 
### NOW and the Weltanschauung of Government Men

By

Gary J. Davies

Published by Gary J. Davies at Smashwords

NOW and the Weltanschauung of Government Men

Copyright 2014 Gary J. Davies

### Smashwords Edition License Notes

Thank you for downloading this free e-book. Although this is a free book, it remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Attributed quotes are permitted and welcomed however, including those used to support reviews. If you enjoy this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy at Smashwords.com (and affiliated sites), where they can also discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support!

****

Revision 1 Note

This September 2015 revision incorporates editorial corrections/improvements and refines and somewhat expands some discussions (by thirty percent/six thousand words, including quantum mechanics discussion improvements) for significant improvement, but there are no fundamental changes in content or viewpoint other than the fact that NOW has been defined as the acronym for Now One World.

****

### Contents

1. Introduction

2. Background and Key References

3. The Max Tegmark Multiverse Views Vs Mine

4. My Weltanschauung

5, Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men

6. Conclusions

****

### NOW and the Weltanschauung of Government Men

1. Introduction

I have recently begun self-publishing fantasy/science fiction EBooks using the Smashwords independent author/self-publishing website, including the novels Government Men and its prequel Secrets of Goth Mountain. Certain events in those novels reflect concepts of physics and associated underlying interpretive philosophy. The novels broach such topics as parallel universes, doppelgangers, near-instantaneous travel through space/time, and psychic/magic 'tricks' such as telepathy, psychic far-seeing of possible future events, teleportation, shape-shifting, and telekinesis. As the author I attempted to provide a veneer of plausibility for many of these phenomena by suggesting an underlying pseudo-science/philosophy framework within each novel, without getting too deep into explanations in the midst of novel plot exposition.

It occurred to me that through the wonderful self-publishing and distribution services provided by Smashwords I could even further self-indulge myself by more explicitly discussing the speculative philosophical/scientific framework behind my fictional writings, and making that discussion publicly available to anyone that may be interested in such torturous topics. Out of approximately seven billion Earth humans there could be two or three of you, I estimate. (Whichever one you are, thanks for reading!)

Naturally in addition to contributing to a huge electronic Ebook slush pile, I also irrationally hope that this discussion will stimulate incredible additional interest in my fictional EBooks. Note that I have cleverly used the title and book-cover of my novel Government Men in the title and book cover of this booklet! Doubtless after publishing this discussion all of my EBooks will fly off their electronic book-shelves, creating trillions of bits of electronic data exchange that will bring the internet to its digital knees! This work will also unfortunately expose my finite limitations and perhaps ignorance in various areas of science and philosophy, but that can't be helped. Each individual must for practical reasons form a weltanschauung, despite all such personal limitations.

Originally when I started this project I was going to produce a very brief note that focused only on some of the pseudo-physics involved in my novels. It could have perhaps been titled The Pseudo-Science of Government Men. The actual end-product indeed includes such matters, but it has morphed to address much broader topics also. I found that I couldn't coherently discuss the science of my novels without first espousing considerable supporting material. The discussion of the NOW (Now One World) concept even became so prominent and intriguing that 'NOW' was included in the title. The discussion grew further to address parts of my weltanschauung beyond the science hinted at in my novels, including even the identification of 'pet peeves' and other fun topics. In sum I ended up outlining my own personal weltanschauung and comparing it with what is in my novels. Such over-indulgence is what comes of the ability to self-publish, but it is also perhaps due to a genuine psychological (pathological?) need to express thoughts to the world at large - or at least to my two or three anticipated readers.

### ### SPOILER ALERT! You may wish to read the novels Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men BEFORE you read sections 5 and 6 of this work, which discusses 'secrets' that unfold in those novels! ###

On the other hand, you may wish to skip most of my ranting and go straight to the discussion of my novels in sections 5 and 6. You are in control readers; read what you wish!

2. Background and Key References

Weltanschauung

The wonderful German word weltanschauung is one that I first encountered more than four decades ago as an undergraduate student at what is now Gannon University in my hometown of Erie Pennsylvania. Gannon, a Catholic school, as part of its core curriculum required that every student take several classes in philosophy and theology that at the time seemed useless but have over the years proven to be of great personal value to the formation of my weltanschauung. Thank you Gannon!

At dictionary-dot-reference-dot-com (based on the Random House Dictionary, copyright Random House, Inc. 2014), the delightfully useful word 'weltanschauung' used in philosophical circles is described as:

"Welt·an·schau·ung [velt-ahn-shou-oong]; noun, German [literally: world-view]; a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it."

Every thinking person has one, though they might not realize that they do so, or know of the nifty German word that perhaps best describes it. Philosophers and some scientists, theologians, and many others spend a great deal of effort consciously developing their world views, others may seldom directly think about the topic. For many people their world views are simplistic and for many they are to a significant extent faith, culture, and family based.

I try to keep my world-view as observation based and science based as practicable. However science certainly does not have all the answers, or even directly address what for most people are the most important questions. For the comprehensive world-view needed to navigate through life in a practical way, the thoughtful individual must reach considerably beyond the bounds of science.

Science

Science however, provides a uniquely legitimate source of knowledge, as it is based on carefully collected and logically examined facts/observations and the consensus agreement of many highly intelligent and thoughtful scientists world-wide. Scientists are of course human beings complete with quirks, limitations, biases, and faults like everyone else, but nevertheless the most widely accepted scientific theories provide the best available human knowledge for those aspects of the universe that they apply to, as they are the result of the collective efforts of hundreds or even thousands of scientists over many years of effort. Therefore it is reasonable that any credible world view of any thoughtful individual start with and necessarily be compatible with well-established science theory.

Regrettably much of the public at large does not understand science very well. In part this is the fault of science itself, as communication with the general public by scientists is often either overly simplistic and vague or too overly laden with specialized scientific jargon to be understood by anyone outside the particular specialized field of science involved. Many reporters of science news also lack the ability to competently bridge the gap between science and the general public.

Although it is often correctly noted that the language of science is mathematics, around each mathematical scientific theory there is necessarily a set of verbally expressed definitions, descriptions, and procedures that are needed for humans to 'understand' the science theory and communicate that understanding. Science theories are usually expressed as mathematical equations consisting of terms that have precise physical meanings and corresponding verbally-supported definitions, such as 'mass', 'time', 'electric charge', or 'the number of male humans living in Philadelphia that contracted flu last year'. All terms must be defined accurately such that the theory (or speculation or hypothesis) is understood by anyone seeking to understand and test/verify the hypothesis, or to apply the verified theory in some form of technology. The terms/variables must all be quantifiable/ measurable by means of standard procedures and instrumentation that make use of several physically related terms/variables. The terms become a familiar lexicon used within the community of researchers to which they apply. Even the so-called 'soft' social sciences define acceptable terms and associated methodologies to be followed.

Physics is the branch of natural science which studies the most fundamental and 'simple' physical entities and relationships found in the universe. As such, it might be expected that after centuries of physics research, the physics should by now be settled, completed science, and that there is near universal agreement by physicists on physics theories and what they mean. Interestingly, that is not the case. In physics as in all branches of science, each new generation of researchers digs deeper into the phenomena of our universe and continues to change and refine resulting theory and associated interpretations/implications. For every 'answer' found by science there are always more 'questions' to address.

The Quantum World

The quantum mechanics (QM) theories of physics have confounded people for nearly a century. Verbal descriptions/interpretations of QM remain controversial even after decades of debate. Though QM as a 'how' description of what physically happens became well established and verified in the first half of the twentieth century, interpretation remains problematic.

To sum things up, the behavior of the universe at sub-microscopic scales has been found by physicists to be surprisingly 'odd' when compared to what is observed to occur in the large-scale, 'classical' macroscopic world that we can most directly perceive and therefore most comfortably deal with in our daily lives. At the scale of atomic and sub-atomic particles both 'particle-like' and 'wave-like' probabilistic behaviors are found which defy classical physics and 'common sense' notions of behavior.

Reality is 'chunky'/quantized: matter comes in particle 'chunks' and events happen discretely with specific energies and outcomes. At the same time when viewed closely matter also exhibits 'wave like' behavior whereby even particles under some circumstances seem to be spread about in space/time. A wave/particle duality exists. There are also 'spooky actions at a distance' that confound traditional notions of causality.

Although experiments show that phenomena are very accurately addressed by quantum mechanics, there is a wide range of what is often termed 'philosophical interpretation' when verbal descriptions/'stories' are sought to translate quantum mechanics findings into the language of our every-day macroscopic lives. In summary for dealing with behavior on the molecular scale and smaller, quantum mechanics is a very well established theory of physics for which there are many very different philosophical interpretations.

Quantum mechanics is in essence a kinematical theory that much like Newton's famous second law of motion describes how chunks of matter behave when subjected to forces. Most players/particles in the quantum realm of the tiny are identified and characterized by the Standard Model of particle physics. While quantum mechanics provides a 'how' rule of kinematical behavior for the tiny, the Standard Model describes 'what' the tiny entities are and 'how' they attract, repel, and combine with each other in the seething, chaotic, sub-atomic world. Fundamental forces, particles, and their interactions are described, including information on electrons, protons, neutrons and the sub-particles that form them.

However the Standard Model is more a characterization of quirky players and behavior than a truly fundamental explanation. Hypotheses such as string 'theory' attempt to explain sub-atomic physics at a more fundamental level. The simple visualization of sub-atomic particles in string theory is that they are composed of incredibly tiny vibrating coils/strings of energy which form and behave in accordance with complex mathematical relationships involving many dimensions in addition to three positional space dimensions (often using Cartesian coordinates x y, and z) and one time dimension (t) that we more directly perceive.

Science and philosophy

Verbal stories/interpretations are used to describe/interpret science theories. However it should be pointed out that many scientists get along quite well in their fields without worrying much about verbal descriptions and especially 'philosophical' interpretations/stories. As long as the 'formal' terms of the equations of theory are well defined and the mathematical theory accurately models behavior, they don't concern themselves with 'philosophical' interpretation. After all, verbal descriptions using inherently fuzzy words move away from the concise mathematical formulation of the theory which precisely describes behavior. They prefer to deal with behavior and associated theory using only their well-established lexicon of scientific terms. Besides, most science, including even most areas of physics, can be fruitfully pursued both theoretically and experimentally without addressing underlying philosophical assumptions and issues. As a matter of practicality, the utilitarian focus of most science is on behavioral quantitative 'how' questions rather than on the perhaps more ultimate qualitative 'why' questions most often pursued by philosophy.

I suspect that there are additional reasons why many scientists tend to avoid philosophical interpretation. First, many scientists think that all theories in science are merely 'models' that approximate behaviors rather than mathematics directly attributable to the phenomena themselves. For these positivists, what is to be gained from science effort is improved models and accuracy of models rather than a fundamental understanding of the underlying physical reality. This is particularly true for highly complex systems and situations (for example when studying macroscopic human behavior). In addition, many scientists view philosophy as something people used to do centuries ago, before science emerged to 'replace' it.

I disagree with both of those views. When it comes to the fundamentals of physics, math is far more than a mere model. For all basic phenomena found in nature specific math has been found to be _exactly_ what the underlying reality _must_ follow. That has simply _got_ to be more than mere coincidence! For fundamental phenomena such as those studied in physics, math rules! It follows then that a perfect science theory should ideally _exactly_ match the underlying math that the phenomenon itself somehow directly applies/follows. The philosophical conclusion is that at the level of the basic, fundamental theories of physics, the math is more than a mere model that provides only an approximation of reality - the math in a very real sense _is_ the reality!

But reality is also much more than math. It is specific math that somehow has material reality added to it. We can represent mathematical relationships by writing down equations and computing and graphing computational results, but that does not make them real in the sense that our universe is real. The reality has somehow happened/come to exist along with its attendant math-following physical properties. Religious people attribute this remarkable fact to God or gods, atheists often attribute it to a universal necessity for math/logic of unknown/unknowable origins, and agnostics admit they don't have firm answers to fundamental questions of the origin and sustainment of reality.

It is a fundamental finding of science that reality seems to be both holistic and local. It is holistic since every bit of the universe seems to be influenced (however tenuously) by the rest of the universe, through for example general relativity and quantum mechanics. Space/ time/ matter/ energy seems to have been altogether created together at the big bang and it all remains interrelated - though ever more tenuously as it spreads out in expanding space/time. However, somehow all parts of the universe are locally self-composed and defined and 'know' how to mathematically behave with the entire rest of the universe including those local bits of it with which it most obviously directly interacts. How/why that is so are central unresolved questions/issues of physics and natural philosophy.

One thing that has been shown by science is that a huge quantity of energy is typically involved in particle changing/creation events, such that titanic machines called particle accelerators are needed to provide the violent high-energy circumstances typically required for primal events such as atomic nucleus rearrangement and particle generation to occur - circumstances created by accelerators that mimic 'naturally' occurring high-energy conditions such as those found in the interior of suns and near the primal big bang event.

Natural philosophy is the rational pursuit of knowledge about the world/universe. Philosophy is more useful than ever; with science both a subset of philosophy and a starting point for further philosophical inquiry in areas where science has not (yet) reached and areas which will likely never be reached by science. In addition, a sound philosophical outlook may help to guide scientific research and aid in the public understanding of science. What is ultimately sought is of course truth - factually correct statements/theories about reality.

Aside from natural philosophy and science there are of course other forms of knowledge and sought after truth. For example mathematics studies logical relationships and properties between entities which don't necessarily exist physically. Ethics seeks to rationally determine what is right and wrong human behavior. Theology seeks to rationally make sense of religion. Art seeks to embody, reflect, and evoke aesthetic beauty and feelings. These are all very valuable pursuits that seek their own flavors of truth. However what distinguishes natural science and philosophy is that they seek the truths of physical reality.

It is the job of scientists to observe the world around them and devise theories that explain how the universe works. The current set of most widely accepted scientific theories provide humanity's current 'best' and most precise description of how the universe works. Particularly over the last few centuries, science has become a gigantic, defining enterprise for humanity. World-wide, many thousands of scientists struggle daily to improve human knowledge of how things happen in the universe. In addition to aesthetic satisfaction gained due to that understanding, science is often applied beneficially through technology. Computers, airplanes, medicine, automobiles, etc. - all such applications owe their existence to science. Of course weapons, poisons, and other nasty things are also attributable to science.

Perhaps just as important, fact-based science provides a firm basis for the weltanschauungs of thoughtful human beings. Other influences inevitably come into play and are actually needed to complete a comprehensive world view, but science provides the most sensible starting point.

We live in exciting times in which scientific understanding is expanding and evolving daily. Newly discovered species including plants and insects are discovered, characterized and named. 'New' sub-atomic particles are discovered. How the brain functions is further understood. 'New' dinosaurs are being discovered in the fossil record. Ever more powerful computers model complex behavior. New planets including even 'Earth-like' planets are being discovered almost daily. For all practical purposes there is no end in sight for the science enterprise, and no end to potential technological benefits such as new electronics, machines, medicines, and foods.

Viewed from the wider frame of reference of philosophy, which seeks knowledge and understanding of everything by every appropriate rational means available, science is an immensely successful branch of natural philosophy that has through careful application of logic to observation and collective enterprise has discovered and verified the mathematical nature of the universe as expressed in scientific theories. Science has enjoyed such enormous success that for those issues accessible to it, science should rightfully be relied upon to provide the best answers currently available. For the vast array of issues beyond the reach of science, recourse to other rational methods of inquiry including 'traditional' philosophy is necessary.

Theory

In science the term 'theory' refers to a well verified, precise description of how interacting physical entities behave together in the universe. Unfortunately this term is often used loosely even by scientists, by people reporting on science, and especially by the general public.

The difficulty with the word 'theory' arises primarily because in its common usage by the public, the term usually refers to an _unsubstantiated_ speculation/idea. This is in large measure the opposite of what the term 'theory' means in science. In science the currently most well established theory about a phenomenon is the very best observation/fact-supported, _well substantiated_ explanation that science has with regard to how the phenomenon works. An established scientific theory has been convincingly verified to be factually accurate by an army of careful researchers. A science theory is not something that lacks verification; it is something that has been verified as carefully as is humanly possible through years of research by legions of scientists.

The enormous contrast between the scientific and common usages of the word 'theory' greatly muddies and mangles communications and understanding between scientists and the general public. Additionally, politically and/or religiously motivated science deniers/detractors take advantage of this difficulty to incite public opinion against selected theories/findings of science, while hypocritically continuing to ride in airplanes, take medicines, and use computers. This is intellectually reprehensible and damaging to society. To say for example that evolution is " _only_ a theory" is to display enormous ignorance and damage public scientific understanding and subsequent world views and behavior.

Science/public communications are further degraded by the loose way that the term 'theory' is often used by science as reported by news agencies, and even by scientists themselves. Science thrives on speculation, but should more properly use the term 'hypothesis' to label ideas that though testable have not matured to the status of well-established theory. The science process is self-correcting, however there is no absolute 'gate keeper' to categorize authoritatively what is speculation (an unverified notion/guess) Vs hypothesis (a testable/verifiable speculation, perhaps with some preliminary verification completed) Vs theory (a well-tested/factually verified hypothesis with consensus agreement/validity/correctness agreed to by much of the science community) Vs well established theory (theory currently agreed to by virtually all scientists in the associated field to be the 'best' theory for the phenomena being addressed).

Using this useful though perhaps still too-simplistic hierarchy of categories, ideas such as 'string theory' in physics should perhaps more aptly be labeled 'string speculation', which admittedly sounds a bit lame, but use of more precise terminology might reduce public confusion over what the term 'theory' actually means in science.

News reports that 'a new scientific study has found that this or that relationship is true' should often instead explain that 'a new scientific study lends credence to the hypothesis that this or that relationship is true.' Only through multiple independent studies and widespread agreement among science peers can a science theory be established. Even when news stories are properly stated, they are often re-reported carelessly. In short the term 'theory' is applied too fast and loose even by scientists and those reporting on science, and is conflated with the terms 'hypothesis' and 'speculation'.

More clear input from the science community on how well established a theory is would be useful to the establishment of improved public understanding of science. For example that the Earth is pretty much an oblate spheroid is beyond even 'well-established theory' in terms of certitude; it is established perhaps to the level of accepted 'fact' or 'law'. Similarly, that evolution of life on Earth occurred and is continuing to occur is also a super-well-established theory, though the evolving 'tree of life' has obscure branches as yet not fully characterized, and further understanding of the several specific mechanisms by which evolution occurs are still actively being researched. The global warming hypothesis has inconveniently became theory sometime over the last couple of decades, though it does not enjoy anything close to the level of certitude and understanding ascribable (for example) to evolution, key evolution mechanisms, or the oblate spheroid shape of the Earth.

Since news outlets often provide news about science without providing much precision as to how well established what they are reporting is in the science community, it is often left to the reader 'to read between the lines' on this issue. A scientist within the specific field of science being reported on may be able to read between the lines fairly accurately. Most readers do not have the background to accurately read between the lines of a science article.

Ignorance and sloppiness in reporting is politically exploited and intentionally propagated by those who would distort and discard science whenever it suits them. Science is 'cherry picked' on the basis of misguided politics and religion. As a result evolution, one of the most well verified theories in existence, is doubted by many Americans and too often held to be no better verified than Creationism (a purely religious idea without legitimate supporting science) or Intelligent Design (pseudo-science without standing in the science community).

Global warming is similarly denied by many. Vaccinations are avoided by many. Concerns about genetically modified food are exaggerated. In summary good science based on actual factual evidence interpreted as carefully as is humanly possible is recklessly maligned and discarded by many, to the peril of all. Yes, people should be skeptical and have intellectual and religious freedom, but not the freedom to be stupid to the extent that public policy, health, and education are degraded to the detriment of all. Skepticism is a very good thing, but denial in the face of overwhelming evidence-based scientific research is not.

Another source of confusion (for both science and the public) is the fact that many important phenomena lay at the edges or beyond the edges of observational capability. When beyond the possibility of 'experimental' verification in a 'laboratory' setting can an explanation ever be more than speculation? Can it properly be termed hypothesis or theory?

A word on the term 'experiment' here: experiments in science are not confined to take place in laboratories. One favorite 'trick' of science detractors is to dismiss a science theory because the phenomena involved took place in the past or over long periods of time and cannot be directly observed as it happens in real-time. Such a restriction would preclude the formation of science theory with regard to all long-term phenomena such as the formation and evolution of the universe and life on Earth. Fortunately many phenomena/events influence their surroundings to create persistent artifacts from which what happened in the past can be determined. From these science theories may be legitimately deduced. Artifacts include fossils, geological features, genetic structures, galactic structures, electromagnetic signals that may be billions of years old, etc. The universe itself constitutes the ultimate 'laboratory' setting in which phenomena occur and observations/measurements are taken and recorded as artifacts for later (sometimes millions of years later) scientific inspection and interpretation.

A more firm, well defined lexicon of terms to use with regard to science should be established by scientists and the public. If we restrict science to establishing only theory that is subject to verification through observation, there may well be vital issues of fundamental importance for which direct observational verification is impossible due to physical limitations that cannot ever be overcome. Yet the realms of the tiny (string theory), the distant past (big bang), and otherwise physically inaccessible (centers of the Earth and Sun, black holes, etc.) must be understood in scientific terms to form a comprehensive science of the universe.

Either the term 'theory' needs to be extended to include somewhat speculative or at least indirect pursuits and recognized to be a legitimate part of science or recognized as an equally legitimate pursuit of science-based philosophical inquiry. I would prefer to term many such pursuits and results as science, but perhaps place an asterisk with the word 'theory' to denote that though it is favored by most of the scientific community as a sound explanation, it has not been definitively verified experimentally. String theory*: not as directly or well verified as for example evolution, but perhaps as good as we can currently do.

Better still as a use for the asterisk, rather than using an asterisk to denote what is _not_ established science theory, why not denote reasonably well established science theory with one asterisk, and provide additional asterisks for super-well established theories? Global Warming theory*, evolution theory***, special relativity theory***, and so-forth using asterisks which explicitly indicate science-use of the term 'theory' rather than the common use of the word. The terms 'theory' (without asterisks) and 'speculation' would be equivalent, but international scientific institutions/bodies would decide if, when, and how many asterisks are proper to designate to an established theory* of science.

My suggested use of asterisks is perhaps not as simple as it may first seem. For example in physics Newtonian mechanics is enormously accurate for a wide range of phenomena, such that multiple asterisks are clearly deserved, even though quantum and relativistic theory have supplanted Newtonian mechanics in the realms of the very small and very large. Within limitations Newtonian mechanics is perfectly accurate and I would probably give it three asterisks. But despite such complications something is needed to clarify to the general public what is meant by the term 'theory' in science. Some new sort of terminology is necessary: totally new words or perhaps the use of asterisks. Scientific organizations could then more accurately identify to themselves and to the general public the maturity of various scientific ideas. General public, many of you just don't get it! Evolution including human evolution is theory***, not mere theory! Global Warming is theory*, not mere theory!

References and strategy

I will mostly be discussing my own personal weltanschauung as it contrasts with what is presented in my novels and what is described by Adam Frank to be the views of Max Tegmark as summarized in "The Discover Interview: Max Tegmark" by Adam Frank, in the July 2008 issue of Discover Magazine. My strategy is to use that article/discussion as a point of departure to espouse my own contrasting views, and then finally use my world view as the context to discuss my novels. I will also sometimes refer to information gleaned from Wiki and other sources. This is a very informal discussion, not a formal paper, and I will be loose with and lacking in some references.

I will occasionally mention philosophical views expounded by great thinkers of the past as outlined for example in a very readable way in the wonderful book "The Philosophy Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained," a compendium with contributions by W. Buckingham, D. Burnham, C. Hill, P. King, J. Marenbon and M. Weeks, published in 2011 by DK (Dorling Kindersley) Publishing of London, New York, Melbourne, Munich, and Delhi.

3. The Max Tegmark Multiverse Views Vs Mine

I was delighted to discover the Max Tegmark interview in Discovery magazine, as it discusses some of the fundamental weltanschauung issues that I have wrestled with throughout my adult life. Both Max Tegmark and, his interviewer Adam Frank are accomplished scientists.

Max Tegmark is a cosmologist - an expert in the branch of astrophysics that deals with the early origins and evolving structures of the universe. He is perhaps best known however, for his philosophical interpretations and speculations with regard to the multi-universe question, and has written a popular book on this topic.

In the Discovery article Tegmark argues that our universe - indeed all universes/the multiverse ARE mathematics, rather than the math merely providing models that approximate reality. This is a view that I also to a great degree share, but we should note that it is hardly a new or revolutionary concept. Several Greek philosophers long ago adopted this view. Now it may be justifiably argued that the great success of science strongly supports this view. All fundamental physical phenomena have been found without exception to strictly follow mathematical relationships. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to inductively conclude philosophically with high certitude that mathematics use in science works because the universe itself IS strictly mathematical.

Given the logically deduced finding that the universe is indeed mathematical, the ultimate job of physics is to identify the particular fundamental mathematical relationships/theories that are actually followed by the universe/reality. The job of the other branches of science most often involves discovering mathematical relationships that may indeed only 'model' the aggregated behavior of microscopic systems that make up macroscopic structures and behavior. It indeed seems reasonable (indeed perhaps necessary) that aggregates of mathematical fundamental behaviors tend to sum to larger scale repeatable phenomena that are also mathematical in nature.

As concluded above, no credible contrary evidence having been found, I hold the opinion that it has been well established that the universe is strictly mathematical. It is interesting to compare this view with the metaphysical speculation of ancient Greek philosophers. Pythagoras (570-495 BC) held that everything in the universe conforms to mathematical rules and ratios. Plato (427-347 BC) confused matters by holding that everything in the world that we sense/experience is an illusionary imperfect copy of a real world of Ideas that contains the Ideal Forms of everything. The troublesome concept that 'what we experience is illusionary' continues to plague us today. Aristotle (384-322 BC) rejected Plato's concept of a realm of Forms and embraced a much more empirical/observation oriented perspective. For Aristotle characteristics of objects observed in our world were those of the objects themselves, without need for recourse to a hypothetical realm of Forms. In my opinion his views generally more accurately reflect those of modern science than do those of Plato.

There is a fundamental difference however, between the speculative musings of past philosophers and the conclusions of modern day science and science-based philosophy. All fundamental laws of physics have without exception been experimentally verified over many years by thousands of scientists to strictly follow fixed mathematical relationships. The modern science-based philosophical conclusion that the universe is mathematical is therefore not based on mere speculation, religion, aesthetics, pure logic, or logic applied to personal observations; it is inductively based on an enormous body of observation/facts repeated by multiple independent teams of science researchers over recent centuries.

There is also strong evidence that these same physics relationships have existed throughout our known universe for nearly fourteen billion years, a finding known philosophically as the Principle of Uniformity. Uniformity for our observable universe has indeed been strongly shown by science, though the degree of uniformity over all of space and time is constantly being re-assessed as more astronomical data becomes available.

If we accept that reality has been observationally verified to be mathematical (since observation has shown that reality apparently has no recourse but to perfectly follow physics/mathematics rules), we may then conclude that it is our ideas/understanding of that reality that is imperfect. Plato had it backwards. It is the real world that must perfectly follow mathematics, not some shadowy realm of ideals. It is our ideas about it- our science theories - that tend to be imperfect or at least incomplete; we are still striving to determine more precisely the science/math that is being strictly followed by reality.

Tegmark is taking things too far however, by implying that if the mathematics exists than the corresponding reality must also exist, without adequate empirical verification. To the contrary, science has found that the universe is highly selective with regard to the particular mathematics that it follows. Only a selected subset of available mathematics applies to the reality of our observable universe. Physics as a branch of science seeks out the specific mathematics that applies to basic reality. Other sciences generally deal with the larger scale behavior of systems of entities, in which net behavior has also often been found to be discernibly mathematical, and approximate models are admittedly sought rather than the more fundamental and precise theories of the underlying physics that describes all behavior.

That all phenomena are attributable to a set of basic physical relationships described (ideally) by physics is a major observation-based philosophical finding. When anything is looked at close enough only physics-studied basic phenomena are found. Detractors incorrectly belittle this so-called materialistic, 'reductionist' view, but have no convincing observation-based evidence that anything other than a materialistic view is appropriate. The ghostly non-material influences needed to support any other view have not been found. True, not all materialistic mechanisms have yet been understood and characterized, but there is no sound evidence of mechanisms beyond the sorts that are studied by physics.

It should be mentioned that large and/or complex systems exhibit new phenomena not seen in the simplest of systems. For example unexpected structures and behaviors occur which have given rise to so chaos theory. Despite its suggestive title chaotic phenomena are not random, but are non-simple structures and/or behavior that arise from systems once thought to be simple. Many analogous as yet to be discovered phenomena likely also inhabit more complex systems such as minds of living organisms. The chaos branch of science is in its infancy. The science of chaos has shown that the whole is more than the simple sum of its parts. A purely reductionist view is inadequate. The study of complex systems is rightfully becoming the greatest focus in science, and includes the study of newly discovered system-level behaviors such as chaotic phenomena.

Fundamental questions have long plagued science and philosophy with regard to the understanding of our universe as a whole. How big is it? How old is it? What is in it? Is there only one universe or many? Over the last century many answers have been found but as in other areas of science, the more that such issues are examined, the more questions arise. Many thinkers ascribe to the view that there is more than one universe; many feel that there are an infinite number of universes, and use the term 'multiverse' to describe the sum total of everything that exists.

Level/Type One - the infinite universe

Tegmark creates a useful classification system to be used when discussing multi-universe/multiverse possibilities. Tegmark contends that there are four useful levels/categories of multiverse, and that all of them are perhaps plausible. The first multiverse type he claims to be a consequence of our universe being "infinite space," even though it is fairly well established that it is only approximately 14 billion years old, dating back to the big bang. He appears to claim that it is infinite largely (1) because we can't see all of it - since light from some parts of the universe will never reach us, and (2) because it appears to be unbounded (has no discernable edges). He concludes that the universe is infinite. He then argues that since it is infinite/goes on forever it must then repeat itself, such that: "...then there must be other regions of space like ours - in fact an infinite number of them. No matter how unlikely it is to have another planet like Earth, we know that in an infinite universe it is bound to happen again," including doppelgangers for all of us, "due to the mathematics of infinity."

Though the 'size' of the universe is unknown, there is also no solid evidence that it is truly infinite in the mathematical sense of the term Tegmark is imposing, while there does seem to be evidence that our observable immense portion of the universe is finite though perhaps unbounded (has no discernable 'edges' from a space perspective). Evidence suggests the 'big bang' event was the universe's origin-edge close to fourteen billion years ago, after which the observable universe evolved in a definite cosmic sequence that terminates with the opposite 'edge' that I will call NOW (Now One World). We be further discussing the incredible importance of the NOW concept. The term NOW means both the word 'now' as the local time point experienced by/at every entity in the universe, and acronym NOW which embraces the notion that only one quantum universe is needed/implied.

Fourteen billion years is a long but finite amount of time. Finite time strongly suggests finite space, though we don't see any 'edges' (space-wise) to our observable portion of it. But there are indeed 'edges' time-wise, bounded by the 'big bang' event and NOW, which through the space-time inter-relationship strongly suggests finite space, even though the universe appears to be unbounded space-wise and is unimaginably huge.

Just as 14 billion years is long but not forever, huge is not infinite; nor has any physical theory been well established that _requires_ that the universe be 'truly' (in the math sense) infinite.

Tegmark's claim that "similar regions" of any size must repeat themselves due to the mathematical definition of infinity is without experimental verification, unless he is referring to elementary sub-atomic particles as "similar regions" of space/time. It is a remarkable fundamental science finding that the elementary particles and physical laws of physics have apparently been in existence throughout the observable universe since shortly after the big bang close to fourteen billion years ago. The existence of several dozen types of tiny persistent doppelgangers/"similar regions" of atomic size and smaller has been well established. We do indeed live in a universe of tiny sub-microscopic doppelgangers that repeat themselves profusely at atomic and sub-atomic scales!

However for Tegmark there is no finite upper limit to the size of the "similar regions" in the Type I multiverse, due to the nature of infinity. He feels for example that there are an infinite number of Earths that are perfect copies of our own down to every atom. One argument against this notion is that everything in our observable universe seems to be connected however tenuously to everything else. My body for example, is currently absorbing light/photons from distant galaxies, and emitting photons that some other being millions of light years away in another direction will someday absorb. Notice that such quantum-scale interactions can have even macroscopic consequences such as (for example) cancer. The other distant being I speak of may also similarly interact with a third being or thing that lies outside of our own observable universe, such that observable universes are thereby collectively interconnected causally ad-infinitum.

How large then must a repeating "region" be, to be a true doppelganger region to our own where even events involving communications with other regions are identical to our own? There appears to be no limit. Everything in the universe is apparently linked to everything else through gravitational space-time and through various matter/energy transactions. And even if two doppelganger-like regions are found, in another instant the two regions will by chance internal events (quantum and otherwise) and external influences undergo countless changes which cause them to diverge and never again within the finite timespan of the universe have the same physical configurations, such that a momentary doppelganger situation between large segments of the universe, in the unlikely event that happens over the finite timespan of the universe, is of minimal practical interest.

In sum, observations indicate tiny sub-atomic, atomic, and molecular 'doppelgangers' but as objects become larger the inter-connectedness of the universe at all scales seems more and more to preclude notions of doppelgangers. It seems highly unlikely that any macroscopic 'doppelgangers' could exist for longer than a tiny fraction of a second, rendering the entire concept useless.

Further, as doppelganger candidates become macroscopic in size and incredibly complex as constructions of trillions of tiny components, it is not at all clear that the mathematical infinity alluded to by Tegmark would be large enough to overcome the other infinities and near-infinities involved, and that further, the notion is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that our observed time-limited universe is truly infinite from a space/time perspective.

His argument seems to be primarily a simplistic mathematical one through conflation of the term 'infinity'. I object to Tegmark's interpretation and use of the mathematical term 'infinity' as convincing 'proof' that 'multiple universes' of this type must exist. Indeed throughout his discussion he appears to take a perhaps Platonic-like view that if the mathematics exists, the corresponding reality MUST also exist. To the contrary, science has consistently found that only a specific subset of mathematic relationships apply to our reality. A mathematical proof is not scientific proof. Which mathematics applies to reality needs to be established by observations and associated interpretation/theory - by physicists painstakingly applying the process of observation-grounded science.

In sum, our universe appears to be finite time-wise and hence not infinite, and though unbounded space-wise not infinite, rendering complex doppelganger objects of macroscopic size exceedingly unlikely and precluding the likelihood of Level 1 multiple universes and macroscopic doppelgangers.

Level/Type II universes with differing physics

A second type of multiverse is said by Tegmark to emerge "...if the fundamental equations of physics, the ones that govern the behavior of the universe after the big bang, have more than one solution." This could have been stated a little more clearly, as what he seems to be talking about is different sets of fundamental equations /physical laws that arise as solutions to a more fundamental set of rules - perhaps a true Theory Of Everything (TOE). Each solution/universe would follow a different set of mathematically consistent physical laws. Many theorists have posited such an ensemble of many (perhaps infinite) multiple universes, and use this to explain how some of them (including ours) may have achieved our own 'Goldilocks' status with physical laws and constants which enable complex structures such as humans that are capable of self-awareness.

First, it has not been established that multiple universes are possible. We don't yet know what makes even our own observed universe possible. Since a TOE that our laws are a solution to has not been found, conjecturing that there may be an infinity of solutions to it is purely speculation. Of course the ultimate TOE may be 'simply' that logical self consistency is required within each family of theories that constitute a universe. That indeed appears to be the Tegmark speculation: if a family of consistent mathematical relationships exists it is a universe. It may indeed all be that simple (and that complex!): the elusive TOE underlying all reality is that self-consistent math is required. But if observation is required for verification of science theory, this notion is in principle doomed to forever be speculation, for incompatible math schemes would likely be completely unable to interact.

Further, to ascribe characteristics to the alleged multiverse is also highly speculative. Tegmark talks about the multiple universes of this type being different chunks of space that "...are being swept away from each other as space travels faster than light can travel..." such that "we could never communicate with them," even though we "...share the same space." Not only does this conveniently argue that experimental proof of his claims are impossible, this seems to miss the point entirely. If the idea is that mathematical consistency within a universe enables existence and interactions within that universe, then due to different physical laws/physics, different universes should not in principle be able to interact with each other at all. It would therefore be meaningless and pointless to speculate that they share the same or different space. Each universe would bring with it its own space-like and/or time-like analogs.

It is unnecessary to envision them as being swept away from each other as space expands such that light-speed communications would be impossible; communications/ interaction would be impossible anyway because the different sets of mathematics are incompatible. In essence such universes would be completely 'invisible' to each other.

Unfortunately it would then in principle also be impossible to directly verify through observation within any of the solitary universes the existence of any of the other universes, such that their existence must forever remain speculation and never reach the status of a true observation-verified scientific theory*. At best it might be theory (with no asterisk designation) or philosophical speculation, rather than science-established theory*. This would be a dead end for TOE science as we know it, what has been called "the end of science" beyond which in principle we will never be able to go. (There are several such 'dead end' circumstances that provide natural barriers to science progress.) That could be bad news for asterisk lovers, at least as far as TOEs are concerned!

However we should not go so far as to say that such math-driven speculation is not science, or that it lacks value. To the contrary, it is highly necessary to the expansion of the boundaries of our understanding. Besides, the boundaries of what is observable and confirmable are always painstakingly being expanded, such that today's speculation may be tomorrow's 'laboratory' experiment. (So there is yet hope for more asterisks!) In addition, it may emerge that the best TOE logically requires the existence of multiple Type II universes, even though our direct observation of them is in principle impossible. Scientific groups may exercise latitude to legitimately decide to ascribe perhaps one asterisk to such a TOE, in order to complete a comprehensive science-based world-view. The 'science dead end' circumstances due to observation limitations may indeed require such circumvention to allow for the more complete formulation of theory that reaches beyond practical size, space, and time limitations, and which supports a unification of science. There may be legitimate need to extend science somewhat beyond Karl Popper's famous philosophical stricture that hypotheses and theory be restricted to what can be clearly verified experimentally.

If multiple universes exist essentially 'on top of each other' with little or no interaction, that situation appears to be suspiciously similar to what is emerging with regard to our own universe with respect to dark matter and energy which apparently only react very weakly with ordinary matter. Does dark matter and energy exist in our universe or are its apparent effects evidence of an ensemble of phantom parallel universes that weakly interact with our own? That would be yet another extraordinary claim that should require overwhelming fact based evidence or at least overwhelmingly convincing logic, not mere speculation, if recognized theory* is sought. The jury is 'out' on such questions, perhaps permanently.

In sum multiple universes of Type II may be indeed be possible, but perhaps difficult or even impossible in principle to ever verify through observation. However it is conceivable that someday logic may so convincingly argue for their existence that (Karl Popper withstanding) they be theoretically recognized, such that the assignment of an asterisk (no more than one, I suspect) is appropriate to designate an established scientific theory.

Level/Type III universes of quantum mechanics

The third Tegman type/classification of multiverse consists of the 'many worlds'/universes interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics (QM), which apparently is largely motivated by what is known as the QM 'measurement problem' and the notion that math is reality. The measurement problem in QM has to do with the uncertain behavior of tiny sub-atomic particles exhibited at sub-atomic and smaller scales. MWI proponents claim rather outlandishly that the MWI approach is the most simple QM interpretation and involves the fewest assumptions, and that it solves the measurement problem.

\- Quantum mechanics. QM physics theory is central to the understanding of the chemistry of molecules, the absorption of light, nuclear physics, and many other phenomena. The term 'quantum' derives from the discovery that events have been found to be discrete: specific energies and particles are always involved in specific phenomena. QM describes the motions and interactions of tiny atomic and sub-atomic sized particles. Uncountable tiny quantum events/interactions occur every second in a macroscopic sized object. Quantum events regularly occur at molecular, atomic, sub-atomic scales in uncountable abundance in accordance with probabilities predicted by QM. Probabilities drive the various outcomes in a given event. For example a chemical reaction happens, another one happens, or none happens, assembling or de-assembling this or that molecule and absorbing or emitting this or that energy. Light photons are absorbed and/or reflected and/or emitted. These and many more things are quantum 'decisions'/'measurements'/events. Stuff happens probabilistically.

\- Measurements. A QM 'measurement' is merely a normal quantum level event that has been cleverly isolated and instrumented under controlled conditions; it is not fundamentally different from any other quantum event. Typically an experiment is mechanized such that the studied tiny event triggers the creation of a lasting macroscopic artifact which an experimenter/observer eventually assesses to discover the event outcome.

\- Waves and wave collapse. The behavior of sub-atomic particles is largely 'wave-like' rather than 'particle like' and follows the QM Schrödinger wave equation. Waves can be refracted, reflected, or diffracted. While unburdened by a quantum interaction, a quantum system evolves continuously in time according to the Schrodinger wave equation, until it undergoes a discontinuous interaction which changes the system, referred to as state-vector reduction or collapse of the wave function. Classical physics characteristics such as location, energy, and momentum are probabilistic and interconnected rather than fixed and independent, until a measurement is made, at which time according to traditional QM interpretation one possible outcome is mysteriously decided on probabilistically and the Schrödinger wave function is said to 'collapse' to certain specific values as measured in the experiment. In such quantum interactions/events, the universe appears to probabilistically select a specific result.

\- The measurement 'problem'. To the mathematical physicists, the discontinuity between the mathematics of the continuous wave function and the discrete interaction/event is felt to be a very serious problem. A detailed mathematical description of the transition between quantum states does not exist.

\- The Multiple World Interpretation answer. In Hugh Everett's MWI interpretation of QM however, all possibilities in the wave formulation are claimed to be realized rather than simply one; the universe is said by MWI proponents to split into multiple universes when a quantum 'measurement' is made, and the wave equation is said to not collapse. Since the wave function is claimed not to collapse in this interpretation the mathematically difficult discontinuity of wave collapse no longer occurs and is no longer considered to be a conceptual problem. Thus the perceived 'problem' of wave-collapse/discontinuity is said to be avoided by positing the real existence of infinities of universes.

A single result/'choice' between alternatives doesn't happen in the multiverse perspective, it only appears that way. Instead all possibilities/choices are realized, each apparently in a different new universe. This is perhaps best viewed as a one-multiverse, infinite histories/paths interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which everything that can happen in accordance to established rules/theory does in fact happen along an infinity of different event paths/histories.

\- Multiple collapse problem? Why it is said that the wave function doesn't collapse in the MWI QM interpretation is perhaps puzzling. After all, the multiple 'measurement' results in each universe are still discrete quantized values, regardless of interpretation. MWI removes one 'problem' but introduces others. A choice of specific measurement result has been made specific to each particular universe that results from the event. In the MWI event(s) there appear to be multiple cases of wave collapse to singular consequences/states, rather than just one. The applicable QM event suffers a quantum discontinuity in MWI, just as it does with any other interpretation, but now for each event multiple discontinuities occur. Quantum things happen, history happens, all 'choices' of path are made, each one a discontinuity that doesn't appear to be explained any more in this interpretation than it is explained in others.

\- The MWI observer role explanation. One MWI explanation for the perception of a single interaction result is that the perception of the measurement 'result' is linked quantum mechanically to a conscious observer/observers. This direct observer role is an absurd notion. Most quantum mechanical interactions don't even have a conscious observer; any meaningful QM interpretation must address the vast majority of QM events that have nothing to do with observers. When there are conscious observers they all see the same result through chains of numerous quantum interactions which would create a multitude of additional universes. A phenomena called de-coherence of states would prevent the event result from propagating all the way to an observer via a single fixed quantum state. Consciousness itself also doubtlessly involves trillions of quantum interactions within the mind - each one of them resulting in another MWI universe. Yet we do indeed experience a common consistent history, through the obvious mechanism of a single universe interpretation, not a MWI.

\- Our single quantum world. A single world view of events is much simpler. Any 'measurement' is simply a quantum interaction which alters the state of the item being observed as well as the state of the measuring device. Note that measuring devices - like all material things, generally tolerate only quantized states/QM solutions. Quantization is a truly fundamental property of our universe. States do indeed change, as should be expected when things interact. When a small-scale event occurs only discrete quantized results are tolerated, but with uncertainties introduced due to the wave -like spreading/uncertainties involved which introduce the possibility of more than one quantized result for an event. Wave function 'collapse' is simply the transition of the subject entity to a different wave-function solution/state, one with quantized solutions/results as expected in a quantized world. Note that unless cleverly designed by the experimenter, most such solutions/results are very quickly lost in the seething world of continuing quantum interactions.

\- A dice-playing world. Why the seemingly outlandish MWI QM interpretation is attractive to so many people is itself a mystery. Perhaps it is because in this interpretation everything that can happen (in accordance with QM theory) does happen, it seems to be 'fair' rather than having the universe 'pick' a specific solution. Note that in science the concept of symmetry/'fairness' is a central one, and even great scientists such as Einstein objected to 'God playing dice' with the universe to decide outcomes. But quantum level 'dice playing' is exactly what we observe. It is a fundamental property, not an illusion. MWI relegates quantization/events to the status of 'illusion' (whatever THAT means!) rather than actual reality. That seems to be a giant step backward in our conception of the universe rather than a step forward. Discrete measurements/interactions/results are not a 'problem'; but a fundamental observed property of our universe.

\- The mathematical argument for MWI. Tegmark notes that "The parallel universes of Level III exist in an abstract mathematical structure called Hilbert Space, which can have infinite spatial dimensions. Each universe is real, but each one exists in different dimensions of this Hilbert space. The parallel universes are like different pages in a book, existing independently, simultaneously, and right next to each other. In a way all these level III universes exist right here, right now."

A Hilbert space multiverse is the MWI counter argument to the problem of the apparent creation of new universes with each event. Instead of universes actually being created, they already exist mathematically within an infinite mathematical structure called Hilbert space and hence already exist in a real sense such that 'new' universes aren't so much being created as being accessed. Only the single infinite multiverse exists through which an infinite number of discrete event sequences/sets of states branch out, with each quantum event understood to create a new branch. Since the math exists it is apparently assumed that all possible states of the multiverse already exist.

\- A splitting problem? 'Splitting' into multiple universes when an event occurs is apparently not a simple binary or discrete sort of splitting but a set of multiple splittings into multiple outcomes/universes. For an event with possible results A or B for which the probabilities are equal two universes could result to balance out the probabilities. If result A is twice as probable as B you presumably need three new universes/ results to balance out: two A universes and one B universe. However probabilities for various paths taken/outcomes can apparently be irrational numbers. How a single 'parent' universe/state 'splits' into a finite number of discrete child universes when the associated probabilities can be irrational quantities is unclear. If an infinite number of universes/state sets is required to mechanize each single such event the resulting infinities of infinities of required universes is truly mind boggling, though mathematically possible.

In MWI each 'universe' interacts with itself but not with any other universe. Each quantum interaction necessitates a new universe. Why/how are these actions mechanized across all of Hilbert space and why is that 'simpler' than addressing the 'measurement problem' discontinuity in a single universe with only a few entities involved? How is the multiverse-wide discontinuity imposed with each event-set more simple than the discontinuity experienced by singular event in a single universe? Because the mathematics of creating infinities of universes is conceptually simple, does that mean that the physics is also, allowing traditional concerns such as matter/energy conservation to be moot?

\- Non-interface difficulties. Why do we appear to be in one universe when there are countless other universes being created around us which can apparently instantaneously distinguish between each other and not interact? They can't interact, because if they did the interference would be noticed and perhaps we wouldn't even all experience a common, rational history. Like tree branches the Tegmark universes branch out and can never loop back. (Why? How?) On the other hand, if each interaction causes a branching, in what sense is there any interaction at all across each of the universes? In what sense, other than a micro-moment of possibility, is there any relationship across each universe?

If the universe is infinite (as Tegmark thinks it is) there are infinite particles, each one undergoing countless interactions over its history, and generating another set of entire infinite universes with each tiny quantum interaction. Infinities of infinities of universes result- many more than there are particles in the totality of the infinite universes. Note that in MWI each 'new' or additional universe follows exactly the same physics as the others (Why?), but is apparently somehow (How? Why?) able to instantaneously distinguish between itself and all other universes and it is impossible to communicate between them.

\- Energy conservation? The concept that an entire universe is 'created' with each interaction would be outlandish from an energy conservation point of view. Infinities of infinities of infinities of universes would result in 'creation' at an unimaginable scale that appears to create whole-scale infinities of new matter/energy. In the real world titanic particle accelerators are required to mimic the primal conditions required to create a few individual particles - much less entire universes. In MWI you don't need high energy particle accelerators, you apparently get the replication of entire universes _for nothing_ with the tiniest quantum event!

Apparently no additional energy is needed because each new reality exists already in the multiverse. Yet it is argued by MWI advocates that matter/energy is conserved 'within each universe.' But what does that even mean? The infinite multiverse proposed seems to know no such boundaries that can be called a single universe for more than the tiniest fraction of a microsecond before another event occurs and it splits yet again. A universe that exists for an incomprehensively tiny fraction of a second doesn't seem to be very useful as a concept. This concept is merely describing the state of a universe, not a universe that endures. A more sensible concept of multi-universe would be to define each 'universe' by the unique series/sequence of events/states that it experienced over its entire history, with every quantum event creating/diverging more universes. Yet because multiple possibilities/outcomes mean multiple pathways, how can it be claimed that energy is conserved along the pathways? The concept of time - which is fundamental in science theory and our daily lives, is essentially gone.

-Spooky action complications. How does 'spooky action at a distance' happen with the MWI? It has been noted that some QM states/entanglements persist such that transactions delay completion while they are occurring, with final resulting states dependent on circumstances across space/time. Such quantum events can take eons to complete across enormous space/time distances. Meanwhile as each interaction occurs across space/time, in MWI countless new universes/branches will have been created, each of them supporting the completion of an infinite number of pending transactions/events that are still in progress. When an event with multiple possible outcomes does complete, how do multiple possible outcomes relate back to what seemed to be a single initiating event? How does an event initiated in a single universe relate to the completion of that event in an infinity of universes? Things are complex enough in one universe, in a multi universe with an infinity of pending quantum events occurring and intermingling the complexity becomes unimaginable.

\- Math escapism. Discovery of a mathematics that could describe/contain a multiverse seems to be a discovery of abstract mathematics rather than substantiation that such a multiverse actually exists, and it adds absolutely nothing to the understanding of behavior in our observed universe. It is mathematical escapism, not verifiable physics. There are big mysteries here for science to address, not to ignore by use of mathematical fantasy. The chief MWI argument seems to be that if the mathematics is conceivable, the corresponding reality exists. I don't think so.

Science is supposed to describe how things behave, but this multiverse concept ultimately appears to describe a static state without clear linkage to our observer reality. The entire notion seems to be totally empty as a scientific concept, a convenient mathematical trick that doesn't explain anything and can't even in principle be verified through observation.

In sum the MWI concept turns everything on its head and brings with it infinite baggage requiring many assumptions. Fundamental properties and phenomena are claimed to be 'illusions' while a mathematical abstraction that we can't experience or experimentally verify is said to be real. It is perhaps the Plato universe of Ideal Forms repackaged in modern mathematical terms. The notion is so radical and outlandish that it requires much stronger arguments in its favor for acceptance. It is speculation that could probably never earn an asterisk.

-Transactional interpretation of QM. A much simpler interpretation called the transactional interpretation (TI) of quantum mechanics (TIQM) advanced by John Cramer brings with it much less baggage. This interpretation also deals nicely with much of 'the measurement problem' and other quantum-scale oddities such as 'spooky action at a distance' without the infinite baggage of multiple universes. In this interpretation God does indeed 'play dice' with regard to outcomes. It also involves dizzying concepts such as negative time and nonlocal a-temporal transactions via quantum waves that are 'real', but these seem to be satisfyingly conservative concepts compared to a concept of infinities of infinite universes that are necessary but can't interact and can't be experimentally verified.

By requiring only one world/universe the situation is enormously simplified. In a single universe transactional interpretation quantum mechanical events have one result and there is a single event history for the entire universe. Each transaction/event occurs across space/time a-temporally such that negative time with respect to various frames of reference and 'spooky action at a distance' is the normal way that ALL quantum events occur. Extraordinary measures are needed to isolate and instrument events to avoid the complications of de-coherence (the exposure of simple/'pure' eigenstates tends to get 'washed out' in complex environments where electrons, photons and other interactions are always happening) and to expose quantum 'strangeness', but it is really the way that _everything_ works _every_ time. One a-temporal event leads to one outcome. Weird but simple! What could be simpler than that?

-The remaining problem. As in all other interpretations the discontinuity that occurs NOW in quantum events/interactions is not 'explained' in TQIM, but the problem is restricted to a problem to be addressed in one universe. Note that although the one universe is enormous and enormously complex, individual transactions rule. Activity is in a sense 'localized' NOW in space/time to the individual probability-driven events of each entity. Each event tends to have many possibilities but one event/outcome at a time is 'chosen' to occur and the situation is very much simplified compared to a multiverse alternative where infinities of infinities are in play in an unimaginably complex multiverse.

The science challenge is to discover the mathematical detail of the observed interaction, rather than make outlandish claims such as infinities of universes that can't even in principle be verified experimentally. A multiverse still doesn't describe how the transition occurs in detail, but identifies a different, much more outlandishly complex phenomenon to explain. Indeed there seems to be 'something missing' in QM that doesn't fully articulate NOW interactions/ 'measurements' but shouldn't require resorting to an outlandish scheme of infinities of universes.

Level/type IV universes of the mathematical multiverse

A fourth multiverse level/category Tegmark calls "the mathematical multiverse" - in which "...mathematical things actually exist, and they are actually physical reality..." and exist "...out of time..." He states that a "mathematic structure doesn't describe a universe, it is a universe." Further, he sees change/time as "an illusion." The entire multiverse is "...just one eternal, unalterable mathematical structure," while the multiverse is a structure made up of multiple mathematical structures, each comprising its own universe.

In a sense this concept doesn't appear to be different from the other 'types' or to add anything useful other than to provide a radically different perspective that is a combination of the previous types. As stated above, as all basic physical relationships have been found to be mathematical, a concept that reality is in a sense math (the particular math of physics) is a rather obvious one, but not one that requires multiple universes and the dismissal of fundamental concepts and observation-based findings as illusions. Concepts such as time and the importance of NOW are fundamental aspects of reality; saying that they are illusions is delusional. It is the business of science to explain the universe that we find ourselves in, not to dismiss fundamental aspects of it as illusions. The multiverse notion appears to be a throwback to the age of ancient philosophers that sought enlightenment through pure thought and logic/math without recourse to observation.

Existence is reality, which must follow mathematics/physics but also somehow transcends math by also being REAL. Existence is real, time is real, NOW is real, change is real, life is real, our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are real. Most people would agree that these things are real - and are useful as concepts but are not merely concepts - they are things that are part of a reality that exists. Denying the reality of what most of us experience is delusional and perhaps a waste of time and brain-power.

Yes, speculate about multiverse notions, but expect push back towards understanding our observed reality.

Concepts of a 'holographic universe' seem also to be without much utility. Because the mathematics may be possible that does not necessarily make it useful or real. Yes, the state of a three dimensional universe can be mapped two dimensional surface, but the universe is evolving dynamically, with all its parts interacting across space-time. How are dynamic physical relationships (involving time!) that are relatively straight-forwardly represented in three space dimensions plus one time dimension more simply and elegantly explained using a two dimensional representation?

NOW

One way to look at the universe we find ourselves in is to view it as _a big bang that has essentially never stopped_. Fourteen billion years ago it began a radically new phase that still continues NOW. NOW is the continuing emerging big bang, experienced by everything in the universe, now and with one world.

Some light photons emitted NOW will be absorbed or otherwise interact with other entities in a future NOW. Similarly light emitted in the past is being absorbed NOW. It might be argued that if transactions occur between past, present and future, that implies that in some sense the future also exists, and in fact all future and pasts must in a sense exist 'simultaneously' such that all two way transactions can be negotiated between the current NOW and past and future NOWs as required in the transactional interpretation of QM.

However, note that EVERY transaction is of this type, as every transaction takes place across space/time a-temporally, even short-range transactions within an atomic nucleus. Transactions always happen between one portion of the universe (within its emerging NOW) with another portion of the universe (within its emerging NOW). Per relativity, 'times' associated with the event/transaction are dependent on one's local point of view and situation in space/time, but cannot be said to be truly the same. But each transaction terminus/location is in a state of NOW when it experiences the transaction - as everything always is. That is, all things only exist and happen NOW. The emerging NOW 'expands' in time to contain all transactions past and future, and the concepts 'past' and 'future' are useful terms and time is a useful metric to quantify 'when' the transaction appears to happen at each NOW terminus of the transaction.

Time does not 'cancel out' in our real universe. Time has direction. It is part of the order and logic of all events as the entropy of the universe increases. Time is not an illusion. Existence is time-directional. To say that it isn't is delusional and not useful to our goal of understanding the universe that we find ourselves to be in.

The physics of the fundamental behavior of everything in the space/time of our universe must in principle include time as a variable - that is a fundamental philosophical finding of science due to the fact that time appears as a variable in essentially all physical theories. Time is local to each item in space/time as a variable necessary to describe its behavior NOW. Time doesn't 'cancel out' in our universe, it is a fundamental property. If it were possible mathematically to cancel out time as a variable such a mathematical trick would decrease understanding, not expand it, since knowledge of behavior in time is what we ultimately seek and what we have found in the universe. We exist in a world in which time and its direction are fundamental. For USA citizens the IRS reminds us of this every April 15, regardless of abstract flights of fancy that would deny it as illusion.

Time, like space, is not an 'illusion', but a fundamental part of reality and absolutely necessary to the understanding of the ever emerging and evolving/changing NOW.

4. My Weltanschauung

Some fundamentals

I'm not going to start from scratch and discus traditional philosophical issues such as the existence of reality and the meaning of knowledge and truth and so-forth. Philosophers have spent entire lifetimes and created voluminous linguistic-laden treatments of these and many other basic topics. I need a world view to help me get along in my life but I don't have the time or expertise to work my way through most such issues. Practical shortcuts are required. The answers to such questions may be complicated to some philosophers but in the end are fairly self-evident to scientists and to most people.

In sum the world/universe is real and not an illusion, our perceptions of reality are limited and sometimes deceptive but generally are reliable (particularly if we can collaborate together to confirm our observations), and we can employ raw sensory perceptions in conjunction with the use of well-designed measurement apparatus to objectively study artifacts influenced by physical events to gain knowledge about phenomena that occur in the universe. For select common phenomena we employ science to maximize our understanding, but for most things including our day-to-day lives science is totally impractical to apply directly and we do the best we can by consciously applying reason to limited facts or by subconsciously employing intuition and other response mechanisms that evolution has selected for us to be of practical value.

Our understanding of things is enhanced greatly due to cultural mechanisms and heritage, including the thoughts of others expressed through verbal language and mathematics. Gaining human understanding is not only a matter of individual effort but it is a collective effort that spans humanity and history. Science is an enormously successful cultural mechanism for the collective pursuit of knowledge. In addition to aiding (and endangering!) our survival, technology is greatly enhancing our ability to acquire and analyze observations and exchange ideas.

We have already discussed much of my weltanschauung with regard to QM and multiverse issues; here we will discuss those a little further, as well as areas not related to science.

Established quantum weirdness is weird enough

Experimentally established 'quantum weirdness' is weird enough, without positing unverifiable infinities of infinities of universes. I favor a single universe transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves chance happenings and the weird concept of negative time, but is much simpler and in my view much less radical than a multiverse alternative. In this interpretation there is one reality/universe with one emerging history to understand and deal with, and no Type III multiverse. It all exists (only) NOW as the continuing big bang. All quantum mechanical transactions occur across space/time but time and the 'arrow of time' remain vitally important. There may be multiple Type II universes but that could be forever a matter of pure speculation or unverifiable theory Vs theory*. One Type IV-like mathematical universe exists that we can verify - our own. It is demonstratively a math-following universe where time and NOW are indispensable aspects of reality and not mere illusion. A Type II math-driven multiverse is probably a possibility, but I see no necessity for a Type III QM multiverse.

One shared reality for everything

There is (at least) one interconnected universe that shares one reality. (Isn't one sea of quantum/space/time 'foam' complex enough?) We all commonly experience one universe/timeline/history - one NOW dominated existence. Quantum dice-playing chance is a reality such that outcomes to situations occur with an element of randomness, but stuff happens/random-based outcomes occur. God plays dice and regularly practices spooky action at a distance. Entanglement and de-coherence make understanding complex QM phenomena very difficult, but it is what it is.

The universe is mathematical

Without exception everything behaves mathematically. Reality is mathematical. Only a big bang event selected subset of mathematics applies to the emerging reality/NOW of our observed universe. Math is an abstraction that can be created and described by mathematicians. It consists of rules, definitions, and logic. There is a subset of mathematics which reality subscribes to which science/physics strives to discover. We have made enormous progress but have only scratched the surface in fully understanding our mathematical reality.

The universe is REAL

The math followed and the reality of the universe are not equivalent. Reality is more than the math. Reality includes material substance - including matter/energy which strictly follows math rules. The same universal rules appear to be applied (largely locally) NOW by everything in the universe.

The importance of NOW

"NOW" is perhaps the most important but least appreciated characteristic of our universe. NOW started with the big bang and has continued ever since then. NOW is locally experienced by everything in the universe. Causality and QM happen at the NOW points for everything in existence. Quantum mechanical interactions follow probabilistic rules that resolve to produce the one ever-emerging reality. Time and negative time aspects of quantum events meet at the emerging NOW points for everything and everyplace in the universe. Entity to entity NOW to NOW transactions span time and space/time - which may seem weird, but much less weird than multiple universes. Having those transactions occur across the space-time of multiple universes would be an infinitely complex proposition not explained by multiple universe QM proponents.

News flash: not everything that is possible _actually_ happens! STUFF HAPPENS/specific outcomes/'choices' emerge NOW. States/solutions are 'picked'/selected/chosen probabilistically by the interacting pieces of reality at the emerging NOW existence points. Each tiny piece of reality somehow within its primal structure 'knows' and carries with it the set of math/physics rules established at the initial big bang, to apply as it continually interacts with everything else in the universe, and new states/solutions emerge NOW.

NOW is the evolving emerging math-driven, single reality. In mathematics solutions are important; in physical reality they are a hard/absolute requirement, and the solutions are sought and achieved again and again over the lifetime of everything that exists NOW and only NOW. Inequalities are not tolerated in the reality of nature. NOW is the cutting edge of the universe where/when solutions/choices/outcomes are decided on. NOW-to-NOW transactions occur across space and time according to fundamental mathematical rules that physics strives to discover.

Stuff/everything happens and exists only at its own NOW point. Constituent entities sort things out (follow the physics) NOW across space/time via a-temporal transactions. The future is an abstraction that thinking beings apply, and is full of uncertainties that we 'model'/think about NOW and use thoughts we have NOW to guide our actions NOW. The past has left its mark on the universe in the form of structures/artifacts ('measurement' results) that still exist NOW and allow much of how the universe works NOW to be worked out as science.

Future behavior (the emerging NOW) can to an extent be predicted using science and the convenient variables of science relationships including time. But NOW is when/where everything actually happens. NOW is the point/points at which each little chunk of reality is reconciled with everything else in the universe, including all events/interactions. Causality and chance happen NOW. Everything happens NOW, which is when/where everything exists and happens.

NOW is probably the most pervasive and important characteristic of our observed reality. To deny the existence of time and the overwhelming importance of NOW is delusional. To conclude that because mathematics/physics is strictly followed in the universe that time and other observed basic phenomena are mere 'illusions' is mathematical escapism that abandons reality. There is something very special about NOW and reality that distinguishes it from mere pure mathematics. Reality exists; math is only math. Somehow reality is mathematics realized; it is math/physics that was selected at the big bang NOW that determined what and how the ever emerging contemporary NOW continues.

Consciousness exists. Love exists. Free will exists. These are complex phenomena for science to explain, not to deride and dismiss as 'illusions'. Physicists seek to discover the ultimate/correct physics of the universe and to discover and accurately characterize the detailed behavior of everything. Other scientists typically seek to approximately model the aggregate behavior of more complex structures. A comprehensive science of complex systems is rapidly advancing but is in its infancy. Though fueled by creative abstract speculation the true business of science is to understand reality, the reality that follows but also transcends math.

Quantum mechanics myths

We have discussed several persistent myths which continue to obscure our understanding of QM:

(1) The measurements problem myth. Scientists classically seek to make objective observations that do not interfere with what is being measured. This is in principle impossible at the atomic level; a 'measurement' seeks to cleverly establish an observable artifact of a transaction that occurs between the object being measured and the measurement object/apparatus. Otherwise there is nothing 'special' about a measurement; it is an event/transaction no different than all the others that occur NOW. Indeed if it was not representative it would not be of interest!

(2) The observer myth. Some thinkers attribute special status to human conscious observers, leading to absurd notions such as the Schrodinger's cat 'paradox'/problem.

It seems to be a requirement in every discussion of QM to discuss Schrodinger cats. (As a cat-lover I find the topic somewhat distasteful!) I assume that this so-called 'paradox' is somewhat familiar with readers. It involves a cat hidden in a box which would be poisoned and die if a probabilistic quantum event occurs, but would remain alive if the event does not occur. In the absurd Copenhagen QM interpretation the fate of the cat is only determined by later human observation when the box is opened. The quantum event is not acknowledged to have occurred until the result is registered by the thought of an observer. (Cats for some odd unexplained reason don't count as observers!) Note however in the cat experiment through forensic means (body temperatures, etc.) it would be easy to show that any dead cat did not die when the subsequent human observation occurred, but shortly after the poison was released. The cat in this experiment is a lasting artifact that records a measurement, one which can be examined long after the quantum event of interest occurred. The Copenhagen interpretation is similar to the absurd claim by philosophers that trees do not make noise when they fall if there is no humans in the forest to hear the event. The Copenhagen QM interpretation, though of enormous historical significance and amusement, is DEAD!

Elaborate roles for observers are envisioned for some of the other QM interpretations also. Ultimately such notions are speculatively philosophical or theological in nature, not science. The need for a god to mechanize the universe remains an open and highly speculative philosophical question, but we can with great certainty conclude that human observers play no special role. We have confidence that trees fall in forests and make sound with or without us.

(3) The 'spooky' action at a distance myth. Yes, there is indeed spooky action at a distance, coupled quantum states, etc., but _that's how things normally happen all the time_. The myth is that such things are unusual occurrences. Such behavior indeed seems strange and is difficult to instrument and measure due to such things as the de-coherence of 'pure' quantum states, yes, but in keeping with the uniformity principle it is the normal way that the universe works each and every time an event occurs. The term 'spooky' is misleading. Weird yes, mind boggling, perhaps, but it is normal quantum level behavior that has been demystified by science.

(4) The measurement wave collapse myth. When a water wave collapses, what happens to the water involved requires description. When a Schrodinger wave 'collapses' a transaction completes NOW that simply changes the probability of future events. A new physical situation has been established that is best described by a revised set of Schrodinger relationships. QM states/situations change, they don't collapse/disappear. Sorry for the apparent mathematical discontinuity, but stuff happens NOW! God DOES play dice NOW. Deal with it!

At a deeper level there remains the question of what exactly happens during a NOW transaction. What/how are the most fundamental particles/entities involved? What happens mathematically/physics-wise as an entity passes from one state to another? Most important, by what mechanisms do the tiny bits of reality involved require and mechanize the quantum mathematical (and other) relationships that it obeys? This further research into NOW is a frontier of physics, where such concepts as string theory are explored to provide deeper insight. It is a 'problem' of physics: a reason to continue research, not to abandon sensibility and devise outlandish schemes such as an infinite multiverse that dismiss issues and phenomena as illusions.

(5) The 'everything that is possible happens' myth. This myth is MWI based. To the contrary, only one set of things actually happens. Every viable 'path'/future is considered, but only one path is followed/allowed NOW. Poets can lament about paths not taken. Reality unfolds around us - one reality - one universe. One universe is possibly enough, unless a solid/best TOE is found that logically requires multiple Type II universes. Type I and III multiverses are unlikely. A mathematical universe exists but it is not likely to be a Type IV multiverse.

Assuming that the writing is logically consistent I suppose that by Tegmark's logic the case can be made that all logically cohesive novels are true stories (including mine) - that the stories they tell have or will actually happen somewhere in the multiverse (an infinite number of times!), complete with changes to physics if required Via Type II variations in order to make them possible. No matter what re-writes I do, because of the nature of infinity there will always be someplace (in fact an infinity of places) where my novels actually happen. And all of my previous revisions to the novel also really happen - including the ones I never even wrote down but only thought about. And the ones I never even thought about happen also. And other stories by other authors happen also, in infinite combinations with mine!

In a Tegmark multiverse alternative histories and so forth _must_ 'really' occur because of the mathematics of infinity: places where Mozart didn't die young and Lincoln and Kennedy weren't assassinated but World-War III happened last year (and any/all other times) and wiped out humanity (or didn't). Somewhere in space/time my favorite movie Groundhog Day is occurring for real. And the actors from the movie are actually living out the plot. Or other actors are. And I have cleaned out the attic and basement already, done my taxes a year in advance, and lost that extra ten pounds of weight that I don't need. Really? I somehow doubt it!

A universe of (tiny) doppelgangers

As previously mentioned, fundamental particles discovered by physics are the true doppelgangers of the universe. There are many macroscopic things that are similar and may be usefully classified within categories, but they are not totally identical, including stars, people, and rubber chickens. The existence of larger scale doppelgangers rapidly becomes unlikely as the size and complexity of the system/universe segment increases, such that the likelihood of the existence of large scale doppelgangers in a finite-time (14 billion years) universe is highly remote and only of fleeting speculative interest.

According to established quantum theory even with one universe there is indeed a tiny chance that in an instant I will find myself on a beach in Hawaii rather than in my room typing this. But the odds against it happening within a universe only billions of years old are truly staggering, as are the odds against there being a perfect duplicate/doppelganger of anything complex (persons, the Earth, etc.) somewhere else in the universe. Sorry folks, it just ain't happening, or I'd always wear a bathing suit and carry sunscreen, in hopes that the suit and the sunscreen would travel with me, lest I unexpectedly spontaneously arrive in Hawaii embarrassingly nude and unprotected from UV rays. I'm afraid not; in the real world a Hawaii vacation will require a long tedious air-flight involving motion sickness, and lots of cash that in this reality I don't really have. It is what it is.

Existence is something beyond math

Existence/reality 'is' math but is also something beyond math. It started at least as far back as the big bang and continues NOW. It is math realized, somehow and some-why, brought to existence and set in motion nearly 14 billion years ago.

The big bang, the past, NOW, and the future

In our universe the future doesn't yet exist. Only NOW exists. The past is over-with/gone, but it has influenced artifacts that still exist NOW. NOW points interact across space/time with other emerging NOWs to complete a-temporal quantum transactions.

At the big bang event the laws of physics and the elementary structures that follow the physics at NOW were set. It was the first NOW and beginning of time that stretches to the evolving NOW horizon of existence. NOW is the continuation of the big bang phenomenon, following the rules of physics set nearly 14 billion years ago. The NOW interacts across space-time with other portions of itself separated by space-time but in their own NOW states.

Given the way that NOW points interact across space-time it is perhaps understandable that Tegmark came to the conclusion that a timeless universe exists, but that would dismiss and not explain time, the direction of time's arrow, and our solid experience of the emerging NOW. The dynamic universe is what it is: dynamic reality, not illusion. Any timeless universe concept is at best useless and at worst delusional as it rejects observation-based fundamental aspects of the universe we find ourselves in. In some ultimate mathematical universe model time and all other variables may indeed satisfyingly balance out/sum to zero but in the meantime descriptions of how things dynamically happen over time are what we most need to determine.

Examining artifacts, we can deduce physical laws and use those measurements and deduced laws to predict future behavior. Predictability is limited by complexity and by such phenomena as QM randomness, chaos, and free will.

Self-reflecting, conscious structures

In our universe/reality there exists a physics-driven tendency for 'cold matter' within a Goldilocks range of circumstances to form highly complex systems/structures. Carbon and to a lesser extent other elements support the existence of complex molecules and ultimately life. This is a remarkable fundamental conclusion, on par with such findings as the principle of Uniformity, 'NOW', and the mathematical nature of our time-driven universe. Life and consciousness appear to follow as natural consequences of the basic 'Goldilocks' characteristics of the universe that favor the formation of such complex structures.

Given the principle of Uniformity and our 'example of one' it seems VERY likely that life and consciousness occur throughout our universe, though inconveniently, conscious life is likely very widely dispersed in space and time. Much work has been done in recent years with regard to Earth's perhaps unusually fortuitous circumstance as a haven for life as we know it, including characteristics of the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, our position in the Milky Way, the value of physical constants that determine universe structure and behavior, and so forth. But excitingly, many Earth-like planets are now being discovered, including a few that are also likely to enjoy many of the fortuitous circumstances conducive to life that we enjoy. Further, other forms of life may be possible: life that requires other sets of Goldilocks circumstances.

We can conclude with close to 100% certitude that we are not alone. Note that this philosophical 'speculation' is based on solid science/observation, including what has occurred on our own planet as an example of one, and the finding that there is much fundamental uniformity of physical laws, matter, and structures throughout the known universe.

Complex structures, though they consist wholly of simpler ones and follow only 'simple' physics laws, embody complex structure-influenced behaviors/phenomena that exist in their own right and are worthy of study. Simple reductionism is clearly inadequate, as complex systems display genuinely new phenomena including life and consciousness. Chaos theory is beginning to provide a better understanding of large-scale phenomena. The whole is clearly much more than the simple reductionist sum of its individual parts. Life consists of stunningly complex structures on all levels which support complex system-level behaviors not hinted at in simpler systems.

Human understanding of complex systems such as living creatures is growing rapidly but is still in its infancy. Science is justifiably re-directing more and more of its efforts away from basic physics issues and towards the understanding of complex systems such as living entities. Systems-level and systems-of-systems level research will dominate future science efforts.

Consciousness is an observed property of life forms. It is a complex phenomenon that many life-forms self-experience. Most humans self-experience it to a strong degree, as do other animals to varying degrees. It is self-referential/personal and consists ultimately of physics/chemistry/biology 'material' phenomenon levels. This 'materialistic' viewpoint does not detract from consciousness being an amazing phenomenon which feeds back on itself. It is not 'illusion,' it is reality to be studied and explained. Love, hate, fear, choice, freedom, free will, etc. are all real though they can only be self-experienced internally by the individual involved, as cascades of neural activity that loops back to constantly reshape what is experienced and remembered.

Again, it is unlikely that the most complete scientific explanations of consciousness, once found, will appear to be totally satisfactory in the opinion of many. It will come down to chemical reactions in millions of neurons and other brain parts, acting together in complex ways that possibly involve complex quantum and chaotic phenomena. The linkage between that and consciousness is necessarily wide and without simple explanation, much as the link between the electronic bits of text in a computer and the intended meanings of the author that go even behind the words to memes developed over centuries of civilizations and language development.

That matter can be self-conscious/aware is a fundamental finding of natural philosophy. However science can in principle provide only an external, 'third person' view of these self-experienced phenomena, leading to explanations that instinctively don't/won't seem to be complete but are in principle as complete as can possibly be provided by science. This is simply one of many basic limitations on understanding that have to be lived with. It is what it is.

How conscious thought is achieved is a great mystery but it seems to be a good guess that complex quantum mechanical and chaotic phenomena play major roles. The melding of relativistic and quantum mechanics has been a long sought goal of physics. The melding of quantum mechanics and chaos theory for application to neurology may prove to be even more fruitful. Cures for many psychological problems would then hopefully follow. Could it be that the detection and cure of some mental illnesses could involve tweaking a chaotic system (the mind) with a brain implant/pacemaker?

Choice and culture

We experience consciousness and the ability to make choices/exercise free will. We exchange our thoughts with others using math, language and art. We write down ideas and pass written artifacts on and exchange them. We create and evolve human culture. Culture in turn greatly influences us as individuals. Culture and the 'we' aspects of life can greatly enrich the lives of individuals, helping individuals cope with the stark realities that we all face.

Personal finiteness

As humans many of us live privileged lives due largely to the enormous efforts of our ancestors. Culture, art, love and other aspects of life help us cope with challenges. But none of us can escape our essential aloneness and finite abilities and lifetimes. We all try to cope with this in different ways, but we are all subject to the stark reality of our finitude. It sucks but that's the way it is. Sorry!

A God would be GREAT!

Unfortunately objective evidence of a personal God (or any sort of god) is completely lacking. I really, really, really wish that weren't so. Is there a God? Perhaps, but wishing something true doesn't make it happen. I must remain a skeptical agnostic. I'm not a staunch atheist, as I am certainly not 100% sure that there isn't a God, but an overwhelming lack of evidence argues against there being a God, in particular a personal God that shapes everything that happens around us with an intent towards influencing our well-being. I strongly hope that I'm wrong, but seriously doubt that such hope and need will generate any real gods.

A deistic entity that started and perhaps maintains the mathematical universe is of course a logical possibility. Some would even argue that it is a logical necessity. But objective direct evidence for such a being is also totally lacking. All forces and other entities discovered by science behave in accordance with strict mathematical relationships. The underlying driver of everything appears to be the fundamental mathematical physics of matter and energy. In sum there seems to be much stronger objective evidence for UFOs than there is for God or gods.

Many people are apparently undisturbed by the lack of an objectively verifiable God, and steadfastly cling to religious beliefs. Given the challenges and difficulties people face, this is not surprising. Hope springs eternal. People believe what they deeply NEED to believe. Most of my friends and relatives are religious to some degree, and I truly hope that they are correct. But I simply cannot suspend rationality to be religious, much to my own personal discomfort. (Think Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony! Thank you Peter!)

Other religious-type claims are similarly suspect, such as the existence of souls including immortal souls. Many philosophers and theologians believe strongly that humans have immaterial, possibly immortal souls that inhabit our material bodies, and that the essence of life is provided by an immaterial aspect of us that is out of reach of science. A nifty idea but there is simply no solid objective evidence to support a spirit mind/material body duality, or to suggest human uniqueness in that regard. Immortality? Heaven? I truly hope they exist, but greatly doubt that they do.

The arguments for so-called 'materialism' seem to be overwhelming. All basic elemental items and forces discovered in nature have been found to involve identifiable physical entities, without any ghostly unidentifiable non-physical influences in solid evidence.

Philosophically, the existence of non-material entities would clearly be problematic. As all things that we can clearly identify through science are materials, and interact strictly in accordance with the math/logic of physical laws, how could a non-material entity that is perhaps not following math laws selectively interact with matter? If it exists and can interact with matter, why would it never do so while we are carefully watching for such behavior? Why would 'ghostly' interference never be detected by our most sensitive scientific measurement apparatus? If such forces exist, shouldn't weird things regularly happen that are without any scientific explanation? Instead, we consistently and successfully enlarge our science to explain anomalies that discovered. The 'God of the gaps' gradually disappears as the gaps disappear. Some people find that to be disturbing, others such as me find it to be reassuring.

A particular set of math relationships may indeed be the ultimate answer beyond which there is no further explanation for the existence of everything. Precisely what math is followed on the universe/holistic and local/NOW levels is still being sought. But so far it looks like philosophically math may be the 'first cause' - the bottom philosophical turtle upon which all others stand/are supported. It could be that simple: an exciting answer for mathematicians but a perhaps disappointing answer to our greatest questions for philosophers, theologians, and poets. Or perhaps not so disappointing. It would mean that some God has not already figured out the answers for us, but that we must as best as we can figure out all the answers for ourselves. That sounds like an interesting prospect!

However, finding that math is behind everything would not mean that most of what we experience is 'illusion', in particular fundamental characteristics such as time and NOW are definitely as real as anything we have ever discovered. Not only humans but everything in our world apparently experiences time and NOW. The universe may well all 'be math', but that math has taken on form and characteristics which are complex and real; to deny this is so would be a logical contradiction and delusion. Illusion is incorrect/deceptive perception. Delusion is dismissive of perception/evidence. The universe is what it is, and much of it we directly sense or indirectly sense using instrumentation and analyses of artifacts, greatly expanding the range of our immediate perceptions. It is what it is.

Pet peeves and other complaints

I haven't the ability, time or patience to painstakingly and thoroughly apply science and logic in order to determine most of my opinions and actions. The discriminating thinker will therefore notice that there is a huge conceptual gap between what I focused on above (quantum mechanics, multiple universes, NOW, etc.) and most of what I discuss below. People need to survive in this complex world without researching and carefully considering everything that arises. That's life, folks!

Here then are some more of my views, starting with pet peeves, many unburdened by significant rational thought:

\- Kamikaze driving. Tailgaters, speeders, lane changers, etc. are annoying, juvenile, irresponsible, and dangerous. Then there are the people that don't signal what they are doing, or wait for the last moment to change lanes to exit a multiple-lane highway! I don't mind so much that they risk themselves, but I do very much mind that they risk others including me and my family.

When I drive I often recall my physics class on fluid mechanics. To maximize flow it is best to keep in mind that speed and density are paramount. Maintain safe separation but don't let gaps between vehicles grow beyond safe distances. Try to 'go with the flow' close to the speed limit as much as possible. Try to avoid lane changes and speed changes as much as practicable as those increase turbulence, reduce optimal laminar flow, and burn more fuel. The goal is to get from point A to point B cost effectively and safely (though expeditiously) in a dull, boring way, without the added excitement of trauma.

\- Trends, fads, "the latest", "what's new", celebs, vs. things "outdated." The current human species has been around for roughly 200,000 years. With the possible exception of advances in science and art I simply can't get very excited about 'the latest' whatever. I don't think I'll ever get 'into' Twitter. (Why would I want to 'follow' anyone? What a creepy notion!) Then there are the so-called 'reality' shows! (Help! I generally prefer well thought out, well produced fiction!) It is said that every new generation discovers sex and other things and thinks that THEY have invented it all anew. Not really! Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms have not been matched by anyone since. Though they admittedly stood on the shoulders of giants the genius of Newton, Darwin, and Einstein will be equaled but never surpassed. The hype about 'what's new' is largely marketing BS. Non- granite counter-tops and non-stainless steel appliances are fine. (Actually wood has natural bacteria killing properties that make it a superior material for countertops.) I don't care to 'follow' anybody except perhaps my immediate family. My phone doesn't have to be smart, I do.

All of the crazy 'what's new' hype is probably necessary to drive the economy and keep up morale but I don't have the time, interest, or cash to pursue it. Life is too short to be buried by the cultural and capitalist mania pushing the latest fads. Besides, as I grow older my memory has degraded such that old stuff seems new every time that I re-experience it. It's a gift!

\- PC. "Political correctness" has gotten way out of hand. Here in America everyone has a basic right to be wrong. Argue rationally and respectfully against a point of view and try to get people to change their goof-ball views (defined as views that are not the same as yours) but don't simply deride and dismiss them. We're all in this together on spaceship Earth, folks! Can't we all just get along?

\- Mayonnaise on burgers. I was raised to put mustard and catsup on burgers and hotdogs, and raw onions are great also - and maybe some pickle, pickle relish, horseradish, or cheese for a special thrill. But skip the other stuff please, particularly the mayo-based sauces! Burgers are not salads. If I want lettuce, tomatoes and salad dressing I'll eat a salad, not a nice juicy burger. (Hey! All of a sudden I'm hungry for a burger!) And if you're going to eat a nasty hotdog, it might as well be a REAL hotdog, and not one of those low-fat imitation hotdogs that lack the taste of yummy salty fat. Eat it on a whole-wheat hotdog roll to nutritionally and morally balance out the hot dog fat and chemicals.

\- Cake. Sugar and over-processed flour anyone? Give me fruit pie instead please, preferably a berry pie. (Hey! Suddenly I'm hungry for berry pie!) And leave out the starchy filler please; I want an abundance of actual REAL FRUIT! Above all, give me real sugar and not artificial sweeteners in my pie. And warm up the pie and provide some REAL dairy-based ice cream on top. What kind of ice cream?

\- Vanilla ice cream. Vanilla is generally too mild a flavor for ice cream. Chocolate and butter-pecan are my favorites, a big cold scoop of each please, maybe with some semi-sweet dark chocolate syrup poured over it. But vanilla ice cream is really good if it accompanies something tastier, such as a warmed-up slice of fruit pie or turnover. Vanilla ice cream: not on its own as good as many other flavors but it does have its very positive and tasty uses. (Philosophically there is a deeper lesson in life hidden here somewhere folks!)

\- Plastic garbage bags w/o twist-ties. Why do people pay triple for those cinch-sack garbage bags when a simple wire twist-tie will do the job better and cheaper? Why pay at least triple for small zip-lock bags when twist-tie bags are so much cheaper and usually work just as well? I do buy the zip-able bags for special purposes such as airline flights but generally prefer twist-tie bags. But alas, twist-tie bags are getting as hard to find as the New Coke. Fortunately within a chaotic kitchen drawer I have amassed what I hope is a lifetime supply of twist-ties which I can apply and someday leave to my lucky heirs if any of them remain. They will find that twist-ties come in very handy as a multipurpose household item.

\- Plastic coat hangers. Can you open a locked car or fasten on a loose muffler with a plastic coat hanger? I don't think so! Give me old-fashioned wire hangers, please. With wire hangers, duct tape, Three-In-One Oil, and Elmer's Glue-All you can fix almost anything. Almost!

\- Bins in supermarkets to throw away corn husks. Those bins were placed there by well-meaning people that obviously haven't a clue as to how to best cook corn-on-the-cob. Cook corn in the husk people! You can simply microwave it (OK) in the husk or roast it on grills (much better) or actually in the glowing hot coals of a camp-fire (best).

First find good, fresh corn. Buy sweet corn with small tender kernels if you can find it. The husk should be healthy green and not dry or wilted. The frequent problem with supermarket corn is that it is over-ripe and hence tough. When you check for bugs look for corn that is not too ripe at the small end: the corn kernels shouldn't be big and squashed together at the end. Old or over-ripe corn is pig food.

My favorite method is to cook ears protected by dampened husks in the hot glowing coals resulting from a wood fire. I remove about half of the outer husk and use it to wrap whole potatoes in. I like to fold back the husk and remove most silk. At his point you can season the corn if you wish, before again covering the ear with the remaining husk. Soak the husk-protected corn ears and potatoes in water, and individually wrap/seal each one in aluminum foil. The foil and husks will hold in the steam and protect the ears and potatoes from burning too much. (A little browning of kernels is actually very good!) When most of the flame is burned down from your camp fire (or you can use burning charcoal), gently place or bury the wrapped ears and potatoes in the red-hot coals and let them bake for about half an hour, perhaps turning them occasionally for equal heat exposure if necessary. Potatoes can go longer. Meanwhile cook your meat, vegetables, marshmallows, etc. Corn cooked in the husk is much tastier! Baked potatoes are by far the best form of cooked white-potatoes.

\- Shoestring potatoes. Baked potatoes or thick steak-fries with skins are very good. Stuffed baked potatoes can be great! Home-fries and waffle fries are not so bad. Thin fries covered with crusty oil-gunk are nasty. Shoestring-thin fried potatoes smothered in oily crust are the worst. Sweet potatoes and sweet potato fries are superior in taste and nutrition - so why don't we see/taste more of them? The free-marketplace has resulted in many inexplicable oddities.

\- Too much elastic in waist-bands and socks. What's going on? Did the mob corner the market on elastic and force clothes designers to use more? (A successful conspiracy?) Yes, I don't want my socks and pants to fall down. But no, I don't want socks and pants to be so tight that the circulation of blood and the digestion of food are inhibited. Folks, I'm headed for ribbed socks and suspenders so that I can work comfortably on my yard.

\- Grass (the kind that makes up a lawn). Grass is greatly over-rated. Weeds are MUCH more interesting! Closely examine the weeds in your yard and you will discover tiny flowers and miniature wasps and other creatures that you probably never even realized were there! Grass (except for the nice hardy variants such as crab-grass) is typically too thin-bladed and shallow-rooted to stand up to heat and drought. In dry regions grass requires too much water to be practical or ethical. Reject monoculture and chemicals! Grass upkeep is too much work anyway, people! Reclaim your weekends; befriend a weed today! Biodiversity NOW! I have already begun a complete transition from grass to weeds in my own yard! It's easy! (And I'm in favor of easy!)

Grass (and non-grass) is such an exciting topic that I am very tempted to write a book about it and spread my (anti) grass wisdom. (Stay tuned!) I would also like to write a book about another equally exciting topic: dust. You just don't see enough books about dust! Of course both grass and dust though exciting topics don't hold a candle to dirt. Soil is one of the most amazing things in the universe that you don't see enough written about.

\- Grass (the kind that is smoked to get high). Doctors should certainly be able to prescribe marihuana for medical purposes. I am apprehensive about making marihuana publically available, given the apparent health and behavior issues. Isn't alcohol and alcoholism enough folks? (Often it's too much!) I am grateful for people in Colorado and other places for experimenting with liberal pot policies, but I don't want it happening in my state/neighborhood until it is proven to be relatively safe. If it's as 'bad' as alcohol it's probably not worth it, even if it's as 'good' as alcohol.

\- Binary thinking. It seems that too many people want ridiculously simple and quick answers to all problems/issues. Yes or no, right or wrong, good or bad, for or against. The world is not so simple, so human opinion should generally not be simplistic, but complex/nuanced. Sorry, there are no simple panaceas to solve big problems, especially not overnight. To think so is irresponsible and downright stupid. Politically 'left or right' is far too simple a choice, both 'sides' make some good practical points. Politically I am 'left leaning' but I am not a communist. As the Russians found, people are too greedy and self-serving for true altruistic communism to even arise much less work out. Attempts at achieving communism have only resulted in nasty dictatorships. Moderation people! I support big social programs (to the extent they are affordable) such as social security but am also in favor of reducing the national debt. These goals are not necessarily contradictory, but considerations that suggest a balanced approach.

\- Blamers. Why do people like to play the 'blame game'? Big conspiracies don't usually exist; most 'bad' stuff just naturally happens. People generally don't get along well enough or keep secrets well enough to form competent conspiracies. Belief in widespread conspiracies is another case of fundamental stupidity. Are blamers that way because they lack personal integrity and think the worst of others? It really must be tough to live in a world surrounded by 'evil' doers out to get you because you are out to get them! Finding someone even stupider than yourself does not make you smart. Control your fear! I'm not 'out to get you' largely because I'm too busy taking care of myself. Generally that holds for most people.

\- Freeloaders. OK, people certainly aren't blameless. Left or right leaning, nobody likes a freeloader that is of reasonably sound mind and body. If there is some means to identify such people they should be firmly incentivized to contribute meaningfully to society. In general people are not 'owed' a living; all people should work to earn their keep to whatever degree that they are able to. However there will always be infirm, incapable people that need a Government safety-net, including people without available and willing friends, families, or other sources of private help. These are human beings that need help, not freeloaders.

\- Few good jobs. Then there is the basic problem that occurs when jobs (particularly 'good' jobs) are simply unavailable. In the USA many jobs have been either automated or exported or both. Perhaps remaining jobs could be more widely shared. For example obviously more jobs would be available if less hours were worked by those working. We should probably go to a standard 32 hour work-week. Someday 24. Then 16. Whatever technology supports!

We should also require and certify that our goods are produced in factories (wherever those are!) with decent hours, wages, safety, low pollution, etc. We need to equalize the playing field. Maybe along with jobs we could export lawyers to China. Why is it that we can we certify food that is organic or GMO yet are unable to certify what was produced under acceptable worker and environmental conditions?

\- Working poor. Then there is the problem of people that work their tails off and still can't live very well. They can't even afford basics such as adequate food, shelter, and medical care for their families without a huge tax break. That is unacceptable in any society. For a start increase the minimum wage. Get people out of Government welfare and 'earned income' wealth transfer and massively reduce Government expenditures.

\- The obscenely rich. Contrast the working poor with others that make many millions of dollars every year or even every day - obscene amounts of money far beyond what they need to live even as rich people. That is also absurdly unfair. Should any job pay a thousand times more than any other job? I don't think so. Besides, rich people need to understand that they can't make much money from poor people that can't buy much. 'Greed' driven capitalism is necessary but needs constraints and shaping. Technological advances support an increased ability to concentrate individual wealth beyond what is healthy for society. Computers can even do it automatically. This is another huge problem which I don't yet know exactly how to fix. However, as a start the rich and especially the super-rich should pay MUCH higher taxes towards upkeep of a society that through its infrastructure and citizens supports their attainment of absurd wealth.

\- Corporations as people; money as free speech. These are anti-democratic notions. Fix it.

\- Exploiters. There are people that do whatever they can get away with to benefit themselves. Lying and cheating and taking advantage of others is how they live. Life is some sort of game for them with only one player that matters - themselves. Human greed is perhaps necessary but needs to be kept in check. Capitalism is controlled greed (and also an essential economic mechanism) and necessary but needs to be kept within constraints. Legal constraints on exploiters are of course required and need to be better enforced. For all you cheap multi-millionaires out there reading this free book: don't be exploiters; be givers! Use your gifts and good luck to help the less fortunate.

\- Telemarketers. Speaking of exploiters, with the possible exception of used car salesmen, lawyers, and health insurers, telemarketers rank pretty low in my (this) book. Give us a break! Quit calling; we aren't interested! And obviously commercial TV and internet are far too commercial and annoying. We have more important matters to deal with, such as our health.

\- The Health 'System'. I think that we in the USA need one. Healthcare should be a recognized basic right in the United States, as it is in most of the developed world. 'Single-payer' sounds good to me - that would simplify healthcare and cut overhead costs enormously. Over 90% of taxes paid for healthcare would go to the delivery of services, which should be private, competitive and open to scrutiny/analysis and limited lawsuits. Other countries do it, so can we!

Government constraints on treatment should be minimal. Doctors and patients should pick treatments, not insurance companies or (except to avoid obvious flimflammery) the Government. Cheating would be a federal crime with severe consequences. Standard treatments would be done for standard prices, adjusted based on a local cost of living index. New treatments as a start should be medically effective with costs that are not outlandish compared with existing treatments.

A lot of jobs and stock portfolios would be displaced, but it would be worth it. Much waste and sickness can be avoided at lower cost. We could acquire more medical providers and fewer money changers/insurance companies. Turn insurance and doctor office workers into more doctors and nurses. Health is too important to be dominated by the health industry stock market and lobbyists.

\- Big Government. It is expensive and worrisome but for practical reasons everyone nowadays must have one. It is needed to protect individual life, liberties/freedoms, and the pursuit of happiness on a world stage full of other powerful governments and private institutions. Democracy is difficult, but as Churchill pointed out, some form of democracy/democratic republic is probably about the best that we can do. Complete freedom is anarchy and just as bad an idea as dictatorship. Some middle-of-the-road balance between libertarianism and all-out socialism sounds about right. In the USA we need to look at what other peoples of the world have/are doing and adapt what is sensible, such as universal healthcare.

\- Privatized government. Some institutions and jobs/functions should inherently remain governmental. Privatization has gone too far in some areas including police and prisons. Reducing penalties for drug use would dramatically reduce the prison population. Prisons should not be businesses.

\- Big business: another necessary 'evil' and one which requires big government to protect against extremes such as unconstrained capitalism/greed. Of course big businesses are also a necessary 'good' which can develop products and provide services that small companies can't.

\- Death. I'm against it. Immortality for everyone! Especially for people and other entities that I care about. Tweak the hell out of life to continue it as long as practicable, please.

\- Anti-science. I'm against it. Science though imperfect provides the most solid set of knowledge we have about our world. Anti-science efforts are a prime example of self-destructive stupidity. Sensible confidence in science is not a matter of 'belief' but part of a practical, fact-based, rational world view.

\- The term 'people of color' misapplied. As anyone with at least a middle-school science background knows, 'white' results from the presence of so many colors (thank you, Newton!) that the mind translates it to the perception 'white', while 'black' reflects a total absence of light of any color. Hence from a science perspective white skinned people (particularly albino people) are 'people of many colors' while black skinned people are 'people without any color.' I have to wince every time I hear this term misused, as it is an abuse of basic science that reflects a lack of science knowledge within the public at large. But since a majority of USA citizens are said to not 'believe' in evolution, why should I be surprised at this relatively minor affront?

\- The term 'N times less' used in ads and elsewhere (Recently I even saw it used in a Scientific American article!). Here is yet another bit of troubling trivia! What is meant when it is said that item A is "ten times less" than item B? Shouldn't they really be talking about division rather than multiplication? Doesn't it make much more sense to say that item A is one tenth as large as item B? Or that item B is ten times as large as item A? Similarly, percentages of savings are usually given without specifying the basis by which the percentages are defined. Am I the only one disturbed and confused by this mathematical flimflammery?

\- Clothes sold out of season. Why are many clothes sold for the NEXT season? I don't plan that far ahead. When I need something to wear NOW I want to be able to buy it NOW! One day in early September it was 94 degrees Fahrenheit and summer outside and I tried to buy light-weight jeans in a jean store. I was told they had been put away until next spring. Silly me!

\- Clothes not my size. For example all members of my family have small wide feet. Strangely, wide widths are usually not sold in small shoe sizes. What's with that? Women have a particularly difficult time. No human beings should be forced to wear the pointy-toed, high healed, unpadded monstrosities that often pass for women's 'dress' shoes. (OK, they shape already nice legs nicely but that's about it!) All people should wear well-padded running shoes most of the time, even if they never run. Stores often have big-and-tall departments, which is fine, but where are the short-and-wide departments? As I grow older I am becoming even shorter and wider, making finding clothes that fit me even more difficult. Life is tough.

\- Big mattresses without handles. Why is it that small twin-bed sized mattresses always seem to have handy carrying handles on the sides and big heavy awkward full and queen sized mattresses don't? (At least in my limited experience!) Somewhere the gods are laughing. I look for a candid camera whenever I have to move a big mattress.

\- Gutters manufactured without leaf guards. Why? (Too obvious to require a discussion.)

\- Anti-environment. I'm against it. EXACTLY what pro-environment measures that implies in practice isn't always clear, as the issues are complex. To survive as a species we have to impact our environment, often to the detriment of other life, including our own. But some assaults on the environment are blatantly damaging/obscene; we should be able to agree on many of them and apply more and stronger measures than we do. These policies need to be well thought out and limited/balanced to what is sensible. For example as an animal, with each breath I produce CO2 that contributes to climate change, but please don't outlaw my doing so. Besides I have planted several trees which are outside in my yard fighting climate change to the best of their abilities. I'm one of the good guys! Honest!

\- Human misery. I'm against it.

\- Inhuman misery. I'm against it, but I'm an omnivore, not an herbivore. Even as I write this, I am longing for a beef-burger with catsup, mustard, and (most important, next to the burger itself) raw onions. To quote the famous sage Popeye the sailor: "I yem what I yem." On the other hand I am in favor of eating less meat and more beans. Except for one unfortunate characteristic that can be countered by Beano and air fresheners, beans are perhaps the ideal food.

\- People that don't like cats. So what if cats destroy furniture, wake you up, always want their own way, smell up the house, cost money, spread disease, etc.? Dogs and people do that stuff also and are tolerated. Cats are highly individualistic and freedom-loving; isn't that a treasured American trait? Besides, cats are cute and often affectionate. (It's the only thing that saves them.) I distrust people that can't get along with cats. They lack empathy and social skills. The ability of someone to get along with cats is a far better indicator of their humanity, trust-worthiness, and likability than their politics or their religion or lack-thereof. I will not knowingly vote for anyone that hates cats. On the other hand, if someone can get along well with cats does that mean that they can absolutely be trusted? No, not really. Nothing is that simple. But as part of the presidential candidate debate process each candidate should be forced to hold a kitten on live TV as they debate. It couldn't hurt.

\- Religious zealots/nut cases. Religion is a huge source of both good and evil. In balance it has been an enormously positive thing, as a source of personal strength, some pretty good moral guidance, and a comfort for billions of people. However government needs to be secular, and religion kept private; not an excuse for wars, murder, and discrimination, or for cherry-picking science. Empty-headed religious zealots that deny science and basic human rights due to religious beliefs are a huge danger in/to all societies. Religions-gone-wild have been a terrible problem throughout history. Is it possible to benefit from the 'good parts' of religion while rejecting the bad? Hopefully, because religion isn't going away anytime soon.

While 'cherry picking' science theories is definitely a no-no, cherry picking religion is absolutely necessary in order to come up with something consistent and in balance 'good' vs evil. Christians: PLEASE focus on The New Testament and the Golden Rule, and not on the Old Testament. Interspersed with amusing enlightening stories there is lots of creepy stuff in that Old Testament, folks!

If you have to be religious, please find a group that supports equal rights for all races, women, and LGBT people, recognizes that science is not a religious belief system, and is generally tolerant of the beliefs of others as part of a pluralistic society. Religions tend to include a lot of antiquated and arbitrary cultural baggage; try to be open minded and objective in getting rid of the obvious crap and keeping only the good parts. As guidance note that breaking open an egg at either end is truly OK, as the great adventurer/philosopher Gulliver pointed out years ago. (Thank you, Johnathan Swift!)

I will not knowingly vote for an over-zealous religious whack-job or someone that pretends to be one.

\- Guns. For better and/or for worse owning these items designed to kill is a basic right in the USA. Nowadays for the most part having guns in the home just seems like a really stupid idea, unless perhaps you live in a really bad neighborhood or live in a politically unstable country. The USA has been pretty stable since it was set up (except for that Civil War nastiness) and is unlikely to become highly unstable anytime soon (knock on wood!). Collect stamps, not guns! Hunting unarmed animals isn't very sporting. I don't own a gun. (No surprise there!) On the other hand harm my family including pets and I will buy a gun and blow you away. I yem what I yem and I sometimes exhibit a bad temper. OK, I definitely shouldn't have a gun.

I am in favor of outlawing all handguns in the USA except perhaps for police weapons. Handguns are not even very useful for hunting or target shooting and are far too easy to conceal. They are designed mainly to kill other human beings; what could be more inherently evil than that? Restrict legal barrel lengths to over two feet. Automatic weapons and some ammunition types are obviously far too dangerous and should also be strictly outlawed. Only police should be allowed to carry around guns in most environments. Mostly trust but also robustly/carefully verify/monitor appropriate police behavior. All lives matter, people!

\- Macho. If anything we need less testosterone in this world, not more. Less alpha ego. Fewer power freaks. Less rash decisions and violence. The brain (Vs. other organs) rationally applying the Golden Rule should drive most human action.

-'Reality' TV. Many so called 'reality' shows are horrible. Give me more well-produced, well performed, well thought out fiction instead, please! And if a network is called the science fiction network, please put better quality sci-fi on it! I like pulp as much as the next person but some higher quality sci-fi would be greatly appreciated. Bring back a few westerns. Bring back serious drama. If it's called a 'biography' channel don't confine it to stories about Hollywood and TV celebs. Let's have biographies on a variety of inspiring successful people such as artists, scientists, and other do-gooders! Networks titled such things as 'history' or 'discovery' should also be more true to their titles. Truth in advertising!

\- Advertising. Another necessary evil (why are there so many of those?) we must live with but there is far too much of it. Also, it should be understandable and entertaining.

\- American exceptionalism perverted. US Americans are fortunate to enjoy plentiful natural resources, relative isolation, good government, exceptional freedoms and ideals, relatively little warfare fought within our boundaries, technologies, industrialization, etc. We can be rightfully proud of most of our heritage and history. Also it is inherently beneficial for a people to have a positive self-view. However here in the USA the notion of 'American exceptionalism' has been perverted.

Historians are correct to point out that many other civilizations have had their moments in the sun also, including Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, and England, to name only a few. American cultural world dominance and military supremacy is likely a relatively short lived phenomenon. In may seem paradoxical to some, but to maintain a healthy stable country that continues to 'lead the world' and maintain safety and well-being for its citizens, rather than simplistically struggling for dominance against rivals we must develop a new unity/partnership with them, a long term pluralism that respects and maintains national and cultural identities and relies primarily on ideologies and example rather than on economic and military dominance to win lasting friends and allies.

World-wide, the USA is greatly admired but also greatly feared and hated by many. A militaristic policeman to the world, neocon approach is not an ideal to be touted as 'American exceptionalism' and is ultimately doomed to failure. For example the Iran invasion was a huge mistake and an enormous setback to our place and image in the world. Long term world leadership must be based primarily on example, empathy, and reason, not primarily on military might. When you have a powerful military the more peaceful path is often the more difficult and courageous path, but it tends to lead to more stable, lasting results. As always, the Golden Rule applies.

Overgrown American exceptionalism is a problem that takes many forms and pervades all facets of even our own society. It relates to a simplistic and misguided blind faith in proclaimed 'traditional' ideals that has twisted and perverted Americanism away from progress and towards reactionary obstructionism: for example towards unconstrained capitalism, extremist Christianity, racial and sexual bigotry, and the myths of 'no child left behind' and the 'American dream'.

Rather than ensuring that each child develops to their full potential, the no child left behind initiative drove USA education into a one-education-fits-all race towards mediocrity. Both tails of the intelligence bell-curve have been ignored, and the education of those at the middle of the curve has been pushed towards low end achievement. Educators have thankfully rebelled and we are slowly recovering but we still have a long way to go.

The American dream is a powerful and positive notion. Given our freedoms and improving technology it is not an unreasonable or unhealthy goal to strive for a world where one's children are indeed better off than their parents.

But to think of our exceptionalism as manifest destiny, as something we used to have but are now losing due to inevitable changes, or as an entitlement from society, God, or government is irrational and self-defeating. Arrayed against the dream of a better future there has always been a formidable assemblage of difficult problems/challenges at local, national, and (increasingly) world-wide levels. The complex problems at all levels require progress, not regress. Our problems are simply not going to solve themselves or disappear by returning to a simpler (largely mythical) past or demanding that everyone follow one set of beliefs or ideals.

American exceptionalism also does not mean running roughshod over the world using economic and militaristic power. That has been done before numerous times in times past by many failed empires. America is different. American exceptionalism means succeeding and leading by example and by providing enlightenment and help to others. It means applying the Golden Rule. It means using forward-looking leadership (not domination) that features courage, fortitude, patience, friendship, and reason. There are hundreds of good examples including ancient Greece, Gandhi, and Jesus.

\- Etc. nearly ad infinitum. Perhaps the cup is half empty?

Good stuff IS included!

\- Love, beauty, art, the wonder of nature, etc. - are fabulous! Our world is spectacular! Life is miraculous! To a large extent, your life is what YOU make of it. Make yours a good life! Live life and enjoy it! Love, berry pie and chocolate ice cream for everyone!

\- Evolution. Life on this Earth is the greatest wonder of nature that we have yet discovered. Our eternal thanks are owed to Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and legions of others for discovering and explaining evolution. Over more than three billion years what a wonderful job the evolution mechanism has done in creating wondrously diverse, beautiful, resilient, and capable life forms far beyond the scope of our imaginations! Thanks to evolution we humans exist and are also truly not alone. Consider for example our close kindred companions the domestic dogs and cats. Our most recent common ancestor was 85 million years ago, yet after that point we continued to evolve in similar environments such that enough convergent evolution occurred to allow us to recently get along well enough together to co-inhabit our homes and lives. We are not alone!

\- Freedom/human rights. I'm for it, including for example LGBT rights! Sexuality is not a choice, but bigotry is! Nobody should be discriminated against for the sexuality that they were (mostly) born with (as indicated by science and the testimony of the people involved). I am confounded when I hear people indicate that their opposition of the right to marry for homosexuals is in order to 'defend' marriage or religion or American values. Really? How is denying rights to others ever going to defend or improve your own life situation? How could opposing loving relationships save marriages? How could denial of civil rights for a class of people be an American value?

Then there are the self-proclaimed 'religious' hypocrites that cherry-pick the Bible and ignore the Golden Rule (the Prime Directive, in my view!) to oppose LGBT rights! If anything is inherently 'good' it is love. Love is a wonderful and highly personal thing that should have social support and minimal societal constraints. Benevolent pluralism is much of the answer. We must learn to better co-exist.

\- Mysterious stuff. There may be much more afoot in our universe than is dreamt of in my philosophy. Aside from things we have not yet discovered because they are too big, too small, or too far away in space and/or time, there may be things closer but less than obvious which still defy the plodding efforts of science. Note for example that chaos science is only about half a century old, though chaos phenomena have of course been in existence forever. The chaos example suggests that other amazing discoveries may still be hiding in plain sight! For example what if all things paranormal are not simply self-deceptive hokum? What about Loch Ness creatures, big foot, ghosts, angels, UFOs, and the entire spirit-world realm?

There is a strong attraction (both intellectual and emotional) towards seriously entertaining seemingly preposterous notions. After all, wouldn't the universe be even more interesting if some such things existed? How can anyone know with absolute certainty that they do not? Should anyone believing in such things be labeled crazy? Should anyone not believing in such things be labeled crazy? If such things exist would that mean that there is hope for God and Santa? Maintain an open though highly skeptical mind.

\- Hot pants and micro-miniskirts. In the early 1970's I found myself to be on a collage campus where tiny shorts and skirts became popular among curvaceous coeds. I might never recover. I'm still waiting hopefully for them to come back. Soon, while my eyesight is still good enough such that I may benefit. I yem what I yem.

\- Hope for the future. There are mostly 'good' people in this world. Despite our wanton self-destructiveness there remains much beauty and goodness in ourselves and the world. Despite all the problems that we face there are plausible solutions for at least most of them. Science/technology is improving. The world is 'getting smaller' and people of the world are communicating with each other more. There is much reason to expect and strive towards a good future, but we need to buckle down in order to make sure that it becomes a good future - we are not going to survive and things are not simply going to get better on their own. Here in the USA we can and must do much better. Even here in this fortunate nation there is much unnecessary ignorance, sickness, poverty, bigotry, violence, distrust, hate and fear that we can and must overcome. We really must!

\- Etc. though less than ad infinitum. So no, the cup is half full.

5. Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men

### (### SPOILER ALERT! You may wish to read Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men BEFORE you read this section, as it discusses 'secrets' that unfold in the novels! ###)

My novels are fiction in which much liberty has been taken with the physics of reality as I understand reality to be as outlined in my above elucidated weltanschauung. I have discussed multiverse concepts and quantum mechanics interpretation at some length because in my fictional writings I digress egregiously from my own mundane world view.

Psychic/magic powers

In Secrets of Goth Mountain several characters have psychic/magic powers. Johnny Goth can read thoughts, though he ethically restricts himself from doing so. He can telekinetically move things through the power of thought. Somehow the structure of his mind/thoughts are 'tuned in' with the universe such that through thought he may interact with other things in the universe. Perhaps he is subtly influencing quantum mechanical probabilities and various physical forces such as electromagnetism and gravity. In any case there is no support in science for the existence or possibility of such powers. Sorry Johnny! Your powers are fantasy!

Likewise in Government Men the unlikely hero inept DOD physicist Dr. Narbando T. Bates eventually acquires psychic powers that are similarly unsupported in science. Narb even learns how to move objects through other objects by nullifying quantum interactions, a trick of science fantasy that ultimately saves the Earth from destruction.

Parallel universes

In Johnny's reality other/multiple universes can be tapped into/reached. The Cube in Secrets of Goth Mountain is an alien artifact which supports the transfer of doppelgangers between various parallel universes of a multiverse. In fact, the Cube forcefully exchanges doppelgangers, much to their distress! As we have discussed, there are indeed proponents of multiverse concepts and the existence of doppelgangers. I have exploited this in my books but personally greatly doubt the existence of multiple universes and doppelgangers.

The Cube exhibits many fantastical properties. It accesses parallel universes. Within the Cube parallel universes can be seen. The Cube lets light travel through its square faces and between universes, but does so selectively in terms of intensity as well as wavelength, as dangerous lazar blasts aren't permitted. Except when the Cube exchanges doppelgangers its walls are apparently impenetrable except (conveniently!) for light in the visible spectrum, perhaps impenetrable even to unicorns. The Cube apparently exists simultaneously in all the universes that it accesses. All of the universes accessed appear to have identical physical laws/properties; only the history of each one differs. It appears to be tapping into a tiny sample of the infinite QM multiverses/timelines implied by the multiple universe interpretation of QM, but violating one of its most sacred tenants by supporting interchanges of light and doppelgangers between universes.

Note that the Cube appears to ordinarily only be capable of exchanging sentient doppelgangers. It was designed to be a unicorn trap, with the curiosity of the unicorn relied on to entice it to enter the Cube. There are a multitude of open questions regarding the Cube. For example how does the Cube invigorate life and make Johnny and others healthier and stronger? How does it sense humans near it and identify doppelgangers? What forces does it use to attract and repel human doppelgangers? How/why (with great difficulty) can shaman powers control Cube functions?

In short though described to be an object of alien science the Cube is a fantastical fantasy object with many unexplained and unexplainable properties. By identifying it to be a mysterious high-tech alien artifact and being consistent as to its properties/behavior it is curiously given a shroud of plausibility. (Isn't THAT convenient!) The novel is sprinkled with pseudo-science hints that hopefully lend credibility to the Cube. It is left as a reader exercise to determine if the Cube seems plausible enough to support the story.

The Cube doesn't appear in Government Men, but will someday re-appear in the third and final novel of the planned trilogy.

Shaman magic

In Secrets of Goth Mountain and in Government Men, Johnny's shaman friends Great Two Bears and Dooley Simple, and to a lesser extent Johnny, can tap into some sort of forest primal life force. Complex electric and chemical interactions that help form life are somehow tapped into. To my knowledge science has of yet detected no such forces, nor does it appear that anything other than 'material' explanations are required to explain life. There may indeed be such phenomena related to quantum mechanics and/or chaos theory that await scientific discovery, but they are very well hidden and dormant if they do exist. This is fantasy, folks.

Johnny and Dooley go on to play important roles in Government Men, and will re-appear in the third novel of the intended trilogy.

Jigs and farsight

I brazenly placed myself in the novel Government Men using the anagram Ray Dave Jigs. Naturally while I was at it, I made myself the richest person on Earth and gave myself unlimited quantities of fruit pie. (Hey it's my book, so I figured why not?) Jigs has also built a city which features robotic dinosaurs and a full size replica of the star-ship Enterprise, as well as a profusion of music and other art. It is perhaps a Disney World sort of place fully realized and personalized to myself. (Thanks for the idea Walt!)

Jigs has a psychic power called 'farsight' which allows him to 'farsee' various futures which he writes down as various versions of a novel titled Government Men. So yes, the novel Government Men appears within itself! Tegmark's multiverse concept supports all possibilities actually happening. The combination of transactional negative time and multi-universe QM concepts supports the ability of Jigs to farsee multiple possible futures. As previously discussed I do not prescribe to the multiverse QM interpretation, and although negative time is conceptually part of the transactional interpretation that I do personally favor, being able to farsee multiple possible futures is fanciful fantasy and certainly violates my Now One Universe concept.

The possible futures have been documented by Jigs as several versions of Government Men. The farsight ability of Jigs allows him to give sage advice to Bates to move him through a plot that Jigs has seen could lead to the saving of the Earth.

Note that the author of a book really can sort of farsee how the story will come out, and finally get there with some re-writes. However that's the only real way to farsee the (fictional) future - as I am suggesting by employing this mechanism in Government Men. Jigs is a metaphor (and more!) for authors. The entire mechanism is a fun way for the author to explicitly intrude into the story in a very unusual way; hopefully in a way what is as amusing for readers as it was for the writer.

Why did I create Jigs? Government Men was my first novel, and I thought that it might be my last and my only chance to be a multi-billionaire. More than twenty years ago I didn't realize that writing would become an unavoidable habit! So I tried to put everything I could into Government Men, including myself as a billionaire and a sort of low-key psychic behind the scenes super-hero. The book got so long and complicated that for the sake of fun and completeness I actually went back into it and also added a kitchen sink. And lots of berry pie and Twinkies. Hey why not?

For much more detail on the role that Jigs and his novel revisions play, please read Government Men. And look for Jigs and his friend the Traveler to reappear in the yet to be written final book of the trilogy that started with Secrets and Government Men.

Pru the unicorn

Pru is an 'elemental', a creature of pure energy, as are the other unicorns, the dragons, the Traveler, and to an extent Dark, the evil demon in Secrets of Goth Mountain. Pru can be visible or invisible, and walk through walls and mountains, apparently through some sort of control of physical forces including QM probabilities. Pru can also instantaneously teleport herself and perform other psychic feats such as telekinesis and telepathy. The nifty thing about elementals is that they can do practically anything. This is very useful for fantasy fiction, but not realistic.

Note however that even Pru has her limits. In Secrets of Goth Mountain she is perplexed by the Cube, and in Government Men she is greatly outmatched by her ancient dragon companion and stretched beyond her limits to cope with Armageddon. Even super beings must have limits, or they become boring gods.

Pru and her unicorn and non-unicorn mythical friends also live in a parallel universe sort of place that is nearly but not quite on Earth. This is true also of the elves, trolls, dwarves, etc. in my fantasy noir detective novel The Shrinking Nuts Case.

Do not be surprised when unicorns also appear in the planned final novel of this trilogy. You can't have too much of a good thing!

The Traveler and 'portal' travel

In additional to being a shape-shifting elemental and an intergalactic traveler, the Traveler of Government Men can scramble genetic make-up of beings such that their full genetic potential is realized. The 'science' premise is that much unrealized potential may be found within living beings, which the Traveler can activate and transform normal beings into Guardians that have great strength and psychic powers. Bates thereby becomes transformed by the Traveler into a much more powerful individual, and to some extent so do his children, future wife, and dog. This is mostly pure fantasy. Yes, living creatures carry with them lots of genetic code that has no apparent function that we yet know of, but creating a more capable and powerful being from these spare parts would prove problematic at best. This is pseudo-science fantasy.

Intergalactic travel via some sort of worm-hole phenomenon has long been a common staple of science-fantasy. In this case a network of portals that support instantaneous travel across space/time was originally established to accommodate and disperse elemental Great Ones/Dragons, but such portals are subsequently used also by others such as the Traveler and his Earthly friend Jigs. Perhaps the Traveler is a metaphor for readers, but that's not what I was consciously thinking when I created him.

There are numerous instances in my novels in which apparently instantaneous travel occurs. In Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men, the People including unicorns inhabit a parallel dimension that may be reached from normal Earth space/time through unicorn powers. Unicorns in Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men also have the unexplained fantasy-based ability to teleport within normal Earthly space/time. In The Shrinking Nuts Case elves and trolls inhabit a parallel universe which Mick the troll can reach through magic/fantasy means.

Conventional quantum mechanics provides matter with the ability to suddenly be displaced, though such occurrences are so unlikely that they (almost) never happen in real life for macroscopic bodies. It is unlikely that a single complex molecule would be displaced intact over even a microscopic distance through such means, much less an entire macroscopic body made up of trillions of such molecules. Control over quantum mechanics would need to be exceedingly complete and selective to manage teleportation. Such control over fundamental physics would be unimaginably dangerous, since quantum mechanics drives the structure and behavior of everything. It would require the 'god like' powers exhibited at the big bang.

Shape shifting seems to not be too much of a stretch (intentional pun here!) for elementals; after all their physical structure is undefined to begin with. However for non-elemental shape-shifters such as the 'goat men' of Secrets and Government Men, shape shifting is exceedingly problematic from a science standpoint and seems to be totally a fantasy/magic concept. Likewise much of the shrinking and expanding occurrences in The Shrinking Nuts Case are also without scientific foundation. (But hopefully fun!)

Nanobots and quantum computing

The alien Ra of Government Men use an army of nanobot weapons to attack our heroes Bates, Johnny, and Dooley. Nanobots are a technology commonly used in sci-fi for good reasons. Imagine trillions of tiny nifty robots that can combine into various physical forms and processing configurations. Creepy! As a technology in its infancy almost any capabilities can be imagined for nanobots. The DOD is seriously exploring the potential uses for swarms of autonomous robotic units that may fly, walk, or swim. These are not nanobot-tiny yet but within a few decades who knows? Nanobot and other robotic technologies are developing fast. That a technologically advanced alien race like the Ra could have highly capable nanobots seems to be a very reasonable science/technology based ploy of plot.

I haven't yet employed quantum computing in my novels, but I am considering it. Personally I don't see this becoming a practical technology anytime soon. I suspect that simplistic quantum computer elements will be made, but practical limitations may prevent most hoped for applications. I suspect that the situation will prove to be something like the manufacturing of gold using particle accelerators: yes you can do it, but it costs much more than it's worth. I hold out much more hope for more conventional computing configured to mimic human thought through massive parallelism that greatly multiplies what is currently achievable in computing. In my new short story/novella series Global Warming Fun millions of genetically modified ants combine neural resources to greatly exceed human intelligence, and rock-creatures that embody computer-like structures are sentient - so far without using any quantum computing.

Ghosts

In Government Men the ghost of Geronimo inhabits a parallel spirit world. He plays a somewhat reluctant though critical role in saving Earth. This fantasy 'spirit'/'spirit world' concept is also exploited in several of the stories of my published short story collection. Scientific evidence for ghosts and for a spirit world seems to be weak. Certainly this is currently pure fantasy, but who knows for sure? Perhaps there is room for ghosts and a spirit world in Hilbert space.

Dragons

The dragons of Government Men are gigantic ancient elementals of unimaginable power. Their physical and psychic powers are off-scale. They are unimaginably old and intelligent. They have huge powerful wings but weigh thousands of tons and would of course not be able to fly without mentally/psychically powered levitation that somehow circumvents gravity. However though powerful and wondrous, dragons have feelings and weaknesses. The dragon/dragon/unicorn conflict is the emerging sub-plot behind the primary, more explicit plotline of Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men. As beings of pure energy the abilities attributed to them are almost unbounded. They therefore make excellent fantasy super-villains and heroes, but I'm very glad they are only fictional. The third book in the series (only a few chapters along at this point!) will be needed to save life in the universe from the dragon villain.

Government Men ends with the introduction of Loch Ness dragon-like creatures. The third and (hopefully) final novel of the series will incorporate Loch Ness dragons. Dragons are always a terrific idea for stories! Several of the new novels that I am working on feature dragons! Nothing is niftier than dragons! If I am fortunate enough to continue writing such writing will necessarily include dragons.

Other books

Above we have focused mostly on Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men, but similar devices are used in my other novels and short stories. For example faster than light space travel, anti-gravity, and radical genetic modification appear in the traditional science fiction novel Blue Dawn Jay of Aves, and magic beings/forces from a parallel universe battle in The Shrinking Nuts Case. Blue Dawn Jay of Aves is essentially pure science fiction, while The Shrinking Nuts Case is pure fantasy, while Secrets of Goth Mountain and Government Men combine both fantasy and sci-fi elements.

The short stories of my popular collection There Goes the Neighborhood; Earthly Fantasy/Science Fiction Short Stories employ many of the same science-fantasy and pure fantasy mechanisms used in my novels. I have other books still in progress that show similar disregard for science-suggested limitations. I enjoy 'hard science fiction' but will not in my fictional writings be bound by the current limitations of science. The recently begun Global Warming Fun series will therefore take liberties with biology, climatology, and other sciences, while perhaps employing fantasy elements in some instances.

6. Conclusions

I have outlined my personal weltanschauung/world view including the importance and reality of NOW (Now One Universe) and time, the proposed use of the term theory* (and additional asterisks as appropriate) for established science theory, and my opposition to multiverse QM interpretations. The NOW phenomenon is the continuing big-bang event of our one emerging universe. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics helps explain quantum behavior in our one universe without the need to resort to multiple universe concepts, though much further physics work is needed to explain how transactions occur NOW. Hopefully there is some small measure of enlightenment contained therein.

I have also wantonly indulged in expressing my opinions on a wide range of more vital topics including religion, twist-tie bags, elastic, cooking corn-on-the-cob, and hot pants. Many of these views pop up in my fiction, but my novels significantly diverge from my personal world view in terms of the liberties taken with science, and particularly with physics.

I confess herein that the 'science' employed in my fictional novels, novellas, and short stories is largely science-fantasy. Sometimes pure fantasy is employed, without even attempting a pseudoscience-based explanation. I try to employ enough realism to keep stories plausible, but deliberately depart from 'hard science' and 'hard science fiction' whenever necessary. (That happens quite frequently!) In sum the weltanschauung of Government Men is not my own world view, it is itself a work of fiction. It is a fantasy world view in which dragons, unicorns, ghosts, and parallel universes can and do exist, along with human heroes with paranormal powers. Just for the fun of it!

Why? There is something in the human psyche that yearns for the infinite; for love and beauty and truth incarnate and unbounded - for happiness forever and ever, for us and our loved ones! There is something within us that that enjoys flights of fantasy from the hard realities and limitations of existence to realms where the impossible is possible. Along the way there is also something reassuring about poking some fun at human quirkiness and the absurdity of life and the human condition. I make no apologies for attempting to in small measure entertain myself and readers by briefly traveling to such realms; to worlds of unicorns, dragons, and people that can fly - all in defiance of the laws of nature as we factually know them to be.

The weltanschauung of Government Men is one of pseudo-science and fantasy that departs significantly from my own mundane, fact-based world view. I wouldn't have it any other way!

Thank you for enduring this non-fiction 'peek behind the curtain'/'look under the hood' at my sci-fi/fantasy fiction writing! Live long and prosper NOW! And as you do so, please enjoy reading my e-books!

****

