einstein would have to spend billions to confirm its existence to the world.

But most reasonable thinkers throughout history clearly understand that Time refers to concept, a brainwork. One simply compares two or more motions. One conceives and assumes one motion as regular, cyclical, constant.  And then one equates this motion to others.  If there is an irregularity in relation to the assumed motion used as a standard then there should be some explanation. For example the irregularity of Earth's orbit around the Sun.  Or an irregularity when comparing a caesium atom's action near Earth's surface in relation to a caesium atoms action in orbit to Earth. The presence of some fundamental invisible subatomic object in different ratios (number of subatomic objects and their effective actions) must account for the irregularity, but this object is not called Time.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

The Continuity of Mother Nature

Introduction

Below I share this growing list of quotes from the best thinkers of all generations so people can get accustomed to the concept that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by a fundamental subatomic object, perhaps a double stranded thread like object or (EM Rope as Gaede calls it). Not only does this object interconnect all atoms, and yet also all atoms derive their form from this object. So this hypothesized object is not a discrete background object. This object has certain singular properties. It is inordinately long, and yet it has the tiniest height and width of all supposed real objects. It has the ability to superpose and intersect without disturbance up to a critical abundance which is met for example when protons and/or neutrons collide. Near the atom there are anomalies where basic interactions happen, and ideas like electron try to explain this.

Imagine a hydrogen atom as a convergence of gazillions of these double stranded threads supplied by all other hydrogen atoms of the Universe. The proton is an intersection of one set of threads of the converging double strands and perhaps the other set of threads emanate out in a double helical mode (electron threads of various lengths). The atom is a double star like pattern of Thread. This Thread underpins all things. An atom, especially a proton is a fullness of this Thread and so an atom is distinct and unequal to that which connects it to all others, and from which it derives its form.  The atom constantly reforms itself, adjusts itself, shifts, and assumes two or more locations (i.e. moves) by this Thread.  How a single proton retains its form is perhaps impossible to explain, but t
here is no empty space within the bounds of an atom. Space is just an idea we use to conceive form.

A light event consummates because electron threads superposes with the converging EM Rope. They take control of one another and switch between turning one another in a critically anomalous locations around the nucleus where converging EM Ropes and emanating electron threads superpose in different ratios. This could be basically how the atom signals through the thread to atoms and picks certain frequencies to torque the Thread. In electricity and chemical bonding electron threads could superpose and take control of electron threads from adjacent atoms and vice versa. Or perhaps they could confine each other's electron threads pursuant to the critical abundance of Thread overlapping through which no more thread may temporarily pass.  There are also extraneous double stranded threads constantly passing through an atom. These begin and end on other atoms. So for example not only are all the atoms of the Earth connected to all the atoms of the Sun by EM Ropes, but Earth is always passing through EM Ropes connecting the Sun to all the stars. This is similar to a mainstream neutrino or dark matter concepts.

But the idea that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by an EM Rope is a lofty fundamental assumption. It will never be able to be experimentally verified, or even logically validated, however it can be reasoned to and almost seems necessary to explain phenomena such as light and gravity, not to mention the form and patterns of the atom. And this basic idea can be used to clearly interpret certain famous equations and so called laws.

Throughout the centuries many physicists and philosophers have flirted with this assumption, but they cowered in figures of speech. Taking on this assumption is a gargantuan task. It forces one to rethink everything you may have thought you knew. Its a lot of fun. And you know what no one has to take it seriously. Who cares?

Quotes

"Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.'" --- (From Notes on Robert Grosseteste's De Luce)

"Bohr and Heisenberg were separated from Schrodinger by basic philosophical convictions and they were unable to reach common ground from which to consider the atom. Each of them accepted and used the same body of experimental evidence, but they could not agree on the conceptual means to embrace the evidence. Schrodinger looked at the natural world and saw continuity, so he was intellectually offended by energy states and quantum jumps." --- (From Hydrogen, the Essential Element)

"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." ---(From "Introductory" in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 10.)

"Nor is it divisible, since it all alike is. Nor is there any more of it here than there, to hinder it from holding together, nor any less of it, but it is all a plenum, full of what-is. Therefore, it is all continuous, for what-is touches what-is. . ." --- (Parmenides, Peri Physis)

"He welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy." --- (Basil, Hexemeron, Homily II)

"The sun appears to be poured down, and in all directions indeed it is diffused, yet it is not effused. For this diffusion is extension: Accordingly its rays are called Extensions [aktines] because they are extended [apo tou ekteinesthai]. But one may judge what kind of a thing a ray is, if he looks at the sun's light passing through a narrow opening into a darkened room, for it is extended in a right line, and as it were is divided when it meets with any solid body which stands in the way and intercepts the air beyond; but there the light remains fixed and does not glide or fall off. Such then ought to be the out-pouring and diffusion of the understanding, and it should in no way be an effusion, but an extension, and it should make no violent or impetuous collision with the obstacles which are in its way; nor yet fall down, but be fixed and enlighten that which receives it. For a body will deprive itself of the illumination, if it does not admit it.” --- (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Eight)


“Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”---From Leonardo Da Vinci's notebook 

"When we try to pick out anything by itself we find that it is bound fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken, to everything in the universe." --- (Jon Muir, 19th Century Naturalist)

"If light takes several years to reach us from a distant star, it is no longer on the star, nor is it on the earth. It must be somewhere, and supported . . . by some material agency." --- (Henri Poincare, Physicist, Engineer, Mathematician)

"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry." ---(Richard Feynaman, The Character of Physical Law)

“A chemical bond acts like a stiff spring connecting nuclei. As a result, the nuclei in a molecule vibrate rather than maintaining fixed positions relative to each other. ” --- (Darrell Ebbing, General Chemistry)

[The] investigator must feel the need of... knowledge of the immediate connections, say, of the masses of the universe. There will hover before him as an ideal insight into the principles of the whole matter, from which accelerated and inertial motions will result in the same way. --- (Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics)

...inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies... ---(Einstein, Letter to Ernst Mach)

“ the electromagnetic theory is not based on action at a distance as was Newton’s. Space is thought of as being threaded throughout with electrical and magnetic tensions.” --- (Michael Disney, The Hidden Universe)

“ Somehow, Nature contrives to build a consistent world in which particles and field-oscillations are the same thing! Or, rather, her world consists of some more subtle ingredient, the words ‘particle’ and ‘wave’ conveying but partially appropriate pictures.” --- (Roger Penrose, The emperor’s new mind)

“Although Thompson came to accept the electron as an electromagnetic particle, his view was different from that held by Lorentz and the German electrodynamicists. In a little known work of 1907 he pictured aether as an “ethereal astral body” glued to electrical particles and thought that these were “connected by some invisible universal something which we call aether . . . [and that] this aether must possess mass . . . when the electrified body is brought into motion.” Thomson concluded his 1907 discourse on matter and aether with a formulation that illustrates how little his thoughts had changed since the 1870s when he first encountered The Unseen Universe: “We are led to the conclusion that the invisible universe, and the natural phenomena that we observe are pictures woven on the looms of this invisible universe.” From Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics by Jed Z. Buchwald p. 212 (J.J. Thomson, “Die Beziehung zwischen Materie un Ather im Lichte der neureren Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Elektrizitat” (This paper was the Adamson lecture of 4 November 1907)

“most of us [physical scientists] are convinced in our innermost hearts that matter is ultimately of one kind, whatever ideas we may have formed as to the nature of the primordial substance. That opinion is not under discussion.” ---(Arthur Schuster On the Chemical Constitution of the Stars, 1897)


"It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. . . not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation." (Pope Francis Laudato Si, 2015)

Popular Expressions by Artists

"At this Mylo tour it is the first tour I have really looked at people in the eye while we’re playing. When we look at each other it’s a great feeling and you might never look at that person in the eyes again in either of your lives. So you have a little connection. I probably get to look at a thousand people a night. Not many people get to do that. I’ve never tried to explain it before . . . its sort of like every time you look at someone in the eyes you put a little thread between you . . ." ---Chris Martin

"All things by immortal power,
Near and far
Hiddenly
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star."
--- (Francis Thompson, Book: The Mistress of Vision, Poems (1913))

And finally Rumi's Poem of the Atoms!

O’ day, arise!
Shine your light, the atoms are dancing
Thanks to him heaven and earth is dancing
overcome with ecstasy,

Free from body and mind
I’ll whisper in your ear where their dance is leading them.
All the atoms in the air and in the desert are dancing,
puzzled and drunken to the ray of light,
they seem insane.

All these atoms are not so different than we are,
happy or miserable,
perplexed and bewildered,
we are all beings in the ray of light from the beloved,
nothing can be said.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Critical Thinking and Rational Analysis Tools

* unambiguously define all key terms in your argument so that they can be used consistently in your dissertation. The term is limited and restricted for crisp, clear and consistent use throughout presentation. Adjectives are used to qualify nouns and adverbs to qualify verbs. This avoids the Fallacy of Equivocation. A does not equal A.

* avoid contradictions; avoid Law of Identity, A is A, is contradictory

* learn to identify and associate synonyms not only in definitions but while parsing discourse.

* continually ask yourself the question "who cares?" to avoid irrelevant issues

* avoid Authority Arguments, i.e. do not appeal to authority

* identify prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.

* avoid the Fallacy of Reification: explain why we cannot reify concepts into objects and why we cannot attempt to ascribe motion/actions to concepts.

* skillfully raise relevant questions so as to creatively solve problems.

* When parsing sentences resolve the ontological context of the referent. Which of the two fundamental categories does a word fall into: 1. object or 2. concept? If the referent has shape it is an object. If not it is a concept.


* avoid confusing nouns of syntax with nouns of reality. (Ordinary speech vs. Scientific language).

* do not perform verbs on concepts; do not use concepts to perform verbs

* kill the observer (an expression to be taken in context. It means make observer independent assumptions or be objective)

* avoid limiting your conceptual realm of reasoning by NOT using tautological systems (such as math and logic) that confine your premises by locking them into axioms and cripple your mind. Tautological systems such as math and logic are artificial, and only solve derivational type problems. Mother Nature could care less about formal logic, mathematics and physical laws coming out of Mankind.

* Provide an “explanation” as to WHY an event occurred the way it did; it’s mechanism, who were its mediators, etc.....and not just a petty “description” of what happened. Logic is especially bankrupt in assisting with this formidable task.

*Objects and explanations must be conceivable.

* Rational explanations should be able to be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen as a movie without any missing frames. If it cannot be visualized, then it cannot be understood because it contradicts reality.

* DO NOT convert hypothesis and theory into a facts of the Universal Movie

* Intellectual honesty in a debate requires that you directly quote the statements that you are addressing in your arguments. (do not misrepresent another's position)

* avoid premises and assumptions derived from analogy. Do not infer from analogue assumptions. Rather use analogy to illustrate rational premises and assumptions.

* be critical about your own attempts at criticism. Refutations are rarely final, and more often a prelude to further refinements.

* recognize that assumptions and explanations stand or fall on their own merit.

* marshal sufficient data, observations and evidence for brainstorming before committing to hypothesis, theory and conclusion.

* discard irrational hypotheses and theories

* adapt oneself to reality

* Dispositions: realize human irrationale and error. Have an open-minded outlook. Refuse to think that your desires shape Mother Nature (God and Mother Nature doesn't care about your desires). Be tentative.

* resist the notion that some authority, a great philosopher or physicist has captured the whole truth.

* be willing and able to follow an explanation to the only conclusion to be had---possible, or not possible.

* think for oneself

* be detached emotionally

* avoid ad hoc hypothesis fallacy: do not add hypothesis to a theory in order to save it from being discarded


* avoid Rationalization: do not make excuses or bellyache

* use adjectives (static concepts) to describe nouns of reality. Adverbs (dynamic concepts) describe verbs (dynamic concepts) performed by nouns of reality. Physics is a study of nouns, adjectives and verbs. Math is a study of adverbs.

* apply Occam's Razor: 'shave away' unnecessary assumptions. The Medieval saying is "plurality should not be posited without necessity". Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

* Identify and associate the fact vs. statement of fact dichotomy:

Fact, true fact, truth: Every minute detail of what actually is, was, happens, or happened irrespective of witnesses or observers; A detailed film clip of an actual event that conceptually includes every frame for that interval of the Cosmic Movie.

Assumption, statement of the facts, scientific fact: A subjective statement from a witness concerning an event or an object. A statement of the facts is either a description of an object or a narrative, an objective listing (usually chronological) of a series of events. A particular interpretation of the evidence or of an observation. (synonyms: an opinion, a lie)

* Physics is the study of causes and objects. Philosophy is the study of reasons and concepts.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

The Inverse Square Law of Light





We are taught that light obeys the inverse square law. Has anyone ever bothered answering HOW or WHY? The Inverse Square Law of Light is perhaps solved by the assumption that all the atoms of the Universe are physically connected by a fundamental subatomic object from which all atoms derive their form and by which all atoms signal light (or radiation). Gaede calls these object EM Ropes. Lets see if I can give a little manifestation of this descriptive law.

The law for light could be stated as follows:

The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light from a point source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an imaginary object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy.

The point source could be an atom or a star. Every single atom of the Universe is connected to that object that serves as the point source, whether atom or star via a double twined and taut thread emanating rectilinearly, or orthogonally from that source to all atoms. The total potential energy of that point source is basically proportional to the number of atoms, i.e. number of atoms in the star or light bulb, etc. For one atom, the potential is derived from that atom's fundamental and permanent connection to all atoms of the Universe via this double helical thread by which the atom constantly torques light signals of all and various frequencies to all atoms. If we consider one atom, or one star, with decreasing distance we find that all of these 'EM Ropes' converge upon it from all other atoms, hence more capacity in the work of light per conceptual unit area. Inversely with increasing distance from that source atom or star all of these fundamental objects spread out to all other atoms, hence less capacity in the work of light per unit area.

Since, at least, from our galactic neighborhood it seems that all atoms of the Universe are for all practical purposes distributed evenly on the largest scales . . . as we conceptually relate further and further away from that source object the double twined threads, signalling light, emerge out of superposition on course to all other atoms. The closer we get to that source the double helical threads begin to converge upon the source object, thus intensifying the light capacitance per unit area. For unit area we could imagine placing an object the same size as the unit area so AS IF to intercept the light signals propagating to atoms across the Universe. Below, the total number of these fundamental subatomic objects frequenting light signals per unit area is our Intensity in the equation E = I/r2. For light energy is proportional to frequency.

Point sources are always idealized. Energy quantities vary. Lets do an idealized thought experiment. Lets say that a hydrogen atom is our point source. And lets just say that there are 1 * 10 to the 90 H atoms (or protons and neutrons) in our Universe. And let’s just say that this hydrogen atom’s electron or set of electron threads faces a third of the hydrogen atoms of the Universe. This electron will frequents light signals to all of these atoms via the EM Ropes converging and superposing with that electron. The EM Ropes have a capacity to mediate light at any and all frequencies. They will represent our I (intensity at the surface of a sphere or per unit area). The electron flickers sending a set of signals to 1 * 10 to the 30 H atoms.

At 1 kilometer (r) we find the unit area (A) where there is still 1 * 10 to the 30 EM Ropes (I). Twice that distance, 2 kilometers (2r) there will be a fourth of the EM Ropes per unit area. So in each quarter area we should find about 2.5 * 10 to the 29 EM Ropes (give or take if the atoms of the Universe are distributed slightly anisotropically). Three times that distance, 3 kilometers (3r) there will be a ninth of the EM Ropes per unit area. And so on. Why? Because the EM Ropes originating in that H atom 'fan out' of superposition in decreasing sets, with increasing distance, in their nexus to all the atoms of all the stars of the galaxies toward which the electron points.

Eventually, we see that at 1* 10 to the 15 kilometers a there will be single EM Rope per unit area originating in the source object. The distance would of this single EM Rope per unit area would begin at a little over a light year. So at about 1 light year we have EM Ropes originating in that H atom distributed more or less evenly in an enormous imaginary arc of the sky. They will no longer fan out of superposition. They will all be distinctly signaling their target atoms without interference. However if the assumption is sound, all these EM Ropes should eventually end on an atom somewhere across the Universe. The closer they get to their target atom connecting it to the 'point' source the more EM Ropes they will converge with from all other atoms of the Universe.



At some distance all of these EM Ropes will have ended on atoms of interstellar clouds or of stars, so we will have 0 EM Ropes per unit area at a distance (Xr). All EM Ropes and atoms will eventually end and there will be nothing.

Now if we enter a star into the equation as the point source . . . something opposite will happen. With increasing distance we will get every single H atom of the star to superpose their EM Ropes connecting them all to one lone Hydrogen atom somewhere out there across the Universe. So we will get a Bird Beak structure of EM Ropes emerging from the star. The Earth is bathed in these extraneous EM Ropes which do not end on the Earth.  These fundamental subatomic are of course invisible since they mediate light. And their width and height is extremely tiny. These should converge by about 1 light year in the direction toward their target atom. And again with decreasing distance toward the target atom all those highways of light will 'fan out of superposition' in sets with decreasing distance and connect their target atom.

There is also an inverse square law for electrostatics. I imagine that the law can be explained using the supposed helical electron threads which twist out of the proton or nucleus in a similar manner than that of the EM Ropes. Electrical influence and capacity decreases per unit area with increasing distance away from the nucleus. Only these tend to be much shorter, so the distances and scales would be orders of magnitude lower.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

The Two Categories of Language: Object and Concept

Object refers to an abstraction or a category used to organize names. Object nests together all the names which relate a human to that which has form. Form is a property used to describe and to define object synonym of thing, entity, body, etc. Below I have a list of quotes from many different thinkers who thought the same, but they never worked out the two categories of language. Concept is defined as a relation between objects worked out by the brain and is used as another category. Some synonyms of concept are idea, intellection, thought, understanding, etc. The Concept Category nests together all other names that cannot possibly be organized into the Object Category.

In this complex naming is a primal concept. Humans enact what we conceive and name: naming. This is a primal relation. We do this all the time. We are doing it now. Object and Concept are two abstractions used to organize our modes of naming so as to clarify our understanding, name usage and communication.

A human can possibly name that which has form, e.g. star, tree, man, woman, apple, door, chair, etc. Form is defined as that which is bounded or contained or demarcated from an immediate surrounding. How an object assumes it's form could be explained in a theory but this is irrelevant here. This mode of naming that which has form is described in the second chapter of the Bible. Adam names that which has form. That which has form is led to him by God and he relates to that in the act of naming:

The Lord God also said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. Let us make a helper for him similar to himself.” Therefore, the Lord God, having formed from the soil all the animals of the earth and all the flying creatures of the air, brought them to Adam, in order to see what he would name them. For whatever Adam would call any living creature, that would be its name. And Adam called each of the living things by their names: all the flying creatures of the air, and all the wild beasts of the land. Yet truly, for Adam, there was not found a helper similar to himself. And so the Lord God sent a deep sleep upon Adam. And when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and he completed it with flesh for it. And the Lord God built up the rib, which he took from Adam, into a woman. And he led her to Adam. And Adam said: “Now this is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. This one shall be called woman, because she was taken from man.” (Genesis 2:18-23)

A child does a similar action, however a child adopts nominal conceptions fed by mom and dad in accord with convention. And a human will continue to name that which has form until he dies. This manner of naming relates a human to that which has form and is organized into a language category called Object. We can trace the human act of naming back to that which has form, (both ways, since a human also has form). This naming serves as a basis for language, thinking, and all intellectual endeavor. All languages have the same roots! They are rooted in that which has form. We cannot even have motion (a verb) without that which has form.

A human can also possibly name that which lacks form. In other words a human can name a relation or a comparison between objects which he has worked out via his or her brain e.g. love, justice, gravity, space, time, identity, location, color, dimension, etc. So to play off of Adam above, after Adam named that which has form he retired and started thinking about all these objects. And he began naming his thought. In the act of naming, a human cannot literally relate to a relation which his brain has worked out, let alone a natural relation that happens independent of him. This would break the law of contradiction. One cannot possibly relate to relation. How is a human suppose to literally relate to a motion of his neural objects rooted in the brain? And so what a human does to remedy this impossible situation is stealthily treat this relation AS IF an object (i.e. that which has form). Humans routinely do this. This mimics the other mode of naming, i.e. naming that which has form (above). They reify their brain-works so as to consummate higher order abstractions which in turn they reify and name.  One cannot even speak let alone write a sentence without treating concepts as if objects.

Reification is a human, mentally converting his conception into that which has form. For example, a human will routinely treat space as if it has form. A human can even reify his primal concept called naming. That is he can treat word concepts referencing that which has form as if the nominal relation had form.

Humans speak of concept formation. But strictly speaking this is all impossible. Concept lacks form and cannot possibly form. Concept happens via the brain. Philosophers also speak of thinking in figures of speech or metaphor. And this is it! Converting a concept into that which has form is the ultimate figuration!!! There is no deeper poetry than this trick. And this is done surreptitiously. No one seems to understand what they are doing!!! And only humans seem to have the ability to do this! Atoms, molecules, stars, cells, plants, animals, in short all of Mother Nature does not seem to be able to convert a concept into an object, but humans seem do it all the time! This ability could perhaps be named: preternatural. This is really one of the actions that categorizes a human. And this has it's uses, however if one does not understand this it will lead to epic nonsense. And we see this everyday in physics.

And so to enlighten this process, to clarify thinking and communication, proposed categories seem to help. These categories come later in the development of the human family or of the child, if we take a child as a reboot of the human race. Adam did not first have abstractions, categories and clear definitions to work with before he began naming and neither do children. Greeks started categorizing and Medieval philosophers followed them. Object and Concept are two proposed categories of language. They are radical. They have their uses.

Some other ways to work out these categories are as follows:

One can possibly lift one's finger and point to that which has form (object). And if one decides one can utter or trace a name.

One cannot possibly lift one's finger and point to that which lacks form (concept). But mentally humans still treat concepts as if they have form anyway. And they can still name their conceptions of the brain.

Captain Ahab lifts his finger to the Sun and says "I'd strike the Sun if it insulted me." This of course is crazy, but at least he is relating to an object (Sun). But if Ahab lifted his finger and pointed to nothing and said "I'd strike space if it insulted me" then Ahab would be beyond crazy because space lacks form as do all concepts.



Quotes to give an idea about how I am using the word Form above:

by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance -- Aristotle, (Metaphysics, Ch. 7)

For the form cannot desert matter, because it is inseparable from it and matter itself cannot be deprived of form -- Robert Grosseteste (On Light)

The first corporeal form is in my opinion light ---Grosseteste (On Light)

The chief point of divergence is that for Grosseteste matter is not pure potency, as it was for Aristotle, but possesses in its own right a certain minimal reality. (Riedl, Clare C. (Translator) Notes on Grosseteste)

Form, that is to say, the first corporeal form, or light, is in his view more than the 'form of corporeity,' the principle of extension, it is also a principle of activity. . . The intrinsic principle from which this motion or activity proceeds must be the form . . . (From Notes on Grosseteste)

Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.' (From Notes on Grosseteste)

For where there is no shape nor order, nothing either cometh or goeth -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 9)

where there is no form there can be no distinction between "this" or "that” -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 13)

The term 'body' [object] therefore can signify that which has such a form as allows the determination of three dimensions in it, prescinding from everything else, so that from that form no further perfection may follow. If anything else is added, it will be outside the meaning of body thus understood. (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there are extrinsic and artificial properties that we relate but these cannot define an object. Only form can define an object]

The term body [object] can also be taken to mean a thing having a form such that three dimensions can be counted in it, no matter what the form may be . . . (Aquinas, On Being and Essence)

Now matter and form are so related that form gives being to matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words all objects in the set named matter have the native-inherent property called form and this may qualify them under the category existence].

Matter then cannot exist without some form but there can be a form without matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words he realized that there is a fundamental form that underlies the set of objects, i.e. matter. In other words, a set of fundamental subatomic objects constitute all hydrogen atoms (or protons and neutrons) and these same mediate light and gravity between them all].

As Avicenna says, "The quiddity of a simple substance is the simple entity itself," (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there is a fundamental object that belongs to all objects in the set of matter and this object is what is bound of itself]

A boundary is that which is an extremity of anything. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

A figure is that which is contained by a boundary or boundaries.” (Euclid, Elements)

the knowledge of the universal consents of things …. I … understand as the science which applies the knowledge of hidden forms to the production of wonderful operations; and by uniting (as they say) actives with passives, displays the wonderful works of nature. (Francis Bacon IV, 366–7: De Augmentis III.5)

Who existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped (Saint Paul) [Even God has Form].

A complete answer would amount to a history of thought, for in one sense everything possesses form. In some contexts the Greek words Eidos, Schema, and Morphe, and the Latin word Forma, which are often translated as “form” mean no less than “the qualities which make anything what it is.” (Notes from Accent on Form by Whyte)

Around 1250 we find Thomas Aquinas regarding forma as the essential quality or determining principle of every individual thing. (Notes on Accent on Form by Whyte)

But more importantly, shape is what an object has before light even reaches our eyes from the object. (Fatfist, Physics--What is Shape and Why Does it Define an Object?)

[for fun add a quote from Avengers: Age of Ultron . . . ]

Ultron to Jarvis: Where is your body?
Jarvis to Ultron: I am a program. I have no form.]

Monday, January 11, 2016

Ontology and Basic Physics: Introduction (Object, Matter, Form, Existence, Concept, Referent)

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet: Juliet soliloquy) 
"It may, perhaps, come to this in time," observed Monte Cristo; "You know human inventions march from the complex to the simple, and simplicity is always perfection." (Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo). 
Do not winnow in every wind,or follow every path. Stand firm for what you know,and let your speech be consistent. (Sirach 5:9-10)

Introduction


Physics has its roots in ontology. Ontology is a philosophical study of radical names such as object, matter, form, existence, concept, referent. Before we go to Norway to hear Florence and the Machine perform "Cosmic Love" live and collect our prizes*: we need to learn how to resolve the ontology of word referents and commit to a clear, precise, consistent and non-contradictory definitions of key strategic terms that will make or break our entire study of physics. In order to do this we need to dig deep and resolve the referred meaning of these radical names: object, matter, form, existence, concept, referent.

Object

In context of physics the name object is synonymous with the names entity, body, thing. Physics is first and foremost a study of objects. Object impart causal relations to objects via objects.  And so physics is also a study of causal relations.  Yet before we can even begin to understand dynamic concepts such as light, gravity, electricity, magnetism, heat, ionization and atomic motion we better understand what an object refers to and how to distinguish an object from a concept so as to identify possible ontological contradictions.

The antonym of Object is Concept. All names can be separated into two distinct categories by way of their resolved ontology: Object and Concept. We resolve the ontology of the name referent by thoroughly understanding and committing to a perfect definition of the names Object and Form.

Object refers to that which has Form.

Matter is an ambiguous and ill-defined Concept passed down by Greeks. Matter refers to the set of objects or set of existing objects, say from atoms and the fundamental objects which constitute them all the way up to and including the stars.

Form: Introduction

Philosophy is the study of reasons and of concepts. IMHO, Form is the most important name in all philosophy. It is even more important than the name Existence. Form is the first requirement of objecthood. Form is a primary quality of all objects.  Children understand this quality very quickly by perceiving objects that stand out in their environment.  Understanding Form is the epitome of education. In intellectual life it doesn't get any more radical than the name Form. Get used to it. This is the future.

Some synonyms of Form are shape, figure, structure, architecture, configuration, pattern.

Why is the word Form so important? The word Form is used to resolve the ontology of the word referent (that which the word refers to). We can only lump word referents into two possible categories:

1. Object
2. Concept

What we as humans are able to do is name objects and concepts. Obviously we then use these names in thinking and discourse. However the only way we have of discerning whether or not these names relate back to objects or to concepts is through the name Form. Does the word referent have Form??? Yes or no? Answer me this right here and now. If yes then the word refers to an Object. If no then the word refers to Concept.

Form allows us to perform a critical analysis of any given discourse. Form allows us to discover stealthily placed figures of speech, contradictions and so on. Form leads one to intellectual heaven because this simple name forces one to take account for the endless spill of words coming out of everyone's mouth.

Unfortunately, with the development of the human race we have lost sight of the fact that we are constantly naming objects and concepts thus there is confusion over what a name refers to. Some treat objects as concepts or vice versa. What is even worse some literally assign motion to concepts (e.g. time moves, space moves, etc.) and except to be taken seriously. So in these tumultuous intellectual times we need the word Form to lead us out of the darkness.

What Does Form Refer To?
In ontology or generally for the ancient discipline of philosophy and physics, the name Form has a specialized meaning. I REPEAT, a specialized meaning. Form has nothing to do with an observer and his opinion. It is not as if we are looking at Florence Welch on stage at the Nobel Peace Prize banquet and thinking to ourselves: "She has a nice form". She may, but ‘nice’ implies opinion and observer. Form in this radical ontological context has nothing to do with appearance, opinion, observer or measurement. Mother Nature doesn't care about these.

Form is a root name that relates what is observer INDEPENDENT. An object has form regardless of whether anyone so happens to look at it, measure it or even think about it. The Sun had Form before the first human observed it, thought about it, measured it or calculated it.

Form is what we call a native (innate) and intrinsic (inseparable) property of an object. An intrinsic property is what an object has of itself, independent of the observer. In contrast, extrinsic properties depend on an object's relationship with other objects, especially a human who serves as an observer. Some examples of extrinsic properties are size, color, dimension (length, width, height), taste, volume, weight, etc. Back in the day, extrinsic properties were called accidents. Extrinsic properties require connected objects and usually an observer to determine, yet Form, an intrinsic property, requires no observer, human or otherwise. Objects do not acquire Form through human opinion!  God no.

Form is the single innate and intrinsic property that belongs to all objects without exception. Form is the one property that relates the object itself from its immediate surrounding. How an object takes on its Form is given in a Theory. But how do we define Form?

Form refers to a what. ('what' functions as a placeholder)
Form refers to what is bound.
Form refers to that which is bound from the immediate surrounding.

The 'what' that is bound is considered holistically, as a whole, as one. In conceptualization one may reify space (treat a concept 'space' as an object) so as to understand Form however in reality it can only be an all encompassing fundamental object that imparts form to atoms or which is inherent to an atom's Form and this fundamental object does not rely on a concept called space for it's Form. More below).

The name Bound plays prominently in this definition so some synonyms of bound are demarcated, separated, differentiated, contained, defined, delimited, etc. Objects need no definition since they are defined of themselves. IN contrast concepts always need definition because they refer to relational activity rooted in the brain. God knows what is happening between most people's ears.

Notice that in so called 2D objects like squares and circles that it is impossible to imagine anything that is bound, contained, demarcated, separated, delimited, differentiated, etc. So in response some people calls these abstract or imaginary objects.  The fact that nothing is contained implies that these abstract 2D object CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST. And so you see the nihilistic religion called geometry begins to be exposed with these definitions.

Form refers to a what, i.e. what is contained in context to the object in question, itself. What is included or excluded is a matter of context. Form always implies a boundary or boundaries. How those boundaries are set, how an object such as a star assumes its Form, or what imparts form to an object in question is made manifest in a Hypothesis and Theory.

The History of Form


Thinkers, for centuries, from time immemorial have brainstormed for a more thorough understanding of the name Form. And some have even flirted with a perfect understanding of the name Form. All of these quotes are somewhat useful. Please note that the words thing, body, corporeal, matter are basically synonymous with Object. A more refined definition of matter is the set of objects.

Historical Thinkers On Form:
by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance -- Aristotle, (Metaphysics, Ch. 7) 
For the form cannot desert matter, because it is inseparable from it and matter itself cannot be deprived of form -- Robert Grosseteste (On Light) 
The first corporeal form is in my opinion light ---Grosseteste (On Light) 
The chief point of divergence is that for Grosseteste matter is not pure potency, as it was for Aristotle, but possesses in its own right a certain minimal reality. (Riedl, Clare C. (Translator) Notes on Grosseteste) 
Form, that is to say, the first corporeal form, or light, is in his view more than the 'form of corporeity,' the principle of extension, it is also a principle of activity. . . The intrinsic principle from which this motion or activity proceeds must be the form . . . (From Notes on Grosseteste) 
Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.' (From Notes on Grosseteste) 
For where there is no shape nor order, nothing either cometh or goeth -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 9) 
where there is no form there can be no distinction between "this" or "that” -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 13) 
The term 'body' [object] therefore can signify that which has such a form as allows the determination of three dimensions in it, prescinding from everything else, so that from that form no further perfection may follow. If anything else is added, it will be outside the meaning of body thus understood. (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there are extrinsic and artificial properties that we relate but these cannot define an object. Only form can define an object] 
The term body [object] can also be taken to mean a thing having a form such that three dimensions can be counted in it, no matter what the form may be . . . (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) 
Now matter and form are so related that form gives being to matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words all objects in the set named matter have the native-inherent property called form and this may qualify them under the category existence]. 
Matter then cannot exist without some form but there can be a form without matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words he realized that there is a fundamental form that underlies the set of objects, i.e. matter]. 
As Avicenna says, "The quiddity of a simple substance is the simple entity itself," (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there is a fundamental object that belongs to all objects in the set of matter and this object is what is bound of itself] 
A boundary is that which is an extremity of anything. (Aristotle, Metaphysics) 
A figure is that which is contained by a boundary or boundaries.” (Euclid, Elements) 
the knowledge of the universal consents of things …. I … understand as the science which applies the knowledge of hidden forms to the production of wonderful operations; and by uniting (as they say) actives with passives, displays the wonderful works of nature. (Francis Bacon IV, 366–7: De Augmentis III.5) 
Who existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped (Saint Paul) [Even God has Form]. 
A complete answer would amount to a history of thought, for in one sense everything possesses form. In some contexts the Greek words Eidos, Schema, and Morphe, and the Latin word Forma, which are often translated as “form” mean no less than “the qualities which make anything what it is.” (Notes from Accent on Form by Whyte) 
Around 1250 we find Thomas Aquinas regarding forma as the essential quality or determining principle of every individual thing. (Notes on Accent on Form by Whyte)
But more importantly, shape is what an object has before light even reaches our eyes from the object. (Fatfist, Physics--What is Shape and Why Does it Define an Object?)
Ultron to Jarvis: Where is your body?
Jarvis to Ultron: I am a program. I have no form. (From Avengers:  Age of Ultron)

All of these thinkers basically understood that Form goes hand in hand with Object. Object and Form are inseparable. It is impossible for an Object not to have Form. Without Form there is no Object. An Object without Form is irrational, inconceivable and impossible.

These thinkers may not have agreed on their definition of Form and of course there is a never-ending inter-generational brainstorms and debates over these ontological concepts, however it is easy to see that Form was a pivotal name wed to Object.

The buck stops at Form. Form is the Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing itself speaks). Once we have understood the name Form there is no circling back to concepts in a perfect understanding and definition of the name Object. Object and Form are inseparable. Form belongs to all Objects. Lack of Form = Concept.Obviously attributes and relations lack form and cannot possibly exist. Attributes and relations refer to our thoughts about objects. Attribute refers to a comparison of objects. What does this thing have or not have in comparison to that thing. What can this thing do that another cannot do.

Form is a primary attribute that all objects have and that distinguishes all objects from concepts. Form has no quality, property, or attribute. Once we have conceived Form there are no more conceptual relations in regards to the Object. To suggest so much is patently circular and contradictory. A quality does not have a quality. Property does not have property. Attribute does not have attribute.

Robert Grosseteste (First Corporeal Form = Minimal Reality)

I placed Grosseteste's quotes near the top since of all these historical thinkers he seemed to be the one who was onto something. His meditations spring up from his work with light. I suggest that perhaps in its most restricted usage the name Form is synonymous with what Grosseteste calls the 'minimal reality'. This minimal reality is basically the same as his 'first corporeal form', Aristotle's 'primary substance' and Avicenna's 'simple entity'. Lets call this the assumed fundamental object.

In the most radical context of physics it is this assumed Fundamental Object that belongs to all objects in the set named Matter. When these thinkers first conceived their concepts and named they had no clue as to what the First Corporeal Form may be. And so they came up with a host of names such as substance, essence, etc. Since then we have narrowed the search down to atoms and subatomic objects constituting atoms as well as mediating light and gravity between all atoms. Now we are a little more advanced, so we can make a reasonable and safe assumption as to what the assumed fundamental object may be. And we think this assumption without the need for any validation or verification (for our perception begins on objects of our environment comprised of atoms, and this fundamental object mediates our perceptions and observations of objects). Then we will use this assumption to redefine and restrict the usage of Form and Existence for the purposes of physics.

Grosseteste thought that this fundamental object was light.  Light of course refers to a concept, and so cannot possibly be a fundamental object.  Ontology aside, I think what he was really after were that object which mediates light (and gravity) to and from all atoms. This fundamental object converges from all atoms of the Universe, so that a single hydrogen atom (proton or neutron) may assume its Form.  Notice what I said.  I said that the objects that mediate light and gravity between all atoms are one and the same from which all atoms assume their form.  So now let us take a step back and reanalyze the definitions of Object and Form:

Object: that which has Form
Form: that which is bound from the immediate surrounding

In EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory the immediate environment is gazillions of two stranded Threads converging into Neutrons or Hydrogen Atoms that belong to an object such as the Sun. It is this single closed looped Thread that serves as the source of continuity in the set of objects called matter whereas atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons are critical matrices of Thread. Atoms serve as the limit of Thread. Thread serves as the limit of Atoms. Atom does not equal Thread, Thread does not equal atom. Thread is continuous, Atoms are in a sense discontinuous and yet derived from the Thread. Atoms could be thought of as a critical abundance of Thread. A Critical Abundance of Thread refers to an intersection, overlap or superposition of Thread through which no more Thread may penetrate. In some subatomic features these Critical Thread Densities are temporary since if all the Hydrogen atoms of the Universe are permanently connected by Thread there would presumably be an extraneous superposition of Thread on all Hydrogen atoms fused and clustered together, not to mention an endless feed of Thread surging through atoms fused and clustered together. And yet a Critical Abundance of Thread or Atoms are radically distinct and unequal to Thread. They are discrete and yet derived in the the one Thread which is continuous.

It is assumed all the atoms of the Universe are connected and comprised of a taut, rectilinear twined Thread. The Thread is common to all objects in the set named matter just like Grosseteste thought. It is this physical mediator of light that belongs to all objects in the set named matter.

In summary: When we say that an Object is that which has Form; Form in this radical ontological context is a name that refers to what is contained. It is impossible, inconceivable and irrational for an Object not to have Form. This has nothing to do with a subjective observer's opinion, thought or act of measurement. Mother Nature herself taught us Form, so to speak. The Sun had form before any of us observed it. In context to the Sun, Form refers to what belongs to the Sun before it's light even reaches us. The Form of the Sun refers to what is contained namely all of its atoms and neutrons patterned by a crisscrossing convergence of the First Form, the Thread.

When we think and trace back to the First Form, this is bound of itself. The referent of First Form doesn't need an idea called space to contour it. The First Form is self-contained. Res ipsa loquitur.

The Fundamental Object or First Form
For it was not impossible for your all-powerful hand, that formed all things from unknown material, to send forth upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions, (From the Book of Wisdom 11:18)

Everyone wants to know what the Fundamental Object or First Form is, but in this most radical of all physical contexts all we can possibly do is describe it. In terms of physics, once one gets to the fundamental object there is nothing left to justify, posit or explain. In supposition the Thread just is. Even our basic physical notions such as the action-reaction principle spring up from this supposed First Form.

What is It?

I noticed that many throughout history have traced back to what is called a fundamental object or fundamental entity or simple entity, or first form or minimal reality. This fundamental object imparts form to all objects, contains all objects, separates all objects, differentiates all objects etc. from the H atom to the most massive star. We call this fundamental entity the Thread. It is called Thread, probably because if we could see it (which is impossible because it mediates light) it would appear similar to our macro Thread. We have this Thread assumed to be the finest object in existence. The Thread stands out on its own. The Thread is 3D. Height and Width is extremely tiny. Length is immeasurable. It is impossible to trace a beginning or end to the Thread.

The Thread has Form, a wholly unique Form unlike any of the other objects we consider such as man, woman, horse, star, etc. The Thread is uniform, monolithic, always the same, never changes its Form. What I noticed with this fundamental object, this Thread is that assuming reality, it is impossible to imagine anything imparting Form to the Thread unless some sort of miracle happened as in God creating the Thread. In reality, space, a bloody devious relational activity of the brain CANNOT possibly impart Form to the Thread or any Object whatsoever. The Thread is sort of self-contained. Its just there. The thing speaks for itself. And it doesn't change Form because the referent of Form or the 'what' that is bound in context to Thread never changes. What the Thread is made out of never changes. The philosophers above already figured this out hundreds of years ago but they had no assumed object called Thread.

It is interesting: what is bound in reference to Thread is almost the same as saying what the Thread is made of. It's essence, its substance. That I or anyone else does not know. One would have to fly up to Heaven and ask God. But we can call it any name we choose.  Call it Gaedium.

This seems to imply that the Thread is what they call topologically invariant. The Thread retains its Form even when it is impinged upon by atoms.  When atoms assume two or more locations (in other words move) they rather mysteriously reform themselves by this thread while retaining their inherent connection to all other atoms of the Universe.  A single hydrogen atom has a fundament object, which Gaede calls an EM Rope ending on every other hydrogen atom of the Universe.  An atom tapping into the double stranded threads is a light event and this serves as the constant action/equal and opposite reaction needed to sustain inertia as well as gravity non-locally across the Universe between all atoms as well as between those in close proximity.  This is why mass and velocity of light squared are wed together on the right side of Einstein's equation.      

Superposition

There is another enigmatic property of the Thread which we can call superposition or light on light. Thread can pass through Thread to a critical abundance or maximum number.  These overlaps serve as locations of fundamental interactions such as light, electricity, nuclear decay. When a threaded feature of the atom attain critical abundance of thread or a sort of critical anomaly, dynamic relations happen, Thread connecting atoms gets disturbed, etc. But in between atoms and stars Thread intersects, superposes, and overlaps Thread. This was first understood by Grosseteste, then by Huygens, and finally by Maxwell. Although these thinkers were still stuck in the darkness of concepts such as field, wave, light, etc. They never pinned down the problem thoroughly enough before another figured it out (Gaede, 1997). Here are there quotes:
Maxwell: “ Equation (361) for the electromagnetic field is linear in the field,… this means that two waves can travel through each other without disturbing each other”

“ Here then we have two independent qualities of bodies, one by which they allow of the passage of electricity through them, and the other by which they allow of electrical action being transmitted through them without any electricity being allowed to pass.” (J. Maxwell, On Physical Lines of Force, Philosophical Magazine 21 (1861))

Huygens: “ Another property of waves of light, and one of the most marvelous, is that when some of them come from different or even from opposing sides, they produce their effect across one another without any hindrance…the waves do not destroy nor interrupt one another when they cross one another” (C. Huygens, Treatise on Light (1678) trans. S. Thompson (1912) p. 22)

Grosseteste: "Corporeity, therefore, is either light itself or the agent which performs the aforementioned operation and introduces dimensions into matter in virtue of its participation in light, and acts through the power of this same light. But the first form cannot introduce dimensions into matter through the power of a subsequent form. Therefore light is not a form subsequent to corporeity, but it is corporeity itself. . . 
Furthermore, the first corporeal form is, in the opinion of the philosophers, more exalted and of a nobler and more excellent essence than all the forms that come after it. It bears, also, a closer resemblance to the forms that exist apart from matter. But light is more exalted and of a nobler and more excellent essence than all corporeal things. It has, moreover, greater similarity than all bodies to the forms that exist apart from matter, namely, the intelligences (i.e. Angels). Light therefore is the first corporeal form." (Robert Grosseteste, De Luce)
Professor Richard A. Mueller (Berkeley): The amazing thing about gravity is that it goes RIGHT THROUGH THINGS; more effectively than even neutrinos. You are pulling, RIGHT NOW, on the atoms of the other side of the Earth. (From Gravity and Satellites)

If the hypothesized Thread performs the dynamic concept called light conceived as torsion waves then this fundamental object or first form can superpose, overlap, pass through, intersect etc. without hindrance, interruption, disturbance, tangling, etc. It is only when we have an intersection or overlap of a maximum abundance of Thread at a given location that Thread may get disturbed, hindered, stopped, redirected, etc. This critical overlap is exemplified by proton, neutron, and electron which are basically supposed as a convergence (proton, neutron) or overlapping alignment (electron) of gazillions of Threads, perhaps even 3 times that of all base Hydrogen atoms (protons) of Universe. These nodes of critical thread abundance are discontinuous, they are matrices, they are radically distinct, and unequal to the Thread and yet derived in the Thread which is continuous.




Werner Heisenberg was also close to conceiving these sorts of assumptions. In his words:
Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. . . This state of affairs is best described by saying that all particles are basically nothing but different stationary states of one and the same stuff. (Heisenberg, Quantum Theory, 1930)

Comment: Same stuff refers to the Thread, the so called stationary states are temporary crisscrosses, overlaps, or superpositions of Thread in critical density or anomaly, exemplified by proton, neutron and electron.
Thus even the three basic building-stones have become reduced to a single one. (from Atomic Physics and Causal Law, from The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, Werner Heisenberg, 1958) 

Comment: There is a single closed looped Thread underlying all atoms/protons, neutrons, electrons.
There is only one kind of matter but it can exist in different discrete stationary conditions. (From Atomic Physics and Causal Law, from The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, Werner Heisenberg, 1958)

Comment: The one kind of fundamental object, the Thread is continuous, but this Thread can establish what I call Critical Thread Abundances, which are not continuous, however derived in the one Thread. Perhaps in what they call black holes at the center of galaxies, there is a sort of exotic object that is not an atom or a star, but has almost a continuous presence of Critical Thread Abundances.

To some may seem this ridiculous that a 3D object, albeit fundamental, could overlap up to a hypothetical critical abundance. But I suggest you understand the utter vanity of you questioning this assumption. Thread overlapping, superposing or intersecting has nothing to do with the stated fact that Thread has Form and so refers to an Object, that we could hypothetically measure to length, width and height. Length, width and height depend upon an observer, but the Thread's unique property is observer independent and in addition does not require any sort of conceptualization from a human or the Thread itself for that matter. Thread overlapping is natural. It is unnatural for two trees to overlap because the atoms comprising the tree have attain a critical thread abundance which enables them to not pass through one another or repel one another.

And as a side note. I could just as easily come back at you and ask why do protons and electrons repel one another? How is it that you do not sink down to the center of the Earth this very moment? Its not because atoms are 3D. Oh no. An atom is a fullness of Thread converging from all the atoms of the Universe. The idea that atoms are mostly empty space thus you are mostly empty space is a ridiculous and unenlightened idea. Space refers to that which lacks form. An object cannot be made of mostly empty space. This is a stupid thought rooted in Rutherford and the planetary model of the atom. Rationale would seem to suggest that an atom or a human is a fullness of whatever fundamental entity comprises all matter. Wherever an atom or a human or a star is, there is an abundance of whatever it is that fundamentally comprises these and here we have that assumed as Thread. All one need do is get over the unique properties and behavior of this fundamental entity such as superposition.

Existence
People sometimes used to say that exist must be ambiguous because look at the difference between 'chairs exist' and 'numbers exist'. A familiar reply goes: the difference between the existence of chairs and the existence of numbers seems, on reflection, strikingly like the difference between numbers and chairs. Since you have the latter to explain the former, you don't also need 'exist' to be polysemic. (---Fodor, Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong)

With some understanding of Object, Matter, Form and First Form we may graduate to Exist. Exist is the most important name in all physics. In order to study phenomena such as light, gravity, electricity and magnetism we need to invoke objects that exist.

The name existence comes from the Latin word exsistere. Exsistere literally means to stand out: the Latin prefix ex means out added to the Latin verb stare meaning to stand. Synonyms of existence are nature, perhaps real, be, presence, reality. I imagine that our Latin ancestors originally conceived 'EXISTENCE' because they rationally discerned between objects that stand out in their environment (existing objects) and dream objects, hallucinatory objects, imaginary objects, 2D geometric objects, hypothesized objects, etc.

The name Existence is what we could categorize as a static concept. This static concept is used to describe object/form. And in light of the literal Latin meaning and our thorough understanding of the name Form and First Form; Existence is easy to understand.

That which has Form, STANDS OUT.

Or if one wants to get even more radical:

That which has the First Form, STANDS OUT.

Existence refers to that which stands out. That which stands out implies three dimensions (length, width, and height), however these are measurements and whether or not an object exists does not rely on our act of measuring.

But Forma and Existentia are two fundamental ways of describing Object. Form refers to what is contained and Existence refers to what stands out. Form refers to the 'What' from boundary to core, Existence refers to the 'What' extending out.

In terms of physics Existence relates an Object contained out of Thread or the Thread iself. A configuration of Thread stands out. Imaginary objects, abstract mathematical objects, and so on do not stand out because it is impossible to imagine them containing anything. In other words, in terms of physics they are NOT configured of the supposed 'first corporeal form' which Grosseteste made synonymous with the 'minimal reality' which we call the Thread. So in this conception, the primary qualifier of Existence would be Form and the secondary qualifier would be Thread.

In context to physics, my tendency now is to restrict the definition of Existence to the First Form, the Thread. In physics, existence refers to that which has the First Form or that which is the First Form.




So now let's apply these super restricted descriptions to the referent of Florence. The referent of Florence has Form. Thus the referent of Florence is an Object. The First Form belongs to the referent of Florence. A convergence of countless Twined Threads coming from all the atoms of the Universe pattern her body. The Threads either converge in abundance to form her atoms (or protons and neutrons).  Thus the referent of Florence exists. She stands out.

Now one could opt for a broader but no less clear, consistent, unambiguous and non-contradictory definition of the name existence. Existence refers to an object that has location. That which has Form and location exist. Primary qualifier: Form. Secondary qualifier: Location. Existence invokes a WHAT (Object/Form) and a WHERE (Location). In other words exist relates something somewhere, a presence, a nature. Location is the set of static distances from an object to all other objects. This definition disqualifies all geometrical objects such as circles, squares, lines, etc. from existence as well as imaginary objects such as Bart Simpson. With this enlightened understanding of the word existence we can clearly see that 1D, 2D, or 4D objects of geometry cannot possibly exist or be used in assumptions, explanations and conclusions in physics. Geometry is a nihilistic religion.

I opt for the more radical and restricted definition of Existence because if an Object has the First Form it is (in my understanding) literally connected to all objects via the First Form. The Sun exists because it is comprised of a big ball of configured Thread coming out from all the atoms of the Universe. To have the First Form is to be connected to all physical objects in the set called matter. The Thread enables us to redefine some extrinsic qualities for the purposes of physics. Distance is really the length of an EM Rope connecting any two atoms. Location means an object is connected to all other objects by the supposed First Form twisted out from the atoms that belong to a particular object. Dimension describes a figure of Thread.

In summary here are some possible definitions of existence for the purposes of physics and philosophy:

that which has form and location
that which stands out
the Thread or that which is woven by the Thread
the First Bodily Form or that which is woven by the First Bodily Form

*** First Bodily Form is a philosophical name for the Thread

1D object, 2D images, fail on all accounts. Dream objects, hallucinatory objects and abstract objects also fail. 4D objects are impossible.

With object, matter, form, first form and existence in mind let us proceed to the radical name Concept.

Concept

The name Concept is the antonym of Object. To describe a Concept as an object, entity, or form is a terrible misnomer that causes confusion. A sheer contradiction. All concepts, without exception lack Form, let alone the First Form, thus Concepts do not refer to Objects, or Forms and of course are disqualified from Existence. (This the Medieval philosophers failed to understand).

Again, Concept refers to a lack of Form. Concepts do not literally assume a Form.  They have no Form. So called "Concept Formation" is poetry. Concepts are the antithesis of Objects. Some synonyms of concept are idea, notion, thought, abstraction, conception, conceit, cogitation, intellection, conceptualization, etc.

In the radical ontological context, Concept refers to a work of the brain, a brain-work. Concept refers to a motion of the brain, more specifically our neurons and on a more fundamental level atoms signaling to each other via fundamental objects. Our brains elaborate relations in service of understanding and then praxis or communication.

We process objects of our environment through our sense organs and by way of the brain we identify and associate relations between objects. We then treat these relations as if they were objects naming.  We remember the names, trace the names, etc. Sometimes we use the same name to label many new concepts. Through the names we use the concepts that they refer to in recall and through communication. At this juncture of the human family we have gazillions of concepts traced out. Our concepts (brain works) have become increasingly complex and difficult to learn. In fact we are at a stage of micro-evolution where specialists learn and use a narrow set of concepts known only to those in their fields.

Concepts are relations. Relations can be classified into many categories but some basic modifiers are natural/artificial, intrinsic/extrinsic, and dynamic/static.

With this understanding we can define Concept as
a relation between two or more objects (worked out by the brain).
I added the parenthesis (worked out by the brain) because it does not seem clear to everyone that conceptions originate via the brain. We live in a time when concepts seem to take on a life of their own. People tend to be enslaved by concepts, so to speak. But this is not at all how it should be. Since it is us who continuously do the work called conceptualization till brain death, it is us who should have dominion over our concepts. And since it is us who conceive the onus is on us to define our concepts unambiguously and without contradiction.

All rational concepts can be traced back to at least two objects. Even the referent of a simple name such as 'Florence' can be traced back to the object who conceived the name usually Mom or Dad and the referred object of the name.

All concepts are relational actions of the brain. The brain takes in objects of the environment through a sensory system and works a relation between objects. Some of these relations such as light and love work out naturally, others are artificial, man-made. A concept's meaning is defined by the user and sender. Concepts are not supposed to confuse or deceive . . . they are supposed to help. (Corollary: IMHO concepts worked out by the brain are ever new. Even familiar concepts are ever conceived anew. We almost continuously do the work of conception till death. This is why no two genuine discourses are ever the same unless we quote, copy, transcribe, etc.)

Some concepts could be described by the name 'abstract'. Abstract concepts are simply a nest of many related objects and/or concepts worked out by the brain. A classic example of an abstract concept is Universe or Cosmos. Universe is a binary conceptual system relating space and matter. Matter is the set of all objects, all things. Space relates lack of Form. I guess that an ancient got sick of saying, "All the trees, and all the hills and the seas, and all the men, women, and children, and all the stars, and space, etc." So he came up with the bright idea now called Universe or Cosmos. Universe lacks From, this name resolves to an idea.






But now some have gone and named the brain work called Universe into a pregnant Florence Welch with a curving belly. In other words, some have irrationally converted the abstract concept Universe, into an object of existence that can perform actions like expand(ing). Although we reify concepts such as space and matter, to perform a synthetic abstraction we must understand that the reification does not allow our concepts to exist and perform causal actions or undergo change effects.  We reify concepts in the act of naming.  We cannot relate to that which lacks Form, thus we do this almost preternatural trick of treating our brain-work as if it had form so as to name, use in understanding, consummate higher order abstractions, communicate and so on.

Obviously someone has mistaken Universe or Space, both names that resolve concepts, lacking form, not to mention the concepts of dark matter, dark energy, the Higg's Field, EM Field, quantum field, the sixty or so particles, energy, gravitational waves, gravity wells and so on and so forth ad nauseum etc. for the abundance of Twined Thread crisscrossing and connecting, converging and forming all the atoms and neutrons of existence. Thread even can emanate in great arcs from the protons in stars.

Time is also an abstract concept.  Time is simply a relation or comparison between two or more motions.  For example, the rotation of the Earth in relation to the Sun, Moon, and all stars, is compared or related to the orbit of the Earth in relation to the Sun. And then some sort of predefined standard is used to trace and compare these two motions.  Very simple.

Concepts Do Not Change

Concepts DO NOT change. The idea distance does not change. All the stars and galaxies are connected by the supposed First Form twined in a DNA like configuration. It is these supposed objects connecting the stars that change, and the stars themselves that change, not the idea distance. "Change of distance" does not happen in reality. Change of stars, galaxies and the supposed objects connecting them is the reality.

Since Concept refers to relational actions worked out by the brain by our neurons, atoms, mediators, etc. it is blatantly obvious that Concept lacks Form and so is automatically disqualified from Existence. In a radical ontological context, Concepts cannot possibly move since concepts are motions of the brain. Concepts cannot possibly perform causal actions or undergo change effects. (Note that this does not entail that Concept does not HAPPEN, however these dynamic concepts must ALWAYS be performed or worked by objects that exist.)

Onto-logically, strictly speaking, in a stern restricted manner, concepts cannot possibly change because concepts are what the existing objects of your brain DO. One is always conceiving anew. The objects of your brain are changing. When a human changes his ideas, it is not the ideas that change, it is the human who changes or the objects connected within the human that change. I cannot even begin to express how important it is to understand this fundamental.

Concepts cannot possibly change.
Only objects can possibly change.
Concepts cannot possibly move.
Only objects can possibly move.
Concepts cannot possibly perform actions (verbs)
Only objects can possibly perform actions.

And objects that exist are way more valuable and important than concepts. Objects are greater than concepts, e.g. food, an object is more important than economy, a concept.

Referent
Now languages have the fault of containing certain expressions which fail to designate an object (although grammatical form seems to qualify them for that purpose) . . .

So language brands a concept as an object, since the only way it can fit the designation for a concept into its grammatical structure is as a proper name. But in so doing, strictly speaking it falsifies matters. (Gottlob Frege, 1892a, 168-69)
"the concept horse is not a concept" (Gottlob Frege, 1892b)

A name is same as word. All names are first and foremost concepts. This is a matter that Frege could never quite work out. He understood that a horse is a concept and yet not a concept. But he never could solve the answer as to why. The name 'horse' is a Concept, but the name refers or relates Frege to that which has Form in other words an Object.

A referent is that which the name refers to. Names are conceived so as to refer the thinker or the audience to objects or to concepts. In other words we name objects and concepts. We establish a direct or indirect relation or an affinity with objects by our act of naming. With objects all we can possibly do is name them, assume them, draw them and explain how they work in relation to other objects. Naming refers to a dynamic concept completed by a human and can be traced directly to the object that is named (to that which has Form). We also have the tricky ability to perform the work of naming our conceptions. We name our brain works, to organize, synthesize abstractions, develop and stimulate our brains and also so as to communicate directly with other objects such as humans and animals. Naming concepts modifies objects, describes them, etc. This name can indirectly trace back to the objects of our brains (atoms, electrons, neurons, connectors, etc.) performing causal relations and undergoing change effects in the referred concept or to objects of our environment remembered and used to relation in conception.

The name of our conception serves as a placeholder for the objects of our environment we conceived in a relation via our sensory organ or the objects of our brain performing the work called conception and serves to modify, describe, explain the objects. So we perceive water molecules, remember their locations, think and name that thought wave. Wave is what an object does. Wave does not refer to an object. We can trace back wave to objects even if these objects are no longer perceivable or even imperceptible.

Since we perform the act of naming we have to determine whether or not we named, or used a name, to refer to an object or to a concept. The way we do this is to ask:

Does the nominal referent have Form?

If so we may file the name under Object. If not the name resolves to a relation worked out by the brain: Concept. Now this may seem insignificant at first, but I assure the reader that this is one of the, if not THE most important task in all of philosophy and physics.

Language can be tricky and seductive without an ontological basis that we perform naturally and yet seemed to have lost touch with. The seeming deficiency, ambiguity, or seduction of language has to do with us. We conceive and use words in a deficient manner. And we introduce ambiguity into language when we fail to define strategic words. And some seduce the weak minded with deficient and ambiguous word use.

But all referents without exception are categorized into two categories by way of their resolved ontology: The two ontological categories are of course

1. Object
2. Concept

There is no third category.

The underlying ontology of the word referent is resolved objectively. The objective criterion is based on the rigorous definition of the names Object and Form derived from all the great thinkers of history. All we need do is take a word in its context and ask whether or not the referent has Form. This is a cut and dry. The answer is yes or no. Form is the only name that can possibly describe any and all Objects. Thus Form serves as the criterion for resolving the ontological context of the word referent. If the referent of the word does not have Form, then the word refers to a relation worked out by the brain; the word refers to a concept.

We haphazardly resolve word ontology every time we parse a sentence. However this skill needs to be honed so that we can perform a contextual analysis on any and all discourses given by anyone in any study, especially science. And we need this skill to trace concepts back to objects. If a concept cannot be traced back to a minimum of two objects then you should note that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Evaluating the Ontological Context of Referents is the only way an author or a reader can guarantee clarity in understanding and communication. By resolving the underlying ontology of the word referent one is able to discern ordinary language from scientific language. One is able to discern figures of speech, colloquialisms, rhetoric, etc. One is able to discern hogwash. And one is able to accomplish many other educated tasks.

The ontological roots of language are as clear as the Sun and as strong as a mountain. There is no manner of circumventing a concept. All concepts necessarily invoke a minimum of two objects. And all concepts lack that which belong to all objects, namely Form.

I will stick my neck out and say that resolving the ontology of the word referent is a font of acquired wisdom. Whoever understands the significance of resolving the ontological context of word referents is truly educated and free. Whoever does not understand how to put this into practice or does not respect the importance of this practice is uneducated. Educated of means "led out from". The idea is that one is lead out of darkness and into the light. We need to be able to master concepts in route out of darkness.

Some Examples of Resolving the Underlying Ontology of Word Referents:

Wind

Does the name 'wind' refer to an object? Or to a concept? Wind has no form, thus it resolves to a concept. Wind could be defined as two or more locations of air molecules parallel to the Earth's surface. Adam and Eve came along, thought invisible objects moved parallel to the ground: pelting their faces, trees, as well as their huts and so named 'wind'.

Wind cannot move. Wind is objects (air atoms/molecules) in motion. Wind is really a specialized verb in disguise. It is as if the subject, air, is built into a verb. Wind relates motion of air. A verb is a name that represents a moving relation worked out by the brain. With motion we need an object(s) regardless of whether or not we can see them.

Wave

Wave is a tricky one. A wave may seem like it has form but indeed the ontological context resolves to a concept. Like wind, wave refers to a dynamic concept, a verb. Wave is a manner of motion. Wave is our conceptualization of a thing's action. For example, Florence Welch's arms wave when she sings. There is no such thing as a wave. A wave is not a noun of reality, e.g. gravitational waves resolve to concepts. They cannot possibly exist.

In context to light and gravity and electron, it is indisputable that these phenomena have dynamic wave-like properties. So we have to ask ourselves what is it that is waving. What is waving at the atomic perimeter??? What is waving between stars in light and gravitational mediation??? Brainstorm and then suppose a rational mediator, an object.

Space

Space is the whore of philosophers and of weak minds.

The tricky and seductive word Space, resolves to a concept. This might sound crazy to the uneducated, but it is impossible to see space via our sensory systems. No one in the history of the Universe has seen space or taken in space via their sensory systems.  Not even God has seen space.  All we can possibly see are objects that are literally connected to our eyes by the mediators of light. When we see two objects, we think space. Space refers to the separation between two or more objects. However the referent of the name space is an impoverished notion since we assume that the Twined Threads separate any two objects and the Twined Thread is bounded from the immediate surrounding of itself. The stuff that is the referent of the name 'Thread' or 'first corporeal form' or 'fundamental entity', or 'minimal reality', certainly doesn't need an idea called space to separate it.

We cannot see that which mediates light and converges to form all the H atoms and neutrons of the Universe, thus we have overindulged ourselves with the bunk notion of space. Space has never imparted a causal relation or undergone a change effect in the entire history of the Universe since it is JUST A RELATION worked out by the brain!!!! Space is a concept. Space is not even a container. Space cannot perform the the referred action of the verb 'contain' or 'bind'. Concepts do not perform actions. Space is a sheer deprivation and it is truly a sign of the times that people so fawn over the name 'space'.

What's in a name???