To Discern The Fallacy For The “History Of Time” I: Query and Refute To Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time

By Wanbo Hu

In the sense of history of philosophy, the author offers a whole new and complete system which to demonstrate logically to ontology, this book, “To Discern The Fallacy For The ‘History Of Time’”, is an application of critical analysis from this unique perspective. This book dissects some of the masters of finite cosmological physicists, —including masters sitting in top chairs at top universities, —the fallacy beyond the extremes of physics, such as the “Singularity” lie, the “Big Bang” lie.
Since the 20th century, the finite cosmological physicists have tried to prove the (infinite) universe with a finite number of events, and the comprehensive statement is Hawking's A Brief History Of Time.
In Hawking’ this book, we noticed:
Those physicists have intercepted out a beginning of time from the infinite time;
Take the speed of light as the standard of time, and when this standard fails under a certain condition, gave the time elasticity, called time become slowing down;
Using the the timeliness's space which the existence is fitted time and space, to replace to infinite time space which is expressing the universe;
Einstein's famous equation is used to express the separation of energy and physicality, and make infinite gravitation, which only infinite mass can have, is explained as infinite gravitation without mass;
Make the abstract concept of the two dimensional space which only regard as drawn out from the manifest world, is wandering, transforming and analogy into three dimensional space and four dimensional time space;
Using the centerless balloon’s surface serve as the so-called two-dimensional space make the analogies to avoid that inferring a absurd center of universe, but isometric reddening of the universe inevitably implies have a center;
By exaggerating the weak effect of gravity on light to the infinite curvature of space-time, to attain a argumentation, which the singularity was proved and the Big Bang was invented.
And so on.
These fallacies arise from the fact that the theory of finite cosmology‘s physicists is beyond the scope of physics, and those physicists are beyond their capacity that their means accord with them can do, therefore, the content of their expounding, has entered the realm which only philosophical expression can do.
The author's this book,To Discern The Fallacy For The “History Of Time”, doubts and refutes the unjustifiable viewpoints in the A Brief History Of Time. In this book, the author's this argumentation is based on that the support of the books of The Theory System Of Ontological Logic (four book of the set), which the new argumentation system serve as the result is the author’s efforts of forty years in philosophy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wanbo Hu
• Release date: Jan 20, 2021
• ISBN: 9780463821855

Wanbo Hu

The author have been studying western and eastern philosophy since the end of 1979, “The Theory System Of Ontological Logic” completed by the end of 2017; Then the author wrote this book, “To Discern the Fallacy for the “History of Time”, —To Query and Disprove To “A Brief History Of Time” of S•Hawking’s book . The author’s this book was completed by the end of 2010.

Book preview

T

o Discern The Fallacy For The History Of Time -Part I

The author: Wanbo Hu

The Table of Content Of The First Volume

Chapter 1- Preface

Chapter 2- The Raising Of A Fundamental Question

Chapter 3- Prolegomena

Chapter 4- Comments On Some Of The Statements Before The Main Body

Chapter 5- The Commentaries For The First Chapter (Our Picture Of The Universe)

Chapter 6- The Commentaries For The Second Chapter (Space And Time)

Chapter 7- The Commentaries For The Third Chapter (The Expanding Universe )

Chapter 8- The Commentaries For The Fourth Chapter (The Uncertainty Principle)

Chapter 9- The Commentaries For The Fifth Chapter (Chapter Five Elementary Particles And The Forces Of Nature)

Chapter 10- The Commentaries For The Sixth Chapter (Black Holes)

上册目录（本册）中文说明

序言

一个基本问题的提出

导论

对霍金时间简史正文之前的一些语句的评注

对第一章（我们的宇宙图像）的评注

对第二章（时间和空间）的评注

对第三章（膨胀的宇宙）的评注

对第四章（不确定性原理）的评注

对第五章（基本粒子和自然的力）的评注

对第六章（黑洞）的评注

序言

Preface

首先作者需要说明的是，这本书是一本哲学书，也即是说，如果不是因为书名不便太长，那么它的副标题就应该是：在哲学的视域中对时间简史的主要观点的讨论与质疑，确切地说主要是诘问与反驳，但是，质疑的并不只是霍金自己的观点，而是有限宇宙论物理学家们超出了物理学之应是的极致，以及他们为了论证对这个极致的超逾而由想象所作的延伸，但是，那是缺乏逻辑根据的想象。需要说明的是，这里所说的笔者的质疑与反驳，除了质疑霍金自己的一些观点，也包括一些是由霍金的书中叙述的、其他人的观点，无论是霍金赞同的，或是为自己的论说所作的铺垫的，还是虽不赞同而予以反驳，如果他的反驳是却不合理的。

In the first place, the author needs to indicate, this book is a philosophy book, i.e. if it is not because of the title is inconvenience too long, then this book’s subtitle should be: The discussion and query to the view of A Brief History Of Time within the vision of philosophy. To be precise, are mainly querying and refuting. But it is not Hawking's own views that to be questioned only, rathe the query is, all the finite cosmology physicists, who have exceeded the (should as) extreme of physics, and they are through extensding to their imagination in order to be an argumentation of the transcendence of this extreme, but that is an imagination without a logical root source. It should be noted that the author's questioning and rebuttal here, in addition to questioning some of Hawking own views, also include that Hawking describes some of the views of others in his book of A Brief History of Time, whatever Hawking agrees or not the views to them, or is just foreshadowing for Hawking own theories, or refutes other idea which is disagreeing with someone, if the refutations are unreasonable.

笔者对此质疑与反驳的宗旨，是要追究关于超出了物理学的极致的对宇宙的解释，而不是追究人们观察到的现象，以及对现象中的数值的计算，这个宗旨是笔者需要强调的。因而，虽然所谈论的问题始终没有离开对物理学的关涉，但是，它确切地是着眼于哲学的视域，且必须是循源于形而上学的根据，以本体论逻辑思考为基石而予以讨论的。

The purpose of the author's questioning and rebuttal is to trace the explanation to the universe, which is beyond the extreme of physics, rather than to investigate the phenomena people observe and the calculation of the numerical values in the phenomena, this intention is requiring to be emphasized. Therefore, although the content of discussion all along would not deviate the concerning from physics, but, it is exactly with an eyes on the horizon of the philosophy which have to be derived from the root source of metaphysics, and discussed on the basis of ontological logical thinking.

笔者的这本书的题目是时间史辨谬，本著者确切的意指是：时间，在本体论逻辑体系①的意义上，在表达宇宙之为唯一性与完整性的意义上，一俟被作为单独的概念使用，它就只是纯概念的时间，在这种意义上它不能作为简史来表达；然而，一俟被赋予史的意义，那它就一定是空间性时间，并且是由可规定的存在物切合了空间的时间，而这个（空间性的）时间的概念，是不能单独存在的，而必然地与空间和有限的限定性的存在相关，（在这里，拟合的意思是指相互依存的而相互切合而共生的概念。）这个时间的史就是有限存在物的历史，而区别于直接的无限性的时间，后者不以有限规定性的史表达时间；（空间性）时间所标识的，只是有限存在物在与时间、空间之切合中的史。这也是说，空间性时间的史与纯概念的时间自身不呈现历史规定性的区别，这是显化世界与形而上学的区别，这当然地并不是在说空间性时间或在流俗的称谓中的时间不记录历史。显然地，有些概念只有在哲学中才能被理解，只有在哲学的特定高度的境域中被理解。因此，也可以说这本书不仅是对霍金及与其类似的观点的反驳，同时也是说，是为具有一定哲学能力的读者而写的。

The title of the author's this book is To Discern The Fallacy For The "History Of Time", what the author’s exact meaning is: In the sense of an ontological logical system②, and in the sense of expressing the universe as uniqueness and integrity, time, once you used it as a separate concept, it is just a pure concept, in this sense it should not be regarded as that have A Brief History; However, once time is given the meaning of history, then, it must be spatial time, and the time of space must be fitted or is fitting by the stipulated existence, and this concept of (spatial) time cannot exist in isolation, and it must be related to space and the stipulation of existence, (in this case, fitting refers to concepts of symbiosis that are interdependent and fit together.) The history of time is the history of finite existence, and it is different from the direct infinite time, the later cannot be expressed in terms of a finite stipulated history of time; the spatiality’s time is marks only the history of restrictive existence thing in fitted to time and space. This also means the history of spatial time is different from pure concept time which doesn’t present prescriptiveness of history, and the difference is between the manifested world and metaphysics; this certainly is never saying that spatial time, or the time of the prevalent custom’s parlance does not record history. Obviously, there are some concepts that can only be understood in philosophy, can only be understood within the specific height realm of philosophy. Thus, it could be said that this book is written not only as a rebuttal to Hawking and similar ideas with him, but it's also saying for readers with some philosophical ability.

但是，如果你试图把空间性时间想象到极致，并当作有限性的玩物而卷曲起来，或者把所谓时间的史延续到超逾直接的理性的极致，并试图论证这种超越，那么，无论从本体论的逻辑节点上来看，还是在理性的操作上来看，都超出了（物理学的界域）自身应是的能力，因而也就注定将超出论证的合法性，也将必定在其论证中掩藏着谬误。然而,当人们首先在形而上学中合法地论证了时间、空间的逻辑地位之后，你将清楚，那种把假定的条件当作论证以宇宙表达无限的基础，把所谓的虫洞之类的幻想当作一本正经地论证宇宙，就只是一个不着边际的冷笑话。

However, if you attempt to imagine the extreme of spatial time, and curl it as a limited plaything, or extend the history of so-called time beyond the extreme of direct rationality, and try to get a argumentation to transcend this extreme, then, whether we look it at the logical nodes of ontology, or in terms of rational operations, it exceeds the ability of (physics’s realm) itself, so it is destined to exceed the legitimacy of the argument, and will also there must be a fallacy hidden in its argumentation. when people above all in metaphysics system has demonstrated the legitimacy of logical status of time and space, we will find that kind ideas are taking that the conditions of assumption is regarded as the foundation for a argumentation which expresses the infiniteness by the universe, and fantasy such as with the so-called wormhole as the serious argumentation on the universe, that is just a cold joke.

坦白地讲，本著者作为一个物理学的门外汉，虽说看到了许多物理学家们已经超出理性操作的极致，而他们由此向前延伸到终极的观点有明显的偏颇，乃至于是荒谬的，但是，想要把笔者的质疑与反驳在自己的书中系统地表述得有条有理，也不是一件容易的事情。这也使我在动笔前之所以曾感到为之犹豫与忐忑的缘由。但是，推动我做下去的原因是：

Frankly speaking, this book’s author, (although) as a layman of physics, has seen clearly that many physicists are beyond the limits of rational operation, and, their views is extending to go ahead to ultimate from here, obviously enter into biased, and even it is absurd, but, it is not easy to express the author’s own doubts and refutations properly and logically and systematacially arranged in a book. This also is that makes me before the beginning of the pen had felt hesitant and uneasy reason. But, the reason that could promote me to write the book was this:

一，关于诸如时间简史这样的物理学内容，究其实质，已经明显地超逾了物理学这门学科本应具有的能力，——至少说，在论证上，超逾的目的和过程都超出了物理学的能力和物理学的手段的合法性，然而这种超逾其极致的界域—境域却正是哲学所应承担的责任；

Firstly, in A Brief History Of Time, to be regarded as some content of physics, when we investigate its essence, it was clearly beyond what physics ought to be capable of itself, ——at least, in the sense of both the purpose and the process, their argumentation exceeds the capabilities of physics and the legitimacy of physics’s means, thereby, this realm of that beyond physics’s domain-realm, —exactly it is the responsibility of philosophy should take on;

二，感谢霍金以科普的形式讲述相关的近代的物理学知识、观点与发展历程，这使我能够较容易地、清楚地认识不同的宇宙论中的（窃以为的）合理之处与谬误之处的分野；

Secondly, thanks to Hawking for telling relevant modern physics knowledge, views and development history in the form of popular science, which allows me to more easily and more clearly understand the distinction (in my opinion) of the reasonableness and fallacy in the different cosmologies

三，近四十年来，自己在东、西方哲学之相关本体论问题中的沉浸，使我清楚地意识到，在物理学家超出物理学自身的能力的问题上，即使不用非常高深的物理学专业水平的研修，也足以能够无可辩驳地论证时间简史中的（很可以说许许多多的观点是）明显的谬误；

Thirdly, in the past 40 years, I have been immersed in the relevant ontological issues of Eastern and Western philosophy, which made me clearly realize that when in the matter of physicits beyond physics’ ability, even a person without a very advanced physics professional study level, it can also be sufficient to irrefutably demonstrate the obvious that many views are fallacy in "A Brief History of Time".

四，自从笔者的本体逻辑论（四册本）作为体系性的论证于2018年初完成了写作与修改之后，笔者便可以此为立足点，即以表达完满作为本体论逻辑体系的开端，进一步探求、论证逻辑自身的环节与当下世界的相关性，包括物理世界的极致的问题，这是本著者始于形而上学而进一步思考显化世界的问题的奠基石，也是我写这本时间史辨谬的底气；

Fourthly, after the author's "The Theory System Of Ontological Logic" (total is four books/set) was written and revised to finish as a systematic argumentation in early 2018, the author could take this as a foothold, to think to the understanding perfection as the beginning of the ontological logical system, further to explore, to prove the pertinence between the step of logic itself and the current world, include the acme problem of the physical world. This system is the cornerstone of the author’s further thinking about metaphysics and the manifest world. That is why I am emboldened to write this book, "To Discern the Fallacy for the ‘History of Time’".

五，本体逻辑论中的观点明显地与这种在物理学的名义下论述的超逾物理学之极致的观点相左，因而，笔者认为有必要在逻辑地表述本体论的视角上将这种根本性的不同呈现出来。以本体逻辑论已经阐明的意域，及以此合法性论证的体系，来看待、评论一个特定层面的相关界域内的观点，或许这也是对笔者之本体逻辑论体系的考测与检验。对于那些关涉宇宙问题的科学家们以有限性的方式论述无限的视角、方法、观点，窃以为，当我们立足于本体论之逻辑论证体系去审视相关的界域—境域时，并不很难发现如时间简史中的观点那样的诸多不妥、乃至谬误重重。笔者感觉到，当目前人们尚未澄明这种（解释宇宙的立足点、方式、观点上的）谬误，当人们对那些荒唐的说法风起潮涌般的赞赏时，就不能不对谬误的喧嚣如鲠在喉，因为这些观点误导了人们对朝向终极的领悟。虽然这丝毫没有使我减少对科学家们的尊崇，但我还是要明确地说，着实地在不少科学家们那里还确切地、明显地缺少些什么。缺少什么？毫不讳言，愚见是，在他们那里缺少形而上学的思考，缺少对本体论的逻辑历程的思考，缺少对操作理性的极致的超越的合法性和对终极超越的境域的领悟。

Fifthly, the point of view in "The Theory system of Ontological Logic" is clearly inconsistent with this extreme point of view beyond the physics discussed in the name of physics. Therefore, the author thinks that is necessary to present this difference of essentiality that from the perspective of logically expressing ontology. In terms of the meaning domain clarified already from The Theory System Of Ontological Logic, to resorts the system of reasoning of this legitimacy, we can be clearly to look upon and commenting the viewpoints and relevance of some logical node, so, perhaps, this is also the test and examination of the author's ontological logical system. For those scientists who are related to the problem of the universe to discuss the infiniteness perspectives, methods, and views in a limited way, the author think, when we are based on the logical argumentation system of ontology to examine the relevant scope-realm, it is not difficult that we can find so many views are improper, and even fallacies in the book of A Brief History Of Time. The author feels, the current people have not clarify this fallacy (about explaining the universe’s the foothold, method, and viewpoint) of fallacy, and, when people admires the ridiculous claims and that is surging like a tidal wave, it would make myself feeling like having a fishbone getting stuck in the throat, because, these views mislead people’s about orientating towards ultimate understanding. Although this did not make me less respectful of scientists, I still want to make it clear that there is exactly and obviously something missing from many scientists. What is missing for? No denying, in my humble opinion, there is a lack of metaphysical thinking, a lack thinking on the logical course of ontology, so, beyond the acme of operational rationality must be lack of legitimacy, and an understanding of the realm of ultimate transcendence.

时间简史的简体中文出版者在作为丛书的总序中说：科学总是寻求发现和了解客观世界的新现象，研究和掌握新规律，总是在不懈地追求真理，一般地说，这没有错，但是，作为具体门类的学科，科学，不能超出它的范围，即，研究现象以及研究由现象抽象出的概念或规律。自然科学的原动力恰恰不在于自然科学的研究内容自身，因为它已经超出了自然科学的能力。如果你说科学堪称为人类进步的‘第一推动’③，在对显化世界的认识的界域中，或许这样讲是有理由的，但所谓的第一推动的根据却不在人类，当然也就不在科学中，而是在于产生人类的原因中，这个根据与宇宙间的一切的根据是同一个原因。所以，人类在寻找这个根据的时候，并不能在人类自身的规定性中去寻找，而是须要在表达完满的形而上学体系中去领悟宇宙中的一切所呈现的力量，领悟宇宙间的一切所蕴涵的朝向，正是由此而向前呈现出一个多样性的显化世界来。而且，在低等动物进化为智能生物的力量中同样可以领悟出这种朝向和力量，而不仅仅是在诸多规律中选择出一种形态并将其加以延伸，如以热力学第二定律去解释宇宙的命运，或以观测到的现象为依据去构筑想象的模型。如果不能理解这一点，就不能识别那诸多模式的、试图表达宇宙的模型的荒诞，和由这些模型误导而虚化到抽象的极致,以掩盖其局限性，当人们将尚不能认识的层面和虚化方式的结合（如虚时间，虚粒子等），你也不能辨识那些谬误和操弄者的狡黠。

The publisher of Simplified Chinese of "A Brief History of Time" said in the general preface of the series: Science always seeks to discover and understand new phenomena in the objective world, research and master new laws, and is always relentlessly pursuing truth. It is not wrong to say that, but as any specific discipline, science cannot exceed its scope, that is the study phenomena, and concepts or laws abstracted from phenomena. The original driving force of natural science exactly does not lie in the study of natural science content itself, because it has exceeded the capabilities of natural science. If you say that science can be called the ‘first push' of human progress, it’s only in the understanding of some domain of the manifested world, it may be reasonable to say this, but the basis of the so-called the first push, it is not in humans, of course, not in science, but rather it as the reason is the same with the causes of generate humans, that is, in the universe, the root source is the same reason for all the existence. Therefore, when mankind is looking for this basis, we cannot find it within the stipulations of mankind itself, but needs to comprehend the power of all the universe and the the orientation towards of implication of all the universe in the metaphysical system to present. It is from this can start that it presents to a multifarious manifested world ahead. Moreover, in the power of lower animals to evolve into intelligent creatures, this orientation and power, can also be comprehended, rather than just selecting some or other form among many laws and that to be extend, such as The Second Law of Thermodynamics to explain the fate of the universe, or construct an imaginary model based on observed phenomena. If you can’t understand this, you would not be able to recognize the absurdity of that many kind models of that attempts to express the universe, also you would not be able to recognize that by these model abstract to the emptiness’s acme, so that cover up their limitations. Through the combination with fictitious methods (such as virtual time, virtual particle, and so on), you couldn't identify the fallacy and the cunning of these players.

科学，在研究的内容不涉及终极问题的时候，当然地也就毋须强调终极的根据，但是，诸如时间简史中所表述的这样的宇宙物理问题，却恰恰就是在谈论终极的问题了，那么，就一定会有严重的问题掩藏在其中。

Science, when the content of research does not involve the ultimate problem, of course, there is in truth no need to emphasize the root source of ultimate, but, such as the cosmic physics problems is expressed in A Brief History of Time, that is precisely the ultimate problem, then, serious problems would ought to be hidden in it.

事实上，物理学在面临自身的极致并试图超越它的时候，本身就是无解的问题，比如由可分性的物体指向无规定性的问题，比如物质空间的微观的特定层面均匀性问题；又比如，在E=MC²的方程中把E与M放在了方程的两边，在对有限事物的有限层面的理性操作中，你当然可以这样表达现象，在应用性计算的操作中，作为现象层面的计算，也可能没有问题，或者说是无可非议的，因为它就是现象本身，但在由现象指向终极的时候，便显示出缺失了逻辑的根据，因为在宇宙中E与M无法分割，也不能相互替代，它就是能与体的自身同一性，这是哲学必然面对的思考。 然而，就立足于现象层面的操作而言，对于人们的普通思考来说，它的出路在于不得不将相对于本体论逻辑历程中的相关节点的朝向颠倒过来，把现象当作论证实质的根据，把 由抽象而来的实质替代终极，那么，以此在科学的名义下构筑的貌似有理的模型，由此掩藏的、超出其应是之极致的荒谬就是必然的。

In fact, when faced with its own acme, and trying to surpass it, for physics, it is itself an unsolvable problem, such as the problem of being directed from the separable object pointing to the problem of no stipulation; again such as the problem of particular level of the microscopic material world uniformity of the space; For another example, in the famous E=MC² equation, people places E and M on the two sides of the equation. In the rational operation of the limited level of finite things, you can of course express the phenomenon in this way, in the operation of applied calculation, in this calculation of phenomenon level, maybe no problem, or say it is beyond reproach, because it is just expressing the phenomenon itself, but, when you take this phenomenon extending to point to the ultimate, it is shown that there is a lack of the logical root source, because E and M cannot be separated in universe, nor can they Mutual substitution, while it is just the identity of the energy/body itself, which is the thinking that philosophy must face. However, in terms of operations based on the phenomenon layer, for people’s ordinary thinking, its outlet lies in having to take the orientation of the relevant nodes that relative to the ontological logiccal process to be reversed, regarded some phenomenon as the basis for the proof of root source, and replaced the ultimate with its abstracted essence. Then, the seemingly rational model constructed in the name of science, thus hiding what it should be, beyond its acme which should be, the ultimate absurdity is inevitable.

当这种荒谬性被揭示出来的时候，你就会清楚，它与操作理性和理性直接性所遭遇的困惑的实质，与康德的二律背反的实质，是同一个层面的问题，不同的只是随着科学的发展，在现象的层面具有了更多的、更广的知识的原料作为填充，但也将终极的问题遮蔽得更深了。

When this absurdity is revealed, you will know, people encountered the essence of bewilderment, which serves as the operating rationality and the rationality’s directness, with Kant’s antinomy, is the same layer’s the essence of the problem, the different is just that with the development of science has more and wider raw materials supplying mors knowledge as a filling at the level of phenomena, but it also hides the ultimate problem deeper.

但是，根据之被遮蔽的问题，却又反过来给当下之朝向理性极致之临界的问题带来误导，然而，这种误导的结果又正是被诸多的、从千姿百态的数值中依照不同的世界观刻意选择出来的数值所证明，似乎是那么的铁定，那么的不可动摇。但不可动摇的只是它在它的界域内的合理性，而不是超出它的应是的界域的想象，正如相对论那样，在有限的、其条件被给定了的界域内，相对才是肯定的。但是，当你把论述的境域指向了无限性，指向了无规定性的时候，它，还与什么相对？待它没有了质量，却号称是能量的无限大，它还与什么相对？待它被抹去了质量，却仍然被称为量子力学，它还是什么量子？竟有人煞有介事地谈论没有质量的能量，没有体性的能性，没有阳（正）性的单独的阴（反）性，（乃至说正与反的所谓湮灭会有一个不相对的剩余物，） 但是，即使这样，竟然会有众多的信徒。就此而言，科学则应该，而且必须领会到它的境域的狭隘而反思自身。相对论的相对，不能不是条件性的相对；在以宇宙表达无限的境域中就没有了相对的条件了。我们仍须追问，那个被幻想出来的所谓的没有体性、能量无限大的奇点，它又与什么相对？

However, the problem of the root source is shielded, in turn, it will bring to be misled when the rationality’s orperation is faced the criticality of that toward its current extreme. Nevertheless, the result of this kind of misleading regarded as is proveded, which it is deliberately selected the stipulation from various quantitative values according to different worldviews, and it seems so sure, so unshakable. But what is unshakable is its rationality within its boundaries only, not its imagination beyond its boundaries. Just like the theory of relativity, relative is only within a limited boundary whose conditions are given, relative is sure. However, when you take the discussion to point to the realm of no stipulation, and points to the unlimitedness and the unpredictable, such as singularity, what does it relative to? When it is no mass, but claims to be infinite energy, what does it relative to? After its mass is erased, it is still called quantum mechanics, what is it quantum? Someone talked pretending to be serious about the energy without mass, the mass without energy, the alone yin (anti) without yang (positive), (and even say the annihilation of positive and anti there will be a called something of none-relative of leftover,) but, even it's so ridiculous, there will be many believers. For that matter, the science should, and must clear the narrowness of its realm and reflect on itself. The relative of relativity cannot help but is conditional relative; but there is no relative condition in the meaning realm of expressing infinite in the universe. We should ask still, the so-called singularity of no physicality, but infinite energy, what is it for relative to?

在理性的世界，即使是我们的精神，乃至于在泛神论的视域上说，即使是真的有人格化神的存在，那也将是体性的极其小、与能性的极其大的自身同一性，宇宙间的一切，其差别只是能与体的自身同一性以朝向所表达的逻辑地位的差别，如果不能被当下的理性操作能力所认知，那么，我们称之为‘无’-‘规定性’，而并不存在没有体性的能性，而只能是能与体的自身同一性。正是在这个无规定性的同一性的意义上，才是形而上学的境域与显化世界过渡自身的衔接处,也是物理学的极致。

In the rational world, even our spirits, and even there are really the existence of the personified deity, which like in the pantheistic meaning realm, it should be also based the self-identity of energy/mass, this is (things) existing in that to be changed orientating, which is in deeper layer, to get the physicality as be orientated towards is very small, and the energy as orientation very big,④ all that is different in the universe is only the self-identity of mass/energy expressed the different logical position by the different quiddity form of orientation towards, if it cannot be cognized by the current rational operation ability, then we can only call it 'none'-'prescriptiveness', however there is not any existence as energy without mass, it could only be the self-identity of the ‘energy/physicality’ . It is just in this meaning, the identity with this no stipulating attribute, it is the joint place between the realm of metaphysics and the transition of the manifest world, and it is also the acme of physics.

当目睹由现象中获得的可规定性的知识在导向超知识中被扭曲，这使笔者无法平静下来，而不能不将自己的质疑与驳斥写出来，或许能够给人（也希望能够给人）一点多加思考的激发，让封闭了的思路开阔起来，让被遮蔽了的万物之根据呈现出来，才能使理性的思考更接近于真相。

需顺便指出的是，笔者的这本书采用的是笔记体，这方便于尽早成篇。这样做的原因是：

When witnessing the prescriptive knowledge obtained from the phenomenon is distorted in the direction of super-knowledge, this prevents the author from calming down and has to write down those doubts and refutations, which may be able to give them (also hopes to give more people) a little more inspiration when they are thinking, and, let the closed thoughts to open up and showing the everything’s root source which is covered, it can let rational thinking closer to the truth.

we should point that, by the way, this book is that the author adopts note-body, which is convenient for writing as soon as possible to accomplish it. The reason is:

一是到了这个年纪，自己的精力已大不如前，不像在写本体逻辑论的时候那样，可以是年复一年、月复一月三更睡、五更起地读书与写作；显然，笔记体表述起来比较轻松、省时，（这很重要，因为，笔者不得不腾出来一些时间去忙一些低水平地生存下去的营生；）

Firstly, at this age, the energy is no longer as good as before, unlike the time when author wrote "The Theory System of Ontology Logic", I could be year after year, month after month, day after day sleeping late, getting up early for reading and writing; Obviously, the book of note-body is relatively easy and time-saving. (This is very important because I have to make some time for some livelihood for low-level survival;)

二是笔者很难以自己的思路为本著理出以体系形式表达的关涉物理学问题的文章结构，虽然一个原因是与自己的物理学水平很低有关，但不只是这个问题，而是说，自己的整理将消弥（依照霍金）从一个问题到另一个问题的向前论述的现成的文章结构的依靠；

Secondly, it is very difficult for the author to sort out the structure of article related for the physics system problems based on own thoughts for this book. Although one reason is related about my low physics level, but it is not just this question, it is to say, if just according my ways to arrange the book’s order, my arrangement will eliminate (according Hawking’s) ready-made article structure, and make the discussion cannot rely on it to go advance from one chapter to next;

三是相对于我此前的本体论体系的论证顺序，当下的诸多的关于物理学的极致的问题难以与它建立相似的逻辑体系形式的、递进的论述关系，因为，前者是一个论证体系，而后者面对的是一些模型，和对模型的界说；

Thirdly, relative with the order of argument of the author’s previous ontological system, it is difficult for many of the current extreme questions about physics to establish a similar logical system form as a progressive discourse relationship with it. Because the former is an argument system, the latter are some models, and the expound of the model;

四是一俟我的这本书打乱了物理学家们的论述过程，那就将不方便于笔者具有针对性的表述。因此，通过这本时间史辨谬的目录可知，也就只好依照时间简史中的目录的顺序了。

Fourthly is that once this book disrupts the physicists' discussion process, it will be inconvenient for the author to make targeted expressions to Hawking’ book. Therefore, by the contents of the book "To Discern The Fallacy For The ‘History Of Time’" you can know that is following the order of the contents in "A Brief History of Time".

在这本书里，笔者所使用的霍金时间简史的中文版本，是徐明贤、吴忠超二位所翻译的较早的十一章的版本，与笔者手头上的十二章的英文本稍有不一致之处，但因后者所增加的第十章，虫洞和时间旅行，这个不着边际的谈论与哲学的关涉并不太大，与笔者所欲讨论问题的相关性也不太大， 而且，两种版本的其他章节的差别也并不大，这也是说，可能会有版本的原因所造成的少量的差异，但并不影响我们的理解与论述。所以，这里所依据的中文的时间简史仍然是十一章的版本，只是中文的第十章、十一章对应的是英文的第十一章和第十二章。这样做的另一个原因是，十二章版本中的第十章中的内容，诸如如果你的旅行速度能超过光速，那么相对论意味着你也可以回到过去的时光。⑤那样， 在荒谬的前提下认真地、严肃而坦然地推导出荒谬的结论，对此，已经让笔者失去了谈论它的兴趣。

In this book, the author is referential the Chinese version of hawking's a brief history of time, adopts the XU Mingxian, WU Zhongchao by the translated version of an earlier the 11 chapters version, which is small difference with the English version of the 12 chapters at my hand, the latter is Hawking increased the Chapter 10, wormhole and time travel later. In this version, this chapter 10 doesn’t have much relation with philosophy, and, so called the wormhole, a talking in wild fancy, the pertinence is not much with this present author wants to argumentation. Moreover, the differences between the other chapters of the two versions are not large, which also means that there may be a very small words of differences caused in the two versions, but that does not affect our understanding and discussion. The Chinese version here is based on the 11 chapters version of Hawking’s book, so the Chapter 10 and Chapter 11, in Chinese version, is corresponding English Chapter 11 and Chapter 12. Another reason for this is, in the 12 chapter version, that the content in Chapter 10, such as if you can travel faster than light, the theory of relativity implies you can also travel back in time,⑥ on the ridiculous premise, Hawking is earnestly, seriously and frankly deriving absurd conclusions, to this, the author has lost interest in talking about it.

谓其荒谬，是因为时间简史的作者（及超越了相对的相对论者）设定的前提只是直接地将光速的现象替代了时间，从而直接导出了向时间的过去运动的论述，一个荒谬的结论。就这本书之作为笔记体而言，会造成文章结构略显松散，显然这不是什么优点，但对照性较强，也许会增加读者的兴趣。此外，令笔者小有不安的是，如果读者没有对笔者的本体逻辑论的论证具有一般性的了解，可能有碍于对笔者所使用的概念之蕴涵、意指、及论证的合法性等方面有一个确切的理解，不过，对于具有一定哲学功底的人来说，可能不会构成不可逾越的障碍。

We call it absurd, because the author of A Brief History Of Time (or rather even any the relativists who beyond relative), they just use presupposed premise, to take the phenomenon of the speed of light to direct substitution of time, and thus directly derived the argument of moving towards the past of time, a ridiculous conclusion. As far as this book is a note-body type, the structure of the article will be slightly loose, which is really not an advantage, but the contrast is stronger, may be can increase the reader's interest. In addition, what is a little disturbing to the author is that if the reader does not have a run-of-mill understanding to the author's argument of "The Theory System Of Ontological Logic", may hinder a precise understanding of the concept’s meaning which the auther uses, and understanding the legality of argumentation, but for people with certain philosophical foundation, it may not constitutes an insurmountable barriers.

需要说明的是，作为正文中评注的每一节点的顺序是，一，从中文版时间简史中摘录的语句，（用楷体字表示；）二，将霍金的英文原文摘录出来，以便于理解上的确认；三是笔者观点，（用宋体表示，）这是本著者评注的主体，表达的是笔者的立场、观点，和对霍金的观点的批评与反驳；四，将笔者的评注翻译为英文，以方便使用不同语言者阅读，只是自己的英文水平有限，自己也很不满意，所以，在对笔者的观点的理解上，还是应该以中文为准。

It should be noted that for the order of each node in the commentary of main body is: 1. The sentences of first part is excerpted from the Chinese version of "A Brief History of Time" (indicated in regular script;) 2. It is extracted the original English text of Hawking in order to Confirmation of understanding; 3, the author’s point of view (expressed in Song Style of Chinese), which is the subject of the author’s commentary, this is expressing the author’s position, point of view, and criticism and refutation of Hawking’s point of view; 4, I translated myself' comments into English for the convenience of reading in different languages. However, my English level is limited and I am not satisfied with it. Therefore, in terms of the understanding of the author's point of view, the Chinese version should prevail.

无论如何，笔者只是期望，即使我的这本书像一堆没有香味的肥，一池没有甜味的水，也期待它能助益于百花园中更加艳丽的花朵的怒放。

Anyhow, even if this book of mine likes a pile fertilizer without fragrance, a pool of water that is without sweet taste, I still hope that will helpful to the flowers blooms in the more colorful garden.

胡万波 Wanbo HU

Sep/20th/ 2020

① 笔者所指谓的本体论逻辑体系之逻辑，不是指基于存在物的形态的抽象的逻辑，如形式逻辑、数理逻辑，而是表达将一切包蕴在本体自身的力量所必然呈现的朝向与性态，并包蕴对一切可规定的性态与形态的超越。

② The ontological logical system, the author refers to that does not means the logic that is just based on abstract form which is came from any existence thing, such as formal logic, mathematical logic, but it is expression the all force of noumenon itself, which is implying the inevitable orientation and nature, and also is containing that transcends all definable states and forms.

③ 史蒂芬∙霍金时间简史，徐明贤、吴忠超译，湖南科学技术出版社出版发行的1996年版，第一推动丛书（时间简史之为该丛书中的一本）的总序P1。

④ the self-identity is that physicality very small and energy very big. But this still is in phenomena layer, which is just the different state by the self-identity of inert reverse-orientating and energy-orientating; the essence is the same self-identity that presents the orientation of different form which derives from the super ultramicroscopic view realm.

⑤ 见英文注脚。

⑥Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time, P162, Bantam illustrated hardcover edition published, November 1996.

一个基本问题的提出

The Raising Of A Fundamental Question

此标题中所说的基本问题，就是光子存在的行为方式的问题。

许许多多的物理学家们有一个通常的说法，认为，在静止状态下，光子质量为0，它被认为是能量量子，而质量只是它运动时呈现的属性。这样说来，光子，作为量子，有三种可能的方式来解释它的出路，一，被核外电子吸收，二，转变为其他粗粒子；三，转变为理性操作不知道的层面；四，剩下的出路就只能是永远存在着，永远在飞矢。

The basic problem mentioned in this title, that is the problem of behave way of the existence of photons.

Many physicists have an usual saying that in a static state, the mass of a photon is 0, and it regarded as a quantum of energy, and the mass is just the properties that shows up as it moves. In this way, photons, as quantum, people can have four possible explanation regard about its ways out: (1) is absorbed by extranuclear electrons; (2), they are transformed into other particles; (3), the remaining way out can only exist forever, as a arrow is always in flight.

前二者在现象层面上是显而易见的，但恰恰不是我们要讨论的主要对象，因为，可观测的有限状态下的转变，正是物理学的内容。我们应关注的，也必须辨明的是:

The first two are obvious in the phenomenonal level, but it is not the main object we want to discuss, because the observable, finite state transition, which is exactly the content of physics. But we should pay attention is, and we must also discerning is:

一，在量子的转化反向于转化为粗粒子的层面的意义上，量子转变成了什么，如何转变？在形态上，这可能是我们现在所无法知道的，也可能指向了我们的操作理性所永远不知道的。

二，如果光子永远存在着，永远在飞矢，那么，依照大爆炸理论，它就是与大爆炸的速度同步，或者说，它就是大爆炸的速度。因为，当大爆炸发生后，光就不能停止它的飞矢，这种飞矢就是飞向（此前的）宇宙状态之外，那里没有任何东西吸收它，它成为了永恒，因而就表达着宇宙膨胀的永恒，然而，坍缩的黑洞连它的边缘的光也无法吸收回来，何况飞向远处的光；即使边缘的光被吸收回来，也并不意味着就是它的消逝，这样，光子向（先前状态的）宇宙之外奔跑的永恒，就标示了宇宙膨胀的永恒。霍金试图用粒子对——电子对的湮灭为宇宙的收缩留下来一条后路，否则，源自于奇点的大爆炸，作为一种限定，却产生了宇宙膨胀的永恒，逻辑上是一个笑话。

First, once the direction of quantum