Wiping the slate clean

The general problem with modern theoretical physics is that it implicitly begins from a philosophical posture that ultimately sows the seeds of its own destruction. The assumption that is everywhere taken for granted in the current age is simply stated as such: Observations prove theories. On its face, the preceding statement is perfectly reasonable. But when we investigate the matter more closely, irresolvable problems begin to manifest.

The alternative assumption that I would make is this: Theories simplify observations. Given that no two observations are ever perfectly alike, the purpose for any theory is to discover the commonalities between them. And the more general (or universal) that a theory is, the more observational diversity exists that must be taken into account.

I claim to have developed something that I call The Universal Theory of Physical Reality. In this way, it is necessary that every possible observational commonality be simplified within an immanently conceivable system of thought. When most people think of theoretical physics, they think mainly of complicated mathematical expressions. It is for this reason that the average person thinks that the subject matter of theoretical physics is inherently beyond their comprehension. But this kind of thought is not truly warranted.

The major problem here is that while mathematics is necessary for the development of any legitimate theory of the physical universe, it is not true that the essence of mathematics lies within the confines of obtuse symbolic formulation.

In reality, we should rather think of mathematics as just that which is manifestly true, through its own intuitive power. In other words, the particular forms of mathematical statements are simply arbitrary constructs that are meant to refer to notions that are patently obvious. No matter how fancily we dress it up with symbolic artifice, the fact that one and one equals two is just something that the mind itself must already understand in order for any kind of experience to be possible.

It will do a great service for us to thoroughly flesh out the distinction between algebra and geometry. By doing this, we will be able to understand the nature of the relationship between these disciplines, and we will further be able to understand why it is that modern theoretical physics currently finds itself in such a sorry state of affairs.

Geometry is the study of the possible forms of an arbitrarily (n-) dimensional continuous space. That is, a geometric form is a structure that is necessarily "self cohesive." Examples of such structures are lines, planes, and volumes. For the sake of convenience, however, we will simply refer to each of these respectively as 1-, 2-, and 3- dimensional spaces.

The entire significance of algebra, however, concerns the notion of a compact and rigorous notation to aid in the communication of geometrical ideas. In other words, without an underlying geometric "reality," the entire discipline of algebra loses all meaning.

Algebra grew up as "analytical geometry," but it has now seemed to mature into an independent and self-subsisting entity. Set theory, for instance, would seem to consist of ideas that are separate from but equal to any advances in topology. But the fact remains that the concept of the set only makes sense as a set of things and that a thing only makes sense when it is built upon the idea of the spatial form.

The notion that particular sets abstract away the forms of things, leaving only qualitative characteristics (e.g. mass, charge, or color), does not change the fact that a thing—whatever the nature of its "secondary" attributes—must necessarily occupy space in such and such a way.

But this fact is all but lost on modern physical theorists. The notion that any possible thing must necessarily have a geometric form simply smacks too much of idealism, according to today's professional empiricists (a.k.a. "scientists"). When considering Platonic atomism, the contemporary scientific mind finds occasion for a good chuckle. The only problem, however, is that instead of honestly dealing with the question of the ultimate form[s] of matter, mainstream physics simply ignores it altogether.

The reason for this ignorance is that there is truly nothing empirical about the concept of the geometric form. A circle, for instance, is nothing other than a self-bounded, smooth, one-dimensional space. The sensible things that we refer to as being circular rely upon "real" objects that necessarily occupy three-dimensional space. The experience of visualizing circularity simply sparks within our own minds the notion of a perfect geometric entity whose radius is everywhere equal.

So, if a theory of physical reality depends crucially upon the a priori force of the mathematical discipline that is known as geometry, then any axiomatic appeal to observational proof will necessarily cause such a theory to be impossible. As such, my job here is not so much to convince the reader of the significance of the positive aspects of my theory, but rather to develop an argument that is sufficiently critical of the philosophical mindset that reflexively accepts the notion that "Observations prove theories."

I hope that you will do me the honor of allowing me to begin with an empty philosophical canvas so that my theory of physical reality does not become confused with the various emprical speculations (or hypotheses) that unfortunately are passed off as theories. In point of fact, my theory would perhaps be better described as a mathematical theorem, keeping in mind that by the term "mathematical," I am always ultimately referring to possible forms of n-dimensional space.

As such, it is easy to understand why there might be a dearth of algebraic formalism within the exposition of the theory. In other words, my goal is to give the reader an intuitive sense of the most basic of physical phenomena, such as gravity, electricity, magnetism, and the propagation of light. My attempt is to show how such phenomena can sensibly exist side-by-side within a comprehensive geometrical framework that ultimately reduces to a singular kind of spatial form and a singular dynamic law.

My intention is to create for you a kind of impressionistic image rather than a full-blown working blueprint of every possible empirical situation. (I couldn't even begin to wrap my head around the complexities of, say, DNA replication or the output of so-called high energy particle colliders!)