Dear Mr. Stephen Hawking

Before I get to the subject of this message I want to apologize in advance for allowing myself, an anonymous of civilization and even of the Universe in Itself, a person who like any other writes a book from time to time, as a reflection of the Universe around us which we are and in which we exist, to bother you with me ideas. I have recently read your paper, ‘A brief history of time’ (from the big-bang to black holes) and I find it necessary to make a few philosophical observations on the side of that information for the sole purpose of offering help for your future research. As you yourself said on page 198 ‘What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant’ a comedown which I see as a regret that philosophy has remained behind science, and it is true, which is why I would like to help philosophy and present to you a new philosophy which I call ‘unconventional philosophy’. In order for us to continue this discussion I must necessarily redefine the human conventions with regard to convention and unconventional, which I extrapolate into the unlimited, from convention as ‘an act between parts’ to ‘limiting of unlimited’ and their reverse, non-observance of convention (non-observance of limited) or unlimited. With others they represent the object of a nonconventional dictionary which I hope to start publishing next year. Furthermore, throughout the text you will observe the difference between a limited infinite ‘’ which is the infinite used so far in mathematics and the unlimited infinite which I call the unlimited ’’. In this context the unconventional philosophy represents an unlimited philosophy but not because it is unlimited but because it is extrapolated beyond any of us, into the unlimited, even if we and no one and nothing can reflect this unlimited.

            Philosophy Specifications

1.  first of all I would like to point out that you, just like the other researchers, mix things up and they must be cleared up as philosophical principles in the sense that you talk about space and time without clearly defining these conventions, the conventional space and time (that of universe/entities, atom, plant, animal, planet, galaxies, etc.) and the unconventional unlimited space and time of the same universe/entities but also of the Universe in itself or of God. These are two different space/time categories where the conventional, limited space/time simultaneity is part of the whole unconventional, unlimited space/time simultaneity. In order for us to observe the displeasure created by their mixing let us state that the space/time unit as a limited simultaneity defines any limited transformation as a well defined entity (atom, plant, animal, planet, galaxies, etc.), while the unlimited, unconventional space/time simultaneity of any nature of the same entities but as an unlimited universe (atom, plant, animal, planet, galaxies, etc.). Maybe you will believe that their universe is limited but we shall see further on that I am right and that people and other universe/entities do not ever see the unlimited universe of the entity, they see the entity’s universe still limited as an entity due to their incapability of reflecting the unlimited. The human universe or the solar one are unlimited universes but for us they are just well defined limited entities which we conventionally call universe. I have introduced the term simultaneity which is new and well known or not at all known, the simultaneity being like the relations between parts and their whole in other words the unit one in mathematics is a simultaneity with its parts or more simply put both of them are different reflections of the Universe in itself because one can be taken as a whole but at the same time as parts, it all depends on the reference system or the universe/entity that makes the reflection. One as whole is a well defined entity while its unlimited parts are the unlimited universe of this unit. By universe/entity we understand any type of simultaneously matter/energy organization. I am certain that you will understand the matter/energy simultaneity correctly if we think that matter cannot exist without energy and the other way around. You might say that the other way around is not well said as there is free energy without matter. Careful though, can energy really exist without matter? Aren’t we by any chance incapable of reflecting matter with unlimitedly small dimensions and properties, or even larger ones but too small for us and our knowledge? You yourself talk in your book about ‘virtual particles’, we even know that light is a wave-corpuscle duality but unfortunately we cannot define the corpuscle even if we know it exists. We all ask ourselves how far does our knowledge go and because you are a mathematician we know that the rapport between any constant and the mathematic infinite is zero and we can say that no matter how wide our knowledge is if we retrospect it to the infinite (I define it as the unlimited) of knowledge it is zero. Furthermore, if we retrospect it to the unlimitedly large © it results an unlimitedly small “0₀”. It is absurd to say that the unlimited space and rime is deformable, it is as if we would say that the mathematical infinite is deformable. Unlike the mathematical infinite which is sometimes limited sometimes unlimited, (infinitely small, infinitely large, ) in rapport to a interpretation, the unlimited is impossible to define and it specially behaves as a constant because it is unique and non-multipliable even if we are speaking of an unlimitedly large or an unlimitedly small. Or as you say ‘often we need a second infinite’. Sometimes we need a new infinite and we can write infinite multiplied by two, with the unlimited we cannot do this because on one side there is no twice unlimited because that is where our conventions disappear and on the other side the operation becomes absurd as the unlimited is uniquely undividable and non-multipliable. Such are the paradoxes of our world. The unlimited does not modify in other words it cannot be multiplied or divided respectively if we divide the unlimited by two (whether it is an unlimitedly small or an unlimitedly large) it remains the same unlimited. That is to say ©: n = © and 0₀ : n = 0₀. The same goes for multiplication. We should have question ourselves why the factorial zero is 1 and not zero like it is the logical thing in our limited logic. The ‘limited space/time option’ is also not a solution even if we presume that this simultaneity is possibly curbed much like the earth this implies that if the earth is defined by a limited curbed yet infinite space/time then outside the earth there is nothing, no space nor time nor transformation, which is hard to comprehend. Kant also made this same mistake with his a priori. He believed that everything, absolutely everything comes down to God, forgetting the simple question: ‘What was or what is beyond God?’ You, the physicians, do the same thing with the singularity theory; we cannot pretend that there is no such question especially given the fact that we see the relative uniformity of the universe of our knowledge. All these questions are rhetorical in my philosophy but it is a whole philosophy. We must observe one simple thing which is that the unit 1 is dividable by the unlimited therefore it has unlimited subdivisions, what’s more any division of a unity has unlimited division, and even any division of the division, and so on. This takes us to the conclusion that the unlimited I have been talking about exists. If the unity which is the representative of any universe/entity (forms of organization as a whole) is dividable by the unlimited why do we believe that matter or energy are divided by the limited? We can also never know the unlimited divisions of one even if we guess their limit. I assure you that matter and energy and any universe/entity are unlimitedly dividable only that we or others in our own limits cannot reflect their unlimited and we sometimes end up believing in ‘virtual particles’ because we guess that even beyond our known or possible particles there exists something. Let us not confuse the Universe in Itself that we reflect with the Universe in itself which is, which we are and in which we exist; it is as if we would believe that our sign for the unlimited “©” is the unlimited itself, unlimited to which no one and nothing can reach, not even with his intuitions or ideas or spirit.

            2. Secondly I must point out that in your paper you are talking about space and time as two separate conventions and not about the relation between them which I have defined as simultaneity. The diagrams also show the same thing but, like I have said before, I have defined simultaneity as a philosophical relation which comprises in it all the scientific or non-scientific relations and phenomena with regards to two or more universe/entities. This simultaneity tells us that one is the simultaneity of its parts in other words:

           
  where “∲” is the multiple simultaneity.

 This is an identity between the parts of the whole and the whole, which is valid for any universe/entity, matter, or energy or their simultaneity. It is only the reflection of the same Reality in Itself towards different reference systems, in our case division and whole. Let us not forget that besides the division’s unlimited as a number there are limitless types of divisions, binary, decimal, etc. We don’t reach the unlimited although we know that it exists but as any reflection of ours we can limit the unlimited as well as this relation with the condition that we accept the error that appears due to this limiting. From her we can observe that the relation is absolute but our limits introduce the relative of the absolute, the absolute is not relative, just like in Reality in Itself which is absolute, our limited reflections make it relative in a reflective rapport which becomes a system of reference. There is only one Reality in Itself but unlimited reflections because there are limited universe/entities as a system of reference. Keeping this relation in mind let us go back to the relation between space and time which is a relation of simultaneity meaning they are the parameters of a transformation which can be found throughout every point of the transformation and at the same time through space/time. In this context their philosophical relation is, 

 
    

            Where is identity. You will try to contradict me but I have serious arguments that is to say that this relation says that space is the measure of time and the reverse time is the measure of space. In the unconventional, the unlimited, space and time are unlimited and the sense of our measures disappears which proves the presumption of the extrapolation, in the conventional, like our relations are, if we take a line and its consisting dots we shall observe that every dot (there are unlimited dots because any number is unlimitedly dividable meaning it has unlimited divisions) corresponds to a time and the whole line is apparently the unlimited sum of the dots or of the times necessary for passing over it, in fact the simultaneity of its dots because they have more interpretations, reflections than we think, not just as space or time. This allows us anytime to associate time to a space and space to a time without making mistakes, as evidence that units of time are defined by units of space (a day is a one rotation of the earth and a second I don’t know what frequency of an atom) we could say, without mistaking, instead of day a rotation of the earth, another proof being the light years. Just like with the first observation we can limit the unlimited of the space and time simultaneity but we must accept the errors introduced by thanks to the limitation, furthermore we can write the philosophical relation as a mathematical relation but it is still a limitation and once again we must accept the errors introduced by it.

            3. Thirdly we must observe that it’s not space and time that are a transformation but the transformation has as parameters space and time, these conventions are just parameters of a transformation, meaning that in the absence o transformation space and time do not exist the same as in the case of singularity and of Kant’s transcendental, beyond uniqueness or God, without transformation time disappears which misleads you. Beyond God and your uniqueness there is the same unlimited Universe in Itself but we can no longer reflect its transformation and therefore neither its conventional space/time, it cannot be about the unconventional. Incidentally through conventional space/time we must understand that every universe/entity has a conventional space/time just like us or the atoms or the Big bang or the planets or the galaxies. Einstein says that time and space can be distorted, it is obvious, but not the unlimited, unconventional time, just the conventional space/time, that of the universe/entities (man, plant, atom, ray, planet, etc. as a well defined entity) and by no means the space/time of God or of the unlimited Universe in Itself. I shall bring as example our own universe/entities which we are and which have their own specific transformation. After our death our transformation as a well defined entity becomes zero and along with it our space that we occupy or in which we exist just like the time of our existence disappear. Beyond ourselves as a well defined entity we no longer have the right neither to transformation nor to space/time just like the planets or plants or galaxies or the big-bang, this is proof that in the absence of transformation space but also time disappear. Even if a new man is formed he is a new man, a new transformation and with a different space/time and a different transformation. For this reason the argument of going back in time is an utopia, we are part of the universe in which we reside and which we are, who goes back in time, us as a well defined entity or our interior universe and unlimited exterior? It is an aberration to believe this, eventually a man can go back in time or a particle but never its nature and the nature he lives in because they are unlimited and we can by no means reach the unlimited as we and our universe/entities that help us are limited.

            4. The forth observation, the last for this discussion but not the last that can be done, is as you yourself notice at one point the fact that, ‘mathematics is just a model’. Mathematics just like physics or the sciences and non-sciences of any nature are just reflections, relative and limited models, specific to each of us but of the same Reality in itself, just the simultaneity of all of these can convey a reflection close to Reality in itself. Unfortunately their simultaneity is unlimited as space/time and as transformation and we cannot ever get there. Like I have already said, all sciences and non-sciences (parapsychology, the zodiac, astrology, etc.) are just reflections of the same Reality in Itself just like philosophy only that philosophy seeks the general unlimited truth while the sciences and non-sciences seek the truths on specific directions. Any science or non-science is a particular case of philosophy respectively a directional reflection of Reality in Itself. In order for us to see this let’s take a look at mathematics, it has an essential condition which we don’t write but we all understand, a convention, a limitation we use even if it does not exist in Reality in Itself. It is all about identity, in the Universe in Itself there is no identity, chemistry and mathematics and physics make the mistake of believing that two atoms of iron are identical when they cannot occupy the same space at the same time, it is absurd to believe that an atom of iron from the mines is the same as an one from your chair, at least the space/time differ but also their interior transformations along with their exterior connections. Mathematics, due to the axiom of identity mixes the sheep and the goats, for mathematics the sheep are a unit just like the goats which in Reality in Itself is impossible and is not a truth. In mathematics 1 is identical to 1 and A with A, what you have seen is that in Reality in Itself there are two identical A at least given the space/time condition and let’s not get started about others. For this reason in my theory there is no 1 but a 1¡ specific to the sheep or the goats of which we talk, just like the unlimitedly small 0₀¡ or the unlimitedly large ©¡. And in order for us to differentiate between sheep and goats the symbols must be written “1¡n”, “0₀¡n” and “©¡n”. I shall give another example in the sense that we know that any constant related to the unlimited is unlimitedly small zero or just unlimitedly small but the reverse process gives the undetermined meaning the product between zero and infinite is undetermined. Why? Simple, because we have not given the index „¡” the necessary attention meaning if we divide the unit to the unlimited we get an unlimited zero specific to 1, if we divide 2 we get un unlimitedly small zero of 2 and the reverse of the operation becomes correct and undetermined. The same happens in the Reality in Itself, in the Universe in Itself matter and energy are unlimitedly dividable an just you yourself intuit there is no ‘emptiness’ there are only empty/full simultaneities, simultaneously visible and invisible, you say virtual particles just because we cannot reach them but they are a Reality in Itself even if we cannot reflect them as unlimited divisions of the unity. The unlimitedly small divisions of the Universe in Itself are a zero but they are specific to every universe/entity and the reverse phenomenon is every entity, the unlimitedly small is unique for every entity. We have the feeling that there are more variants of the unlimited and it is true that everything that exists is a paradox, everything, absolutely everything is a paradox, because we are limited as an unit but unlimited as universe, as being made of unlimitedly small divisions, and we know that any division of the unlimited is an unlimited. In this sense the relation of space and time is written philosophically as a paradox,

     

For each universe/entity, sheep or goat or human or planet or galaxy, etc. All these relations of simultaneity are dominated by the ‘relation of the Universe in Itself’ or for others by the ‘relation of God’ which states that any universe/entity is the result of the simultaneity between the unlimitedly small and the unlimitedly large,

In other words any universe/entity, equivalent of the unconventional universe is the simple simultaneity between the multiple simultaneities of its unlimitedly small sequences and the unlimitedly large that defines them. Once again we point out that simultaneity is the representation of all the phenomena that occur between the two elements (or more) at the same time, scientific and non-scientific. This relation is unlimited but it can be limited by assuming the errors of our conventions. Absolutely every universe/entity is born from this simultaneity, there is no chaos but only perfection, unfortunately we cannot reflect perfection and it seems to us as chaos or as a relative. There are also no mathematical or universal constants, they are all relative or limited just like the speed of light which needs a perfect environment for it to be a constant and there is no such thing, not as a machine to measure it nor as a medium of propagation of light. That is why I say that philosophy reflects the unconventional truth as a conventional one but with the possibility of extrapolating it, while sciences and non-sciences are just parts of philosophy and between philosophies and sciences and non-sciences there is a relation of simultaneity and not of interdisciplinarity as it is believed, furthermore the unlimited God and the unlimited Universe in Itself are the same thing, something which we cannot reach and they exist beyond our transcendental God or beyond the unique universe of physics or chemistry or of any other science or non-science. I have already defined these published theories partially in Romanian, ‘unconventional philosophy’, it is a science/non-science, theist/atheist simultaneity, it is not unlimited for us but it can be if someone can verify the extrapolation beyond us. We do not see Reality in Itself, our brain creates scientific or no-scientific, relative, hypothetical, and limited models through our senses and reason, not directly, while a Reality in Itself as a model realized through unlimited intermediaries remains a relative reflection of Reality in Itself. Philosophy works with the truths of Reality in Itself, science and non-science with the laws resulted from these truths but many times the phenomena is revered, meaning we do not start from the whole and define the parts but the other way around, we start from the parts and then we define the whole if we can. This philosophy has solutions, answers for everything with the condition that we accept its paradoxes as answers just like in mathematics where solutions like infinite or impossible or undetermined are not solutions unless we accept them as such, just like death, it is also a solution if we accept it as solution and many of us accept it while the others are permanently in a struggle with the impossible.  

                               

Commented quotes

            ‘The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created from energies in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But then appears the question where does energy come from’.

            That is simple, from its simultaneity with matter at unlimitedly small values and sizes. It can be observed that from an unlimitedly division of a universe/entity, matter/energy we obtain an unlimitedly small sequence of that particular matter/energy even if we or others cannot reflect this. Like in the case of zero which is simultaneously positive/negative but unlike it the unlimitedly small is a matter/energy specific to every entity/universe. The material particles cannot ever be created from energy only that we in our incapacity cannot see sometimes the matter sometimes the energy that accompanies any phenomena.

           

            ‘The distinction between time and space disappears completely’

            Evidently they are simultaneous only that we, in our incapacity, see them sometimes as space sometimes as time just like in the case of parts and the whole that represent the same Reality in Itself which we see sometimes as a part and sometimes as a whole. In the case of time and space there is no longer the case of parts and the whole but I can give you many examples of such simultaneities, such as the fact that an entity in the unconventional is the form/existence/spirit simultaneity, the conventions that represent it evidently redefined, same goes for the entity’s universe which is the transformation/space/time simultaneity.

 

            ‘A second characteristic which the final theory must have is Einstein’s ides that a gravitational field represents itself through the curbed space-time’.

The idea of this curbed space-time is valid only in the case of universe/entities with gravity, God has no gravity and he cannot be defined as a conventional universe/entity. The same goes for the Universe in Itself. For this reason the space-time curving is conventional and limited, there is an unlimited time to which no gravitation can intervene and it is not a virtual time but a real and unlimited one. The only digit in mathematics which does not modify given a mathematical operation is the digit zero and it is simultaneously positive/negative and at its limit the classical operations no longer have a sense. Any equation, system or formula is an acceleration of the classical operations, a rapid multiplication or division of these operations.

 

            ‘This can suggest that the so-called imaginary time is in reality real time and what we call real time is just a figment of our imagination.’   

            You have guessed right only that the time that we consider as being real as well as the space is just a conventional limited reflection of the unconventional, unlimited time and space. The unconventional time stays variable but non-deformable while the unconventional space remains constant and non-deformable and from their simultaneity results transformation as an effect of the simultaneity between a variable and a constant, unlike the conventional ones which apart from these properties are deformable being dependant of a system of reference or a universe/entity. As we can easily notice the space/time unit respects the laws of relativity but also of the absolute which say that the absolute is the simultaneity of the relative it incorporates and mutually the relative is the simultaneity of the absolute it defines, the absolute it limits, in a philosophical relation the paradoxes are expressed thus,

 

            Where ‘A’ is the absolute, ‘R’ is the relative, and “r₀¡” and “a₀¡” are their unconventional sequences; resulted from the same theory of the paradox and the unconventional simultaneity.

 

            ‘Did the universe have a beginning?’

            Definitely not, it has unlimited beginnings/endings simultaneously we do know that any beginning is an ending and the other way around. We can conventionally say unlimited beginning and unlimited endings but we must accept the error that is introduced.

 

            ‘It is rather hard to talk about human memory because we don’t know how the brain works in detail’.

 

            True, we don’t know how the human brain works but we an know its principle if we redefine human thought and we generalize it as an unlimited extrapolation. We humans have made and are making the mistake of believing that we are the only intelligent beings and I asure you that it is not so and that any universe/entity has its own ways of thinking if we redefine thought and we stop considering it as

„gîndíre f. Cugetare, idee, părere: filosofiĭ aŭ gîndirĭ înalte.
Sursa: Scriban (1939) | Adăugată de LauraGellner | Semnalează o greșeală | Permalink

 (‘thought f. meditation, idea, opinion: philosophers have high thoughts’ Source: Scriban (1939)     Added  by: LauraGellner | Semnalează o greșeală | Permalink)

But just a ‘capacity to accomplish correlations or comparisons’ because any comparison is a rapport, not a mathematical rapport but a one of a scientific/non-scientific simultaneity. This way any universe/entity makes rapports and comparisons, conscious or unconscious just like us or the computer that has as a base the bits comparisons or their compared rapports. The difference is the way in which every universe/entity makes these rapports.

‘In the classical theory of generalized relativity we cannot predict the way in which the universe appeared, because none of the known laws would work for the simultaneity of the Big-Bang’.

What a simple explanation it can be, imagine an unlimited of these singularities and you shall see the Universe in Itself unlimited until the limit of your intuition. In mathematic also the relations don’t go to the limit of zero or of the infinite, the law of conserving energy is not valid for

.

But beyond these values where there is no limit not even a symbolical one, in the unlimited, these laws cannot be valid. Imagine that all that we intuit as relative is an absolute only that we cannot reflect its unlimited from us or from what we reflect.

‘In the end though, there’s hope of finding a unified, consistent, complete theory which would include as approximations all these partial theories and which would not need to be adjusted in order to fit the facts, by choosing some arbitrary values from within the theory’.

I can say with enough certitude that this unification of sciences and non-sciences, not just of physics, is philosophy’s right and as you have observed through the theory of simultaneity and the ‘relation of the Universe in Itself’ this unification is done but it also takes into account (even if I didn’t know these theories) the principle of incertitude and the quantum theory but also the classical mechanic or even non-sciences, it is so general that it has no limits even if we cannot reflect these limits. Relativity is in her own element but on an absolute that it defines permanently even if we are not capable of seeing this absolute.

‘The problem is, just like I have explained in chapter 7, that the incertitude principle means that the ‘empty’ space is also filled with pairs of virtual particles’.

Within this unconventional philosophy the principle of incertitude becomes a reality of Philosophy because the unlimitedly small particles are simultaneities of such particles but at the same time they are different because they are no longer particles, on one side, in our conventional sense and then they are an undividable simultaneity meaning that a whole whose parts can no longer be identified, just like the positive/negative of zero. Each such sequence is unique but at the same time the same and only the unlimited as space/time makes it associate with other unlimited such sequences after which a universe/entity that is limited as entity but unlimited as unlimitedly small unconventional sequences appears. There is no ‘empty’ in the sense known so far there is only ‘empty/full’ simultaneity from the unlimitedly small to  unlimitedly many in an unlimitedly large formed of unlimitedly small unlimited sequences.  

Sincerely yours,

Păroiu Tudor