Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs) versus “nothing”, Big Bang, anti-matter, dark matter/energy, spacetime

In my book 2022, I developed my EDWs approach about the first epistemological world (EW), that is about Hypernothing (or EW0). In this work, I will not repeat many details about this EW, but I would like to introduce new ideas (some of them being in contradiction to my previous ideas from my book published on Amazon in 2022).
Let me start with the main ideas. I am convinced there were many EDWs before the appearance of our “universe”. In correspondence to the EW0 (Hypernothing), many EDWs (the EW1a-n) have appeared in different “ED places/periods”. In this way, I reject the idea that from “nothing” appeared “matter and anti-matter” (or the “EW1” and respectively the “EW-1”, as I wrote in my book 2022). My new idea is the following: in correspondence to the EW0, there appeared many EDWs (the EW1a-n), therefore, we do not need to introduce any EW-1 (or antimatter); on the contrary, in this article, I reject completely the existence of antimatter (any kind of antimatter). With this rejection, I preserve the principle of “the conservation of energy” since one EW does not exist for any EDW: any EW among these EW1a-n did not exist for the EW0. Thus, introducing many first EDWs, I do not contradict the “principle of conservation energy”. Maybe, there have been “places” where the EDWs have appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW0 even now. Surely, there were other “universes” that appeared in other places (this being the old idea of “multiverses”). It would be completely WRONG to consider there was only “one Big Bang” and only “one universe” which appeared (13.82 billions years ago). I was also convinced (no proof) that there were many Big Bangs at the same time (13.82 billions years ago, for avoiding Guth’s “inflation”), but also many Big Bangs which appeard “earlier” and “later” in EDWs. Therefore, the line of EDWs and different “universes” is somehow like this one:

• EW0 (Hypernothing) HC (hypercorrespond) to the EW1a-n.
• These EDWs corresponded to (C) EW2b-m … (C) pre-Big Bangs-EW (C) many BBs (in the same area to avoid Guth’s inflation, 13.82 billions years ago) (C) plasma-EW (C) field-EW (C) micro-EW (C) macro-EW (C) life/mind-EW.
• “Big Bangs” (ED Big Bangs or Big Bangs corresponding to the same EW) happened in different places, in different times. Different “universes” (like our “universe”) have appeared in different places, in different periods; all these “universes” are in the same “spatiotemporal framework”.

Because the Big Bangs (that we have already known) existed 13.82 billions years ago, other Big Bangs existed earlier and later than this period… Probable, other Big Bangs appear just now in different places or in EDWs. Because of these many Big Bangs in different places/periods, it is quite normal to believe that “our universe” did appear total ACCIDENTALLY! Therefore, it was nothing special with the appearance of “our universe”. There have been many “universes” and many EDWs which have appeared after many Big Bangs (in “our universe” and other universes) or after many ED Big Bangs (in EDWs). So, according to the EDWs perspective, we already know that 13.82 billions years ago, many Big Bangs happened in the same area, earlier, at that moment or later.

I also believe, it would be totally wrong to consider that the entire “energy/matter” was contained in the “Big Bang”. As I indicated in my work 2022, the “energy” of the “universe” has been revealed (and not “produced”) since the Big Bangs (13.82 billion years ago) until our days. For instance, the entire “energy” of electromagnetic field was not contained within Big Bangs: this “energy” has been revealed (not produced) 380,000 years after Big Bangs until today. It did not mean that the “entire” electromagnetic field existed before Big Bangs or the “entire” field existed immediately after Big Bang in an “infinitezimal point” . In relationship to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW (for instance), the field-EW did not exist. My opinion is that this idea (the universe started as a single point, an “infinitezimal point”, all energy/matter being concentrated in a “singularity”) is totally wrong (even absurd). As I indicated in my work 2022 (and other works), the field/matter (for instance, the electromagnetic field) has not been created from an “infinitesimal point” (a “singularity”), but this “field” had been revealed 380,000 years after Big Bangs until today. Moreover, as we indicated in 2016, space and time (spacetime) could not have any ontological status: any kind of ontological status of spacetime would produce strong ontological contradictions. We have different “chains of EDWs”; one of these chains is the “standard chain of EDWs”:

EW0 hyperC EW1a C EW2 C EDWs… C pre-Big-Bangs-EW C field-EW C micro-EW C macro-EW C life/mind-EW. (C means “corresponded”)

There are hpyercorrespondences betweent the EW0 and all the EW1a-n just because the EW0 is “nothing” with its hyperontology which hypercorresponds to the ontologies of EW1a-n: the EW0 directly hypercorresponds to the EW1a-n, and indirectly corresponds to the EW2 or the macro-EW or the life/mind-EW. We could claim that the field-EW (electromagnetic field always with speed c) is the “absolute framework” of thinking for microparticles and macroparticles. The electromagnetic field did not appear from an infinitezimal point. That point corresponded to nothing; therefore, electromagnetic field did not appear (in its EW), but it has been revealed from that point (any point today) in all directions.

Why do I need to use “hypercorrespondences”? Because the EW0 hypercorresponded to the EW1a-n. What does “hypercorresponded” exactly mean? When only the EW hyperexisted, any of EW among the EDW1a-n did not exist. Hyperexistence means that the EW0 did not exist, it did not have any ontology but a hyperontology. This hyperontology is given by the fact that all the EDW1a-n “represented” the EW0, i.e., “nothing” since none of these EDWs existed and the EW0 is “nothing”. So, only the EW0 hyperexisted, i.e., being “nothing”. The EW0 has always hyper-existed, even now this EW hyper-exists, but humans cannot detect “nothing” at all since “our universe” is “full” of the electromagnetic field. Can we say that EW1a-n “pre-existed inside” the EW0? Clearly, this statement would be a pseudo-judgment. Why? Before each of these EDWs appeared, all the EDW1a-n “represented” (hyper-corresponded to) the EW0.
We can make an analogy between EW0-EW1a-n and white color-ROYGBIV. “Together”, all colors are “white color”, a kind of “no color” (i.e., “nothing”). For these “united” colors, there were just an epistemological status, without any kind of ontological status: no color existed within this unification. “At the beginning”, when there was only the EW0, each EW did not exist in itself; “together”, all the EW1a-n represented “nothing” which hypercorresponded to (represented) the EW0. Later, each of these EDWs appeared only in itself (not all in the same “place”, at the same “time”) in the hypercorrespondence to the EW0. So, we could talk about the “hyperontology” because, before their appearances, all the EDW1a-n “hyper-represented” the EW0. It would mean that all these EDWs did not exist; together, all these EDWs do not exist even today since together these EDWs represent “nothing”, i.e., the EW0. Each of these EDWs (the EW1a-n) accidentally appeared only in itself and for itself. Each EW among these EW1a-n appeared in the hypercorrespondences to the EW0. Any EW (among the EDW1a-n) just revealed itself (for itself) accidentally (but always in the hypercorrespondence to the EW0). Any EW (among all the EDW1a-n) did not exist before being revealed, any EW did not exist before this revealing. All these EDWs represented EW0, but none of these EDWs existed before EW0 (at the beginning when there was only the EW0 which hyper-was). An epistemological entity belongs to a particular EW. Each particular EW exists only in itself, it does not exist for any EDW. It does not exist for the EW0 (which does not have any ontology!).

Within this new framework, we can indicate how many EDWs has accidentally appeared through direct or indirect hypercorrespondences to EW0 (the Hypernothing). In this way, we exclude any other alternative (like “God” or the “regress ad infinitum”). Essentially, it is this notion of “accidentally”. What does it mean, more exactly, that “an EW accidentally appeared”? For instance, the life-EW appeared accidentally in correspondences to certain macro-entitites which belonged to the macro-EW. It means that different macro-entities were arranged in different ways, more or less accidentally: there were some macro-laws which determined these arrangements, but we cannot claim there was a “pre-determined plan/scheme” for these macro-arangements (which corresponded to “life”). Such arrangements happened accidentally 3.5 billions years ago (or so)… In different periods, there happened accidentally arragements of certain macro-entities and “lives” appearred as EDWs but in correspondences to these arrangements of macroentities. There was no plan for the appearances of “lives”, this is the meaning of “accidentally”. There were many accidentally arrangements, in general many of them being within an organizational framework (without producing something new like “life”). When these arrangements passed an “epistemological-ontological threshold” , “life” (as an EDW) appeared in correspondences to those macro-arrangements (the macro-EW). The pasing from the “organizational threshold” to the “epistemological-ontological threshold” happened accidentally.

Could we talk about the “pre-existences” of EW1a-n? No: before these EDWs appeared, there was nothing (the EW0) and nothing else. The EDWs appeared totally accidentally; we need to believe in this “absolute accidentally”, otherwise we need to introduce, for instance, “God” in equation or the “pre-existence status” of the EDWs, but I totally rejected the existence of God (see my article at my webpage) and any kind of “pre-existences”. The appearance of any EW happened accidentally, no more. The EW1a-n did not exist, somehow, before the first Big Bangs; they did not have any “pre-existences” status. Always, the EW0 has been nothing and nothing else. Any EW among the EW1a-n appeared totally accidentally and nothing else.

In this new context, but also within the EDWs perspective, we have to reject the idea that from “nothing” appeared “matter” and “antimatter” (equal quantities). In reality, the “antimatter” did not exist at all. There were the EW0 and direct hypercorrespodences to the EW1a-n, but these EDWs did not exist for the EW0, so we do not have any rejection of the conservation principle of something (energy/matter) and nothing: nothing (the EW0) remained nothing, the EW1a (for instance) did not exist for the EW0, so there is no ontological contradiction at all. I emphasize that my old idea from my previous work (2022) that “the EW0 hypercorresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1” is totally wrong: in the new context (the hypercorrespondences to many EW1a-n), I do not need the postulate the existence of the “EW-1”; in fact, I have to reject completely the existence of any kind of “anti-matter”. So, “antimatter” is quite a wrong notion within the EDWs perspective.

Working within the unicorn world, the physicists needed to introduce the “antimatter” for preserving the “principle of conservation energy”: it was believed that from “nothing”, matter was separated from anti-matter (even if nobody could explained how and why this “separation” took place!). Through the EDWs perspective, because of the correspondence between any two EDWs, I strongly indicate that “anti-matter” did not exist. In my previous work (2022), I introduced the correspondences between the EW0 and the EW1 and the EW-1 (last EW being a kind of “anti-matter”). Because there was only a correspondence (no ontology) between EW0 and EW1, I was forced to maintain the “anti-matter” in my equation. However, now, in this new context, I do not need to introduce EW-1 (or “anti-matter”), I do not need the “existence of the antimatter”, so within the EDWs perspective, I reject the existence of EW-1. If the EW0 hypercorresponded only to one EDW (for instance, the EW1), maybe I would have needed to introduce EW-1 (as “anti-matter” for the EW1). In reality, the EW0 corresponded to many EDWs (the EDW1a-n) which accidentally appeared in different “places”/ “periods”.

In our previous works (Vacariu and Vacariu 2016, 2020), I rejected the existence of dark matter/energy in the macro-EW. Dark matter is the results of interactions among ED entities which belong to the mega-EW (a “higher” EW than the macro-EW). In 2022, I introduced a new alternative for dark energy: the distances between galaxies extend continuously because of correspondences between planets, microparticles and electromagnetic waves: indirectly, through correspondences, because of the speed c of electromagnetic field, microparticles continuously increase their speed and thus planets/galaxies continuously increases their speed. So, these correspondences produce, indirectly, the expansion of galaxies with an accelerate rate. Obviously, because of their masses, microparticle/macroparticles will never reach the speed c. In our work 2020, we rejected the existence of “spacetime”: because of the correspondence between electromagnetic field (presents everywhere), spacetime could not exist since we cannot place two entities (“electromagnetic field” and “spacetime”) in the same “place”, at the same “time”/period.
Conclusion: In this work, I indicate that we have to reject “antimatter” (or the EW-1 from my perspective published in my work 2022) and its “separation from matter”. This kind of separation would require an “external click”. Who did produce such “click”, God or it did accidentally happen? God could not exist (see my work), therefore we could claim it happened accidentally. Why? Having only one such event (the appearance of one “universe”) which did happen accidentally, such “accidentally event” become quite suspicious. If we extend to a much larger number these “accidental events” (the appearances of EW1a-n), it result that these accidentally events are not “absolute accidentally” (it would require “God” or a “special click”), but become something inevitable. Moreover, if we accept the “anti-matter”, we need to introduce many anti-matter-EDWs, and this would be quite absurd. Because there were the EW1a-n and because the EW1a did not exist for any EDW, I do not need to introduce the existence of “antimatter” (the EW-1, for instance). Anyway, within the EDWs perspective, the cosmologists have to change many essential concepts of Cosmology.

Bibliography
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2022), “A New Philosophical Paradigm of Thinking for Particular Sciences: Physics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Biology” in Thinking: Bioengineering of Science and Art (Nima Rezeai and Amene Saghazadeh, editors), Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Vacariu Gabriel (2022), Could be ‘Nothing’ the Origin of ‘Everything’ (The metaphysics of the Hypernothing), Amazon https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gabriel+vacariu&crid=PHCQGSZT2VDJ&fbcl id=IwAR3eKCU9Q1EnQz6FT5SEMkfGGCLqCWhPHWxEUGdFKx0- XdE9tfAKYXp9Mb4&sprefix=gabriel+vacariu%2Caps%2C169&ref=nb_sb_ nos s_1
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Gabriel (2020) “Rethinking ‘dark matter’ within the epistemologically different worlds (EDWs) perspective”, in Cosmology 2020 – The Current State, (ed.) Michael Smith (CEO, IntechOpen, United Kingdom),
https://www.intechopen.com/search?term=cosmology%202020
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2020), Physics overwritten in a new perspective: ”Epistemologically Different Worlds”, Meridiane Print
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2019), The Metaphysics of Epistemologically Different Worlds, Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2017) From Hypernothing to Hyperverse: EDWs, Hypernothing, Wave and Particle, Elementary Particles, Thermodynamics, and Einstein’s Relativity Without “Spacetime”, Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2016), Dark matter and Dark Energy, Space and Time, and Other pseudo-notions in Cosmology, Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (2016) Illusions of Human Thinking: on Concepts of Mind, Reality, and Universe in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Physics (English and Germany), Springer Publishing Company (This book has been published in Romanian in 2014: Lumi epistemologic diferite – Noua Paradigma de Gandire (in engl.: Epistemologically Different Worlds - The New Paradigm of Thinking), Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (2021), “Nothing” (the origin of “everything”?), energy, matter and dark energy within the Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs) perspective”, Timpul Journal
Vacariu Gabriel (2014), More Troubles with Cognitive Neuroscience. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Hyperverse, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2008) Epistemologically Different Worlds, (in English) Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2007), Epistemologically Different Worlds (Ph.D. thesis) (EIPRS and UIPA scholarships). The thesis was submitted at Graduate Centre, UNSW on 06.09.2007 and posted on the internet by the staff of University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia) on 21.09.2007 and then on 29.04.2008,
https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo- explore/fulldisplay?vid=UNSWORKS&docid=unsworks_5143&context=L
Vacariu Gabriel (2006), “The epistemologically different worlds perspective and some pseudo-notions from quantum mechanics”, Analele Universitatii Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2005), “Mind, brain and epistemologically different worlds”, Synthese Review: 143/3: pp. 515-548