The Whole Enchilada aka TWE

    thewholeenchiladaThis website is designed to draw attention to a forthcoming book. THE WHOLE ENCHILADA aka TWE, and UNIVERSAL OSCILLATION THEORY-A Worldview.

    Publication date uncertain

    The book is not in publication mode yet. Hopefully, it will be within a year as the author is getting quite mature. We keep learning and understanding throughout life and this becomes part of the problem of completion. You will see why in a moment.

    Publishers. Criticisms are welcome.

    Thewholenchilada, as the main title will not satisfy most publishers. Its too broad an idea to attract attention. The subtitle would be too long as well. They will think the TWE is unecessary.-The Universal Oscillation Theory is the base for a worldview that encompasses all that we know. No longer will pieces of your worldview be unconnected.is a continuous linkage of ideas. This is an ordered and coherent worldview. Too long, but when discussion literally everything how is it avoidable?

    What is the book about?

    -A Worldview

    Basically, the book is a worldview. A worldview as our own personal take on the basic aspects of the world. It is our orienting structure of thought. It is the sum of our assumptions, presumptions, or presuppositions of what is and what is not- ‘the case’. ‘The case’ as used in philosophic and logical arguments are the arguments or propositions that we take as ‘given’. It is the sum total of how we view the world. {See PAGE 4 for more on Worldview}

    - Whose worldview?

    Obviously, it is the author’s, but that is not nearly as important as its exact content. The author has found a way have a framework to build on. None of us will ever obtain the ‘Truth’. In this case, ‘Truth’ as in the sense of certainty in the way things really are, is understood to be nonsense. We will be using a small t- truth, meaning . to the best of our knowledge. Explaining why there is no certainty is part of the process in our understanding.

    Who should care about the author’s worldview?

     Only those who even begin to attempt the challenge of getting to the foundations of our understanding. Those who really are interested in the quest to find the meaning of life, for one thing. How can we find the meaning of life as opposed to a meaning of life without a deep understanding of the whole enchilada?

    -The whole enchilada?

    Yes, everything! Everything, in the sense of the mechanism, the workings of how things are, to the consequences of that understanding. We consider this attempt as an orientation, a worldview of how it could possibly be this way. Of course, we have to try and distill it all down to essentials. This is not War and Peace. It is an outline for a way to understand everything. Maybe we will sleep better that way, the unknowns will be fewer.

    What is the justification for this particular worldview?

    That will be for the reader to decide. If the reader finds that the logic is sound, the premises true (please note the little t) and the build up from the foundation reasonably substantiated based on the premises included in the foundational view, then the journey will be worth it. A justified view. Need I remind, no capital T truth here.

    Again, why should I care about this worldview? Even if it sounds plausible, so what?

    The author responds with questions of his own. Do you know what a worldview entails? Do you even have a worldview? Don’t slough off this question with “everyone has a worldview”. I am asking is it a justified and complete worldview? Does it have a framework? Does it have a solid foundation? Is it consistent, or just a haphazard collection of opinions? You may consider that ok since we cannot know Truth anyway, but that lacks integrity. Who wants to be shallow? Certainly, no one who picks up this book and completes the reading should be considered just an ordinary thinker. You will be, and maybe already are, a thinker like I am, one who wants to know the truth. Someone who needs a framework to be able to have something with which to compare other ideas not just opposing ideas. That’s what I mean by integrity. Yes, it is only a personal integrity, but in case you haven’t noticed one’s integrity or lack of it is obvious to everyone.

    So, what is the worldview that you espouse?

    Well, now for that you have to read the book.

    But, I will tell you this. The first few chapters lay out the basic position in a way I hope you can follow. No one, of course, knows the secrets of the universe. We just have only a couple of hundred thousand years’ experience with our meager tools. A brain that can analyze with a modicum of logical reasoning and organize its knowledge and experience so that there is some progress towards the ultimate goal of complete understanding.  A really good worldview!

     -UOT, what is that?

    You won’t understand the UO even after reading the explanation. I don’t either. It cannot be explained because it is an axiom. There are limitations to what can be known and the reasons for those are discussed. Human understanding without limit? Fuhgettaboutit! *n1

    UOT is in chapter one, after a bit of preparation. One cannot present the theory de novo. Everything needs context.

    -“there are no facts, only interpretations.” F. Nietzsche

    George D Conger

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

    *n1 No one who reads this book will have difficulty understanding ‘fuhgettaboutit’ after viewing this

    youtube video and If you have no sense of humor-fuhgettaboutit!

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

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PAGE 2

    HOME PAGE  (continued)

    More on the contents

    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. See copyright below.

    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 rationale 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 again, 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 needs 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.

    Some seem to not have a worldview, at all.

    Perhaps it is foolish to try and pull off writing a book for everyman. But, then again there will be a section on ‘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. 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 objective “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 a ‘resignation’, a ‘ressentiment’ (Nietzsche), or a ‘re-evaluation’ of all our values? Yes, it is 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.

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

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PAGE 3

    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. RVS

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

    Copyright  (to be registered if necessary)

    The content of the website and the forthcoming book have ideas to be copyrighted. Of specific concern is a recording of the original idea of Universal Oscillation as the fundamental process of how quantum physics can be explained; beginning at the bottom, the foundation, as ‘vacuum’, ‘ether’, or the medium that is the substratum of the physical ‘field’ of oscillation making up all of space. This is laid out in theory form including the oscillation and its consequences, namely in terms of matter and anti-mater. The spherical oscillation is described. All of this in lay language, without any new equations. Perhaps I will add one.

    As a result of the effects due to a field of universal oscillation we see that ‘space’, an abstract idea of where objects are located, is not a physical object itself. It cannot bend, or expand and contract. We see instead that necessary changes in the field, called acceleration changes, are fundamental to gravitation. Not ‘space’. A ridiculous idea left over from the old paradigm. Infinite universal oscillation explains why there is no origin to the universe. Space does not expand. BBT is also nonsense. EM radiation loses energy as it travels through the field. It is similar to inertial drag on mass. Photons have no mass but have KE equivalent to mass. Tired light, and there are at least two mechanisms at work, is true description in lay language. Thus, GRT and BBT are refuted.

    All this needs some copyright but especially the infinite spherical and universal oscillation. Call it a principle, but it is a matter of theory, perhaps fact.

    Author and copyrighter

    George D Conger March 10, 2018.

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

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PAGE 4

    Worldviews

    The Whole Enchilada (TWE) is a worldview, it is about worldviews, it has one of its own, and it concerns your worldview as well.

    A brief definition: A worldview is a particular philosophy or conception of the world.

    Here is a typical one from the www.

    What is a worldview? — …A worldview is a view of the world, used for living in the world.  A world view is a mental model of reality — a comprehensive framework of ideas & attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life,  a system of beliefs,  a system of personally customized theories about the world and how it works — with answers for a wide range of questions:

                What are humans, why we are here, and what is our purpose in life?   What are your goals for life?  When you make decisions about using time — it's the stuff life is made of — what are your values and priorities?  What can we know, and how? and with how much certainty?  Does reality include only matter/energy, or is there more?
                Some worldview questions are about God:  Can we know whether God exists?......
    *n1

    TWE worldview, in addition to being a comprehensive framework, attempts to be coherent as well. In other words, a later part will be related to an earlier part, directly or indirectly. All things can be linearly connected to the foundation. This is missing in today’s worldviews. The way in which things are connected is not clear, but can be, using TWE worldview.

    Some wordview websites want to couch things in religious terms. E.g. “Seven major worldviews:, Theism, Atheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism, Finite Godism, and Polytheism.” That is from a Christian site as you can probably guess.*n2

    Today, Nature, Naturalism, or related variations are prominent. These are views on how the world exists in some sort of a natural way, as opposed to a supernatural way. Mythologies and religions are beginning to wane. Science waxes.

    What is your worldview?  Take a moment and characterize it for yourself. Is that easy or difficult? You most likely will come up with specific views; political, such as abortion and the environment, or a moral position, but can you state it in boarder terms?

    What is the foundation of your worldview? What is its basic principle? What does it relate to? All things are relational in the physical sense.

    Where does it begin? Does it even have a beginning?

    Is it natural or supernatural? Is it based on facts, as we know them, or is it traditional and/or authoritative?

    If natural, does or can it evolve naturally?  

    Can you express it in some sort of scientific or physical way? One way to describe it is in terms of “reality” That’s a difficult word to define. Here is an attempt at defining “reality” online at https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/. Look at the one on reality and watch the short video. That one has the concept of “nothing” at its base. TWE will dispel that idea.

    The Whole Enchilada is about everything. It is a worldview. It is an attempt to broaden all of our worldviews. It has a specific one to use as an example that others can use if they like. Which brings us to the oscillation theory.

    Universal Oscillation Theory is titled that way because, first of all it is a theory. Secondly, it is supported by a good interpretation of known physics and thirdly, it is applied to everything. The universe and everything in it.

    The book proceeds through use of maxims and reason (logic) to develop an outline that can be related to phenomena at all levels of existence. This part now gets a bit complex. All levels of existence. What does that mean? Example: You are reading a monitor. It is “real”, but what makes it a monitor? Glass, plastic, molecules, particles known as atoms? What makes up particles, and so on? Each of the proceeding can be understood as some sort of a phenomena at a more basic level. Ah! Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to relate all of those in a stratified way? That’s the idea. A massive collection of related parts, from the base to the apex. Everything comprehensible in a pattern or stratification of sorts. Levels of existence.

    By showing how the underlying physics ties everything together it then proceeds by considering consequences of the theory, and then a few reminders on how things work, such as evolution in terms of the whole universe and then more specifically at the biologic level.

    There is a chapter on how the brain works and an explanation of what conscious is and isn’t. It covers worldviews in general, examines difficulties with language and then a little on practical matters such as politics.

    A positive takeaway for someone finishing The Whole Enchilada is that a good foundational worldview allows our understanding to have a solid framework. What I mean is that all parts of one’s worldview can be and should be coherent with all the others. Coherence is a goal. In epistemology, correspondence and coherence are the most important aspects of what “truth” might be.

    There will be some philosophy included. A philosophy glossary is nearby in this site.

    And perhaps we should understand that what we are doing, myself as the author and you as the reader, is expressing a metaphysics. Metaphysics*n3 is philosophy speak for worldview.

    It derives from Aristotle. His works were organized by Andronicus {of Rhodes} in 1st cent. Rome from several libraries in Rome. Aristotle’s original lectures and other writings were lost by the Peripatetic School. I believe the surviving attributions were all from notes by students. We are lucky that Andronicus collected and organized them. Aristotle’s view of nature at that time was collected into a book named Physics. A word derived from the Greek-physis {growth}. His writings about things not expressible in scientific and observable ways was placed into the book Metaphysics. It means beyond or alongside Physics.

    Metaphysics is our way of trying to express ideas that can’t be known. Our theories for sure but also you will learn that all of our thinking, at some level, is speculative. This is fleshed out in the book. A large part of metaphysics is Ontology, or “Being”. “Being” in the sense of what does exist and where did it come from? What is reality?

    So, if one accepts the UOT as a model, or a similar one from our less speculative science, not theories like Big Bang etc., this can be a foundation for a coherent worldview. That should be helpful to most of the audience.

    So, once again. Do you have a coherent and structured metaphysics, or worldview?

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

    *n1 https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/index.html

    *n2 https://sites.google.com/site/funwithleadershipnworldviews1/website-builder

    *n3 Metaphysics, briefly, is concerned with things that cannot be known in the way nature, or science can be known. It is not physics. -Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta-(μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter. –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

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

    Many footnotes. Yes, sometimes even the footnotes can have footnotes. There will be extensive references on most items that may be new to the audience. There is an appendix that includes a philosophy glossary (seen here as well, in the 3 Ps under philosophy) and will be a bit of a physics glossary as well. To keep the book slim, there will be more material on the website, so that between the book, appendix and this website you will not have to hunt far and wide. Not to mention, the quick www.references for your browser.

    April 30, 2018

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