Anti-Physics

By Vladimir Bondarev

Reality in the description of physics has an important feature: it changes along with the development of scientific knowledge. Such things as caloric, ether, Rutherford atoms, space curvature, quarks and strings can appear and disappear there.
Obviously, there is another, real reality that is eternally exactly the way it is and depends neither on the level of development of science nor the fact of the existence of scientific knowledge.
So how do modern concepts of reality, including concepts of physics, biology, psychology and various religions correspond to real reality?
The book Anti-physics is based on the hypothesis that there is no verifiable answer to this question. This hypothesis entails that the real reality can not be imagined or that it can be imagined only as nothing that causes our experiences within verifiable knowledge.
This means that all objects generated by science, including caloric, ether, Rutherford atoms, curvature of space, quarks and strings can be considered only as phenomena of imagination involved in the perception of the world that we experience, but not in the perception of reality.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Vladimir Bondarev
• Release date: Aug 24, 2017
• ISBN: 9781370719662

Book preview

Anti-Physics

by Vladimir Bondarev

Copyright 2017 Vladimir Bondarev

Smashwords Edition

Translation by Oksana Grigorjeva

CONTENTS

Preface

Introduction

The unknown world

Sensory world

Properties of the sensory world

Speech

Experiences

Conceptual cognition

Space, time, causality

Physics

Psychology

Biology

Mathematics and logic

Instead of conclusion (about the book The Science of Consciousness)

Preface

Considering how absurd this theory must seem, I did not dare to publish my book for a very long time...( from the preface to the book by N. Copernicus On the rotation of the heavenly spheres)

The book of Nicolaus Copernicus On the rotation of the heavenly spheres, which laid the foundation for the heliocentric system of the world and the first scientific revolution, was published in 1543. But almost two millennia before this book was published, the idea of heliocentrism was expressed by the ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos. This means that some grounds for revising the geocentric system were known long before Copernicus, but were unclaimed for many centuries. Unclaimed grounds for future scientific revolutions, of course, can be found today as well. One of them is so significant that it promises to create something more than another revolution in scientific knowledge. What is it?

Every time we perform a deliberate action, like taking a cup or turning on a computer, we somehow influence the world around us. Our deliberate impact on physical reality is the most important for us and the most common of all observed phenomena. Meanwhile, the laws of physics do not state not only the influence of our intentions on physical reality, but even existence of such a thing as intention. Instead, physics suggests searching for causes of everything around us in four fundamental interactions: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions.

But this means that it was these interactions that created the portrait of Mona Lisa, the Eiffel Tower and the vast majority of things we use in everyday life. The absurdity of this conclusion is well understood by physicists themselves. In any case, they sign their scientific publications with their own names and not with something like Gravitation and other interactions.

The experience of Nicolaus Copernicus convinces us that if observed facts do not fit into the current worldview, we should assume the fallacy of the worldview, not the facts. Though, the experience of another researcher, Giordano Bruno, shows one can be burnt for such assumptions.

The assumption, that someone could be symbolically burnt for today, is stated very simple: reality, as physicists see it, has nothing to do with the reality we are in and where our intentions are acting.

What is the reality in fact? This question must be preceded by another, more important question: is there such a fact, that we can verifiably state something about? Modern science says yes to the last question. But any answer to this question can be based only on faith or belief, which means that sooner or later science will have to explore the possibility of another answer.

In this book we will try to understand how some scientific ideas will change if we assume that there is no fact in the verifiable understanding and that any ideas about reality can be considered only as phenomena of imagination.

St. Petersburg, December 2012

Preface to the second edition

When this book was first published in 2013, I had no doubt that it had keys to something very important, but I had no idea what that important was.

It turned out later that ideas of Anti-physics form a harmonious and powerful theory of consciousness, promising to grow into a new branch of science. This theory will be presented in the book The Science of Consciousness: First Steps, which is being prepared for publication.

Even though Anti-physics can be regarded as the first draft of the theory of consciousness now, it seems reasonable to re-publish it. And not only because without it the Science of Consciousness would be unable to appear, but also because any reasonable discourse on consciousness may be of interest.

St. Petersburg, June 2017

Introduction

Philosophy

One of the main ideas of philosophy is that outside the world, which opens in a sensory reflection, there is another, real world.

This idea comes, in particular, from the incompleteness of sensory reflection, forcing us to look around, look, move. While we are doing all this, something keeps existing and developing as a large single whole and so convincingly demonstrates its independence from reflection, that existence of the real world is almost unquestionable.

In everyday practice, we usually represent reality as we perceive it. When, for example, we jump over a pit or wave off a wasp, a pit or a wasp are undeniable reality for us, doubting which can result in a trouble.

But from the history of philosophy we can see that the question of how to correctly represent reality is one of the most difficult questions ever asked by human. What prevents philosophers to agree to the simple answer that almost never fails us in everyday life?

One of the reasons is that sensory reflection has very high activity. The world as we