Universal Oscillation Theory

    thewholeenchiladaThis web site is designed to draw attention to a forthcoming book. THE WHOLE ENCHILADA and UNIVERSAL OSCILLATION THEORY; like most books the title may change before coming out.

    The Whole Enchilada is a book about worldviews and how those are formed by our foundational concepts. The bedrock of our ideas is or should be an integrated part of the whole. If one stands on a solid foundation, then each level up is rational. The levels are interconnected and in order. Thinking is organized. Each concept is in a context that should relate to the more fundamental views. This way, It is much easier to categorize concepts or “problems”. If the latter, where does it fit in? We know the foundation beneath and the sequence to come therefore the “problem” can be put into perspective and choices narrowed down. Even very complex problems can be broken down into smaller categories and isolated and analyzed. Sometimes there are no solutions to very complex situations. In that case, we can try to find the most significant ones and know that without solutions to these, the lesser ones hardly matter.

    Besides promoting the book I intend to explain just enough of the theory of Universal Oscillation to claim origin of the idea. Others may have done similar things, at least in part, but I have not found this idea in anything resembling my conceptualization.

    After several years trying to learn physics as a lay reader of more popular lay types of explanations of physics (see below, for a few of the references) I found a way to reduce the remaining problems in physics to what I call a foundational theory. Mostly, it supports classical and quantum physics but it also points out some of the problems in Einstein’s SRT and GRT, not to forget “spacetime” and a BBT which is based upon GRT and a misunderstanding of what redshift means.

    Gravity has not been explained properly in physics up to this date, but the UOT makes that a simple outgrowth of the foundational theory.

    If you understand more than a bit of physics you will know that at a certain point in our accumulated knowledge we move from physics to metaphysics. This theory, the UOT, is no exception.

    Delving into the physical world beyond Planck’s constant and its consequences is to enter the realm of philosophy. Whether a quantum physical perspective will be as far as we can proceed with actual physical measurements and observations reproducible by all, remains an unknown.

    The rational of the UOT is hard to refute. It makes a strong case for a new paradigm in physics.

    The book will be about more than just the physical theory. The reasons for the theory will be presented, which are mostly logical axioms, but it will continue with chapters relating to the effects of a new worldview, or paradigm. There will be a few chapters on some basic understanding of how the mind works, and the thought processes we all use plus a little on some important aspects of philosophy I think any serious student of knowledge needs to know and a little on more human concerns included in a chapter on humanism.

    A chapter on physics will try to show in more depth why BBT and GRT are not completely correct. There deficiencies need to be better understood by the public at large.

    Yes, the book is intended for almost anyone to grasp. No college physics will be necessary, although that background would be helpful. Very few mathematics. There are a couple of equations you should be familiar with. They are explained in the non-mathematical language of physics. You will realize that mathematics is a tool of physics. It is a shorthand of sorts and manipulating the symbols and the underlying physics a bit does sometimes give them new

    The UOT will be of interest to all in the physics community. I believe a new paradigm of this sort is needed in order to progress.

     Why should I read this book?

    Most people do not have the faintest clue that a coherent and well-founded worldview sets you up to be right.*n1

    What do you mean by being right? Good question. As Nietzsche said,

    “There are no facts, only interpretations”. -Friedrich Nietzsche, Notebooks. Fn. 1880.*n2

    To be right, in this context, means that when you make a statement it corresponds to facts. It is logically consistent and reflects accurately the world we live in. The statement “coheres” with other information. There should be objective agreement among those listening. E.g. “The sun will most likely rise again tomorrow. “

    The statement may only be a thought you are having yourself. When you consider ideas such as “Should we take down that statue?” There are multiple considerations before acting. Whose property is that? When was it erected? Why? Was that a different time than now, culturally? Does it tell a story? Should we remember the past? Does the past inform us? Should we have reminders? Do others have different perspectives on the value of that statue? Does mine prevail? Why? Why should I perhaps reflect more on this question before acting? You get the point.

    How does a worldview inform me? Why can’t I just take the evidence before me and decide?  

    A worldview is incomplete or insufficient if it does not have a solid foundation.

    A well-founded worldview increases the chances of having the correct sequence of thoughts or making the better decision.

    If the question is coherently presented and all the facts that pertain are considered in the right context as well, you have a good beginning in considering the question. The most appropriate facts relevant and the correct sequence of analyzing them helps us “to be right”. “Right” obviously means to have the most correct, accurate, and pertinent analysis of all the considerations and in the right sequence. This is similar to the idea of “valid” in logic. An argument with true premises and a true conclusion based on true premises is a sound argument. That’s about all that we can ask ourselves or from others.

    To have a solid foundation of ideas that are coherent and correspond with facts helps to ensure that all the considerations are properly founded. What follows next has a better chance of being correct if it follows correctly from all that precedes. What more can we ask? We know that there will not be a uniform agreement because humans do not have all the correct facts or maybe misapplying correct facts that are not pertinent to the question. Faulty logic. Faulty memory. Humans are faulty creatures. Who is always “right”?

    This book does its best to try for that solid foundation. It begins with axioms and presents logically coherent views pertinent to a foundational view. In this case, the foundation is metaphysical. In most cases, any foundational view starts with metaphysical positions. The book is philosophic in tone.

    Philosophy today is now heavily indebted to science. At one time there was little difference, but today we have established facts, theories, histories, and evidence of all sorts. Although we do not have all the answers and that would be impossible, philosophy is much more directed towards analyzing science’s methods and findings today. Much more time is spent on current discoveries and current conclusions than on the more purely metaphysical considerations of the middle ages. We have advanced. We were set on this path by Aristotle in the 4th century BC.

    After a presentation of Universal Oscillation Theory, there are immediate consequences to consider. Those are fundamental consequences and of great import that begin to fill out other concepts. We check on whether we have slightly new or different perspectives on the meaning of x, y, and z. We learn exactly what determinism means. Do we really live in a totally determined universe? Chapter two.

    If and when a worldview is altered there are a multitude of consequences. Those are in Chapter Three.

    Worldviews are constantly under question or should be. We should always be skeptical and careful in what we accept. We have to look at problems or questions from various viewpoints. “All is perspective,” said Friedrich Nietzsche.

    At the time of writing this, the author has not decided on how much support for the arguments in the book need to be present in the pages or appendix. The subject is so vast that many difficult decisions have to be made regarding content. I am leaning towards a leaner book and a more thorough appendix. I see no reason why today the appendix cannot be online for all the supplemental information-pertinent to the material in the book. Right here-online.

    The book is intended for any man but, not everyman. Any thoughtful person should enjoy seeing a new perspective.

    I have tried to make all ideas clear enough for the non-initiated (those who have not spent many hours studying or reading science and philosophy) and yet at the same time explored the depths of our knowledge. This book is meant to be a real test of just how deeply we have examined the content of our minds. No, not just the experience of our lives and how we remember it, but in the sense of our worldview.

    Perhaps it is foolish to try and pull off writing a book for everyman. But, then again there will be a section on just how can we all get along. A favorite question of a friend of mine.

    If I can pull this off, you will enjoy the journey.

    By the way, a forewarning! The subject material is dense in content. Even this brief introduction has footnotes. That should be a forewarning. I mean to say that the concepts presented are what some call “deep”. These concepts require a lot of reflection. This is not a casual beach book. It can, of course, be read at the beach, but only in small bites. Each new concept introduced is somewhat metaphysical. This means a lot of checking with our prior worldview. What does the author mean here? Does he mean this literally or figuratively? Is this what I have previously considered that to be a metaphor? I think he means it literally. How do I view that? Do I accept it or not? If not, why not.

    My own favorite criticism is to say, “Nonsense upon stilts!”*n3. Will you feel that way, once having considered all the evidence? The only way to check your worldview is to examine it. Here is an alternative. Check it out and decide for yourself. This might be much more profitable than merely reinforcing your own prior knowledge, your own biases. Instead, read what is offered and form your own perspective. Reflection is called for in reading this book. It should be with you a while. I suggest a look at a few pages at a time. Some will race through of course. They will get superficial impressions. This book requires some thought by the reader. The beach has its distractions.

    Being “right” is actually not that important*n4. Hopefully we all know that being “right” is a relative term. What is more important is to be able to digest, breakdown, and analyze concepts, ideas, or problems into bits that compare with what you consider “facts”. Life is a journey of learning. If not, you have missed out on a great pleasure while being present for a short while on this planet. Do we consider these considerations is a resignation, a “ressentiment” (Nietzsche) or a re-evaluation of all our values? An expansion of our understanding.

    Logical “atoms” that are pertinent to the problem have already been placed into your worldview. They have a place. The idea fits or does not. This assistance in analysis becomes better with time. Why? Because there is a proven structure or platform that you already know how to use. Pieces fit into places.

    One cannot have all this without a thorough well evaluated worldview.

    Two major goals of the book:

    One is to present the new worldview, UOT, and the second to build a coherent examination of all of the consequences falling out from this new perspective. All the consequences? No, of course not. I am not writing War and Peace. This should be only an introduction to a deeper analysis of our human predicament.

    The brain, of course, does a lot in milliseconds or less, but one of the other real advantages is that in building a coherent worldview most of the hard part of the construction is already done. The current problem may be “false” or just too complex for a quick solution. Some problems need to be explained to others who haven’t been down the particular road before. The point is that a solid logical and consistent structure makes navigation much easier. One already has gotten rid of false channels and detours.

    I find it ( a well-founded worldview) a great assistance in trying to break down knotty problems. Some, of course, can’t be broken down, but again, with a solid worldview, you already knew that.

    Here is another question you may have. “Who is to say what a good worldview is?” I have already answered that.

    A logically consistent and thorough hierarchy of knowledge, built upon a solid foundation is a good worldview.

    “Why should I be interested in yours? Is it the best and only? Is it perfect?” No? But then how would you even know if you would be interested in mine unless you already had one for comparison? And, even better, a good one with which to compare?

    There are lots of reasons to buy the book and to be interested in having a well-oiled brain. A mind that is quick and reliable. Hell, it even knows when to say, “I don’t know the answer to that”. The lack of pretense and the honesty that comes with conviction is a nice tool to have. Consistency comes with being fairly accurate in your assessment. Nobody is one hundred percent accurate and correct of course.

    Let me now ask you a question.

    How could you possibly negotiate this complex, dangerous, and rarely easy road we travel through life without a good worldview?

    Don’t fool yourself. It is very nice to have a solid foundation to assist. Very nice.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    *n1  “Right” of course, is an elusive thing that ultimately only you can claim to know. That is something we will rarely say. The subtleties and complexities of nature can be way too much for us to ever claim that. “Proof”, is equally problematic.

    *n2 Friedrich Nietzsche will be covered, superficially at least, in the appendix. If you have had the pleasure of spending some time with him you know what I mean. If not, be prepared for a great journey of mind opening opinions. He has a reputation, also, of being one of the two greatest users of language in philosophy. Sometimes you wonder, is this a literary excursion or a journey through thought.

    *n3 Thank you, Jeremy Bentham.

    *n4 Nonsense, right here and so quickly. Being “right’ is important. You have heard of how things are all relative? Yes! Being more accurate or more correct is frequently all that we can claim. But that is difficult if possible at all. The point is that most if not all of these things will or will not fit into a solid worldview.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Universal oscillation theory is the heart of the book. It may become a new paradigm, in time. Nothing this foundational to our thinking has come along in just this way. Physicists, may scoff and say that the book offers them nothing new. I can agree with that sentiment. I understand, however, no one of them has actually said this in this way. I have looked and not found anything quite like this. I had to make up a new metaphysics because no one before went this far in their speculations. David Bohm was almost there but didn’t get to finish his work.

    The theory and its consequences are a new worldview.

    The consequences affect the whole enchilada. The Whole Enchilada is everything. It is our worldview, our metaphysics, our perspective on all things under the Sun, or within an infinite universe-The Whole Universe-The Whole Enchilada-thewholenchilada- the TWE. Take your pick.

     THIS SITE IS UNDERDEVELOPMENT-YOU WILL NEED PATIENCE-COME BACK PERIODICALLY. THE BOOK IS NOT FINISHED. IT IS DIFFICULT TO FINISH A BOOK ABOUT NEARLY EVERYTHING.

    I WILL BEGIN COMMUNICATING THROUGH THIS SITE. RVSP!

    © 2015 Your Company. All Rights Reserved. Designed By JoomShaper

    Please publish modules in offcanvas position.