Life, organism/cells and epistemologically different worlds (EDWs)

During millenniums, man has asked “what life is”. There have been many definitions but, as I indicated in my previous works, all have been quite wrong constructed within the unicorn world, that is, the universe, world which could not even exist. There are EDWs like the macro-EW (the macro-entities like bodies, tables, stones, planets, etc.), the micro-EW (microparticles like electrons and photons), field-EW (the electromagnetic field with different electromagnetic waves), the mind-EW (each mind is an EW). From my viewpoint, mind is the same thing as life. As I indicated in my previous works, there would be a great problem to believe “mind” is something different than “life”. Usually, “mind” is related to “brain” (philosophy of mind and cognitive neuroscience) and “life” to “organism” (biology) and there have been different sciences dealing with these two different topics: mind and life. Since the middle of last century until my articles 2002-2005, almost everybody in philosophy of mind and cognitive neuroscience had embraced the identity theory (Place, Smart, etc.). However, regarding life, there was a great problem: if a biologist accepted the identity theory regarding life, that is, life is an organism, then any human being would be a kind of robot. Not many biologists had accepted this approach, but they did not have an alternative, this was the problem: if someone considered life is not the organism, then where is life placed? Inside the organism, surrounding the organism? Is life something immaterial? Then what it would be the relationship between material body and immaterial life? (a return to Descartes’ dualism rejected by everybody in the last 200 years…).

In biology, there had been another problem: life had been attributed to an organism, but in general, the biologists considered the cell as the primitive element attributed to life. In this context, I posted another question: what is the relationship between the life of an organism and billions of lives of billions of cells of a human organism? We can accept, the organism is the sum of all cells and their processes, but what there would be the relationships between these lives? In order to answer to these, and many other questions, I introduce the main principles of my EDWs perspective which refer to mind/life from my previous works (I avoid the principles about cosmology and my hypermetaphysics). I mention here that I re-write these principles regarding “life”, i.e., I replace “mind” with “life”.

1. Epistemologically different interactions constitute epistemologically different objects, and epistemologically different objects determine epistemologically different interactions.
2. Any object exists only at “the surface”, due to the interactions that constitute it.
3. Any object exists in a single EW and interacts only with the objects from the same EW.
4. Any EW (a set of objects and their interactions) appears from and disappears into nothing.
5. Any EW is, therefore all EDWs share the same objective reality, even if one EW does not exist for any other EDW.
6. Life (mind) corresponds to a body/organism (cell). Life self does not exist for the body, the body does not exist for life.
7. Life I is an EW. Therefore, life has no “illusory spatio-temporal framework”, while the body exists in an “illusory spatio-temporal framework”, i.e., “nothing”.
8. Having a certain set of components, from our point of view, the organism corresponds to (but it is not “composed” of) an amalgam of macro-objects (arms, legs etc.) (or cells) and their relationships. The body and its corresponding parts (or cells) belong to the same macro-EW. Also, a body corresponds to a certain set of microparticles (and the ED entities) belonging to the micro-EW (the EDWs).
9. There are different states and processes of life which represent life.
10. As an entity, life has unity as an indeterminate individuality (it does not have “spatial” dimensions, or better, life has no parts).[1]

The postulate of correspondence:

Since an EW does not exist for any EDW, the “correspondences” between entities/processes that belong to two EDWs cannot have any ontological status. Therefore, the notion of “causality” between ED entities which belong to EDWs is a completely wrong concept.

We can say only that life (life-EW) corresponds to an organism/cell (macro-entity in the macro-EW). In my previous works, using my EDWs perspective, I indicated that spacetime could not even exist. Nevertheless, an organism/cell has certain extension; their physical process have certain duration (available for the physical processes, it is not “time”). Therefore, I introduced existence for “the physical entities”, a body/cell exists (having extension and duration) and “life is” (there has no extension and duration). It means, life does not exist but it is. Life corresponds to a body/cell; there cannot be life without such correspondences. We cannot perceive life/mind since it does not have any extension, it is an immaterial entity/EW.

The ontological-epistemological threshold represents the threshold for observational conditions which must be passed in order for the human observer to go from observing an entity belonging to the EW1 to observing another entity (or a mixture of entities) which belongs to the EW2. The entity in the EW1 corresponds to the mixture of entities (and their interactions) which belong to the EW2. The organizational threshold represents the threshold for observational conditions which must be passed in order for the human observer to be able to move from observing, for example, an entity, to observing a set of entities. For example, a forest represents a whole for a human observer who is far away from it. For the same observer, who is at a very small distance from the forest, the forest no longer exists, being replaced with the trees which “form” the forest. Both the forest and the trees are in the same EW, but the forest does not exist for the trees, while the trees do not exist for the forest.

The ontological-epistemological threshold indicates the relationships between EDWs: just correspondences since one EW is not for any EDW. The organizational threshold indicates the relationship between an organism and its parts (for instance, organs or cells). An organism is the sum of all its cells and their processes. There is an identity between the organism (belonging to the macro-EW) and its cells (belonging to the macro-EW) and their biological processes. Regarding certain processes which belong to the same EW, the macro-EW, we have to use organism, in other cases, we have to use organs or cells. For instance, a body is running on a street. We cannot claim that a sum of cells are running on the street. In relationship to the street, it is the organism as a whole. It would be quite wrong to claim that there are a sum of cells running on the street. It is the organism which interacts with the pavement, not the sum of the cells. The property of running for that entity belongs to the organism not to a sum of cells. However, ontologically speaking, the organism is the sum of cells, but from the viewpoint of that street, the cells do not even exist. However, a cell of that organism interacts with other cells from that organism (but not with the whole organism!). Let me suppose a cell falls from that body on the street. In this case, that cell interacts with the street. It is the cell as a macro-entity not its biological parts (which belong to the same macro-EW) which interacts with the pavement. If the cell is the “primitive entity” of life, then the life of a cell just corresponds to “its” molecules, membrane, DNA, RNA and proteins.

The main ontological principle of the EDWs perspective:

In general, an entity exists (= its properties, like the property of having mass) only because of its interactions with other entities from the same EW. Life is an entity, but also an EW, therefore, it does not interact with other entities. Life is as entity because of its correspondence to the brain/body (an entity in an EDW), but it is also as an EW with no boundaries/extensions.

So, life (an EW) does not exist for the body/cell (an entity in the macro-EW), it only corresponds to the body. One life is not for any other life since each life is an EW and one EW is not for any EDW. Therefore, my life is not for your life; moreover, the life of a cell is not for the life of any other cell of “my organism”, the life of a cell is not for the life of that organism. An organism as a whole corresponds to the life-EW, but each cell corresponds to a particular life-EW. There are only correspondences between these lives-EDWs. It means, the life of the corresponding organism is not for the life corresponding to any cell.[2]

Let me furnish more details about parts-whole relationship regarding organism, cells, life. The table as a whole belong to the macro-EW; its parts (legs, surface) belong to the same macro-EW, but we cannot claim both exist in the same place, at the same “time” (there would be an ontological contradiction). From a particular viewpoint, the table is its legs, surface. Since all these elements belong to the same EW, the macro-EW, we can appeal to the identity theory. However, we cannot claim the table is the sum of the microparticles (which belong to the micro-EW) since the table just corresponds to the sum of microparticles. The relationship between life and organism/cell refers to entities which belong to the EDWs: the organism /cell is a macro-entity which corresponds to life-EW. Life does not exist for the organism/cell, but it is only corresponds to it. Life is an indeterminate individuality, i.e., being immaterial, it has no extension and duration. Life is not composed of some parts since life is immaterial and we can talk about parts only for material entities.

The main topic in biology is the “life of cells/organisms”. Probably, the neurons are one of the 265 different types of cells in our body. Nevertheless, according to biologists, each cell “has life”. From my viewpoint, each cell corresponds to a particular life-EW and the organism corresponds to an EDW, life-EW. Any EW cannot be localized within an illusory spacetime framework: the macro-EW, the micro-EW and the field-EW do not even exist; these notions are just words/labels: the macro-EW refers to the macro-entities, the micro-EW refers to the micro-entities, the field-EW refers to the electromagnetic field/waves. A car running on a street can be localized in an illusory spacetime (illusory just because it cannot even exist). However, life does not have even this illusory spacetime (extension and duration) just because it is something immaterial.

Within the EDWs perspective, we have to eliminate the notion of continuity between entities and processes which belong to the EDWs. For instance, there is no continuity between the microparticles and the macroparticles since the micro-EW is not for the macro-EW. The same statement is available for the relationship between life and organism: there is no continuity between the macro-entities and life. Obviously, there has to be a necessary correspondence between a macro-entity (cell or unicellular organism or multicellular organism) and life. There is no life (life-EW) which corresponds only to an amalgam of microparticles (the micro-EW). Life has to correspond to a macro-entity (organism or cell). We cannot talk about the being of life without its correspondence to a macro-entity (the macro-EW). This is an important reason we have to accept the existence of the macro-entities (the macro-EW). If we consider the macro-table is identical with an amalgam of microparticles (it mean, the table does not even exist, only the microparticles exist), then we have to reject the existence of any organism/cell. If we reject the existence of the macro-entities (organisms, cells, included), we have to reject the being of live. However, as I indicated in my previous works, life/mind/self really is and it corresponds to a macro-entity (the macro-EW). Life (immaterial) would not be without its correspondence to a macro-entity (matter). There is material entities without corresponding to any immaterial entities/EDWs. For instance a stone or a planet (like the Moon) does not correspond to any life/mind. However, we cannot talk about life/mind (immaterial entity/EW) without a corresponding matter belonging to the macro-EW. The correspondence between life and matter (like any correspondence within the EDWs perspective) has no ontology. It means, we have to reject any causality between entities/processes which belong to the EDWs. There is no causality between the life and an organism/cell; there is only a correspondence (no ontology). Again, mind/self is life. Exactly as mind does not “emerge” from neurons (mind corresponds to the brain, body and its external interactions with environment – see the dynamical system approach versus computational approach in my previous works) (the mind just corresponds to the brain/body), life does not emerge from an organism. Life (an EW) just corresponds to an organism/cell (the macro-entity within the macro-EW). When we talk about life and an organism/cell, we talk about two EDWs, but one EW is not for EDW.

Regarding life, many biologists introduced “complexity”. For instance, Kaufmann believes that the main principle of theory of complexity regarding life would be “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. (Kauffman 1995, p. 15) However, working within the unicorn world, Kaufmann’s principle indicates a mixture of EDWs, therefore, it is quite a wrong statement. Ass I indicated above, life just corresponds to an organism/cell.[3] According to von Uexküll, any cell has its own “Umwelt”. From my viewpoint, it means any cell corresponds to an “Umwelt”, i.e., a life-EW, but one EW is not for any EDW, that is, life is not for (only corresponds to) that cell.

Furthermore, in the context of the EDWs perspective, I need to introduce a new principle which furnish the relationship between the corresponding ED laws: the relativization of qualities, phenomena or EDWs through the correspondences between ED entities/laws (of motion, etc.):

Even if one EW does not exist for an EDW, the correspondences between ED entities/laws impose certain new “qualities” or “features” to some of ED entities which can be explained only based on these correspondences. In some cases, there are some new ED phenomena or new EDWs.

There are different “chains of EDWs”; one of these chains is the “standard chain of EDWs”:

EW0 hyperC EW1a C EW2 C EDWs… C pre-Big-Bangs-EW  C field-EW C micro-EW C macro-EW C

• life/mind-EW. (C means “corresponded”)
• mega-EW
• filament-EW.[4]

Obviously, there are quite many EDWs (not infinite since, according to Aristotle, infinite could not even exist), but we know only few of them. In the future, we will discover many other EDWs. I introduce another principle here:

The “negative principle of appearances of EDWs”:

The appearances of EDWs are randomly/accidentally processes exactly as there were the appearances of animals species on Earth. The appearances of EDWs are quite spontaneously, accidentally ED processes.[5]

According to this principle, life has appeared totally accidentally on the Earth only in correspondences to some macro-matter (which corresponds to the micro-matter which corresponds to the electromagnetic field matter). All the EDWs hypercorrespond to the EW0 (or the Hypernothing-EW). This Hypernothing is nothing. I introduce the principles of hyperontology of Hypernothing[6]:

• Hypernothing hyperis (or hyperisn’t).[7]
• Hypernothing hyperis an EW. Anyway, Hypernothing isn’t for any EDW, but only hypercorresponds (directly) to the EW1a-n (and indirectly to all other EDWs).
• Hypernothing hyperis, any EW is. Therefore, Hypernothing is beyond the dichotomy “is-isn’t” which refers to some of EDWs (like the life-EW): as we already know, some of EDWs really are, while some of EDWs are just abstract labels which designate a set of the ED entities and their interactions. Hypernothing has its own hyperontology (Hyperbeing, that is, “first nothing” which hypercorresponded to the EW1a-n), while some other EDWs have their ontology (being). All the ED entities and their interactions really exist (“belong” to some EDWs like the macro-EW or the micro-EW).
• If Hypernothing had any kind of known or possible ontology, all the EDWs would not appear through (hyper)correspondences to Hypernothing just because there would be a regress ad infinitum
• Because Hypernothing hyperis, sequences of events/processes of entities inside it are totally meaningless. Therefore, notions like “earlier” and “later” are meaningless for Hypernothing. Also, question like “What was before Hypernothing?” is meaningless. Only introducing Hypernothing, we could stop the regress ad infinitum argument regarding the being of EDWs. Also, the thought “Hypernothing has been an eternal EW” is meaningless, since this EW hyperis and, within this hyperontology, it is meaningless to talk about “existence” or “being”, “infinite” or “finite” and other features (existence, being, causality, etc.) which belong to ED entities from EDWs.
• Hypernothing replaces Aristotle’s “Prime Motor”. Hypernothing is not just “Unmoved”, but I extend this Aristotelian “missing property” to all the properties that can characterize all the ED entities that we know: it means that Hypernothing did not have any property that we know as belonging to an entity from any EW. Hypernothing has no property and this status is the most positive characterization: the EW0 is nothing and nothing else.
• I need to explain the relationship (hypercorrespondence) between the Hypernothing and the EW1a-n, even if, in principle, one EW isn’t for any EDW. In this case, however, Hypernothing (which hyperis/hyperisn’t for the EW1a-n which each EW was in itself, not for the EW0): it means the beings of EW1a-n did not disturb/perturb Hypernothing).
• We can ask the question: “What did happen in the micro-EW since this corresponding macro-entity appeared?” The answer would be: “The accumulation of an huge amalgam of microparticles corresponded to the appearance of a macro-entity (a planet, for instance). That means, something happened in the micro-EW for a corresponding macro-entity to appear in the macro-EW. On the contrary, when we talk about the appearances of EW1a-n, nothing happened in Hypernothing. Since it would be about Hypernothing, nothing happened within this EW in order something which hypercorresponded to it (the EW1a-n) to appear.
• The “chain of the correspondences” that we can talk about regarding certain EDWs (for instance, between the field-EW and the micro-EW or between the micro-EW and the macro-EW) did not exist between the Hypernothing (which hyperis) and the EW1a-n (which are): the Hypernothing hyperisn’t for the EW1a-n; the micro-EW isn’t for the macro-EW. It means all ED entities hypercorrespond (directly like the EW1a-n) or indirectly (like all other EDWs) to Hypernothing.

The principle regarding the “negative epistemology-ontology” for the Hypernothing

If we were able to “identify” somehow Hypernothing, then the (hyper)correspondences between Hypernothing and all EDWs would be a meaningless notion. That is, that EW would not be Hypernothing, since Hypernothing hyperis, while all EDWs are and between “hyperis” and “is” any correspondence cannot be established.

The relationship between Hypernothing and EDWs is given by this simple law (law of “existing/being-hyperbeing”), which mirrors the conditions of possibility of EDWs:

No Hypernothing, no EDWs:

(1) An object/entity exists.

(2) An EW is. (The mind-EW is, for instance.)

(3) Therefore, Hypernothing hyperis/(hyperisn’t). “Hyperisn’t” means “nothing” which permit the appearance, accidentally (simultaneously or not) of the EW1a-n. These two EDWs represent “nothing” from the viewpoint of the EW0. Therefore, nothing changed in the EW0, when the EW1a-n appeared in hypercorrespondences to the EW0.

(4) Any EW is, Hypernothing hyperis (or hyperisn’t), i.e., this EW is beyond the dichotomy “is-isn’t” which refers to all EDWs.

In order to avoid the regress ad infinitum argument, the “being of EDWs” is the main indication of the hyperbeing of Hypernothing. Precisely to avoid either a strong ontological contradiction or a regress ad infinitum argument, I discover that if EDWs are, then it is compulsory that the EW0 (Hypernothing) hyperis which hypercorresponded to all EW1a-n.

The notion of “contrariety” within my EDWs perspective: Hypernothing (the EW0) is contrary (not a contradiction) to any EW. “Hyperis” is contrary to “is” or “exists”, hyperontology is contrary to “epistemology-ontology”. This contrariety represents the Kantian “conditions of possibility” of all EDWs. Hyperbeing hypercorresponded to all EW1a-n (which are). This “contrariety” is not a property of Hypernothing; it is the linkage/relationship between it and mainly the EW1a-n.

The line of EDWs and different “universes” is somehow like this one:

– EW0 (Hypernothing) HC (hypercorrespond) to EW1a-n.

– These EDWs corresponded to (C) EW2b-m … (C) pre-Big Bangs-EW  (C) many BBs (in the same area to avoid Guth’s inflation, 13.82 billions years ago or maybe 26 billion years…) (C) plasma-EW (C) field-EW (C) micro-EW (C) macro-EW (C) life/mind-EW.

– “Big Bangs” (ED Big Bangs or Big Bangs corresponding to the same EW) happened in different places, in different times. Different “universes” (like our “universe”) have appeared in different places, in different periods; all these “universes” are in the same “spatiotemporal framework”.[8]

We have different “chains of EDWs”, one of these chains is the “standard chain of EDWs”:

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

There are hypercorrespondences between the EW0 and all the EW1a-n just because the EW0 is “nothing” with its hyperontology which hypercorresponds to the ontologies of EW1a-n: the EW0 directly hypercorresponds to the EW1a-n, and indirectly corresponds to the EW2 or the macro-EW or the life/mind-EW.

Principles A

Each EW appears in-itself, it does not exist for any EDW. Therefore, it is not necessary an “external click” to produce any EW.

In this way, each EW appears accidentally in correspondences to an EDW and in hypercorrespondence to the EW0. Within my EDWs perspective, rejecting the existence of “God” and “infinite”, we conclude (metaphorically, using wrong notions):

Principle B

All the EDWs appear accidentally and each EW exists in itself (it does not exist for any EDW). However, each being (=life/mind an EW) is an “universe” and “god” in the same time even if, at its “fundamental level” is (corresponds to) “nothing”/Hypernothing![9]

Principle P

To increase the probability of appearance of the macro-EW (the appearance of any EW) that we know, there had been necessary the accidentally appearances of many macro-EDWs (the appearances of many EDWs) that we do not know yet.

Now, we can explain why the EDWs that we know really are: these EDWs are just because there have been many EDWs, not only the ones that we know there are (the plasma-EW, the field-EW, the micro-EW, the macro-EW, the mind-EW). We can apply Principle P to the being of your life/mind-EW: you have appeared just because there have appeared “billions of billions” of beings on this Earth in the last four billions years. You are who you are just because there have been incredible many billions of human persons on this Earth until now.

The Hypernothing hyperis, that means, it is beyond the following dualities:

– “to be or not to be”: all the EDWs are.

– to exist or non-exists: all the entities exist.

– material-spiritual (material-immaterial): mind is, brain/body exists in the macro-EW.

– observable-unobservable: we can observe certain material entiites (planets, tables), we cannot observe a mind.

– interactions-no interactions: it is meaningless to talk about interactions the EW0 and EDWs or inside the EW0, there are no “entities” inside it, the Hypernothig is beyond anything which somehow exists.

– unity-disunity (parts-whole): the EW0 is beyond unity or a whole, the life/mind has a unity (whole) (the mental states are the mind, not composed of) it; however, a table is composed of certain parts.

– the beginning-the end: it is meaningless to talk about the beginning or the end of the Hypernothing. Time does not exist, anyway, but the EW0 has no processes that can be associated with the abstract notion of “time” or with a chronological order or certain events since there are no events for the EW0. There is no inside or outside of the Hypernothing. The questions “where is the EW0?” or “when did the EW0 appear?” are meaningless because there is a hyper-relationship (hypercorrespondence) between the EW0 and the EW1a-n.

As in the past (when we think the Earth is flat), all the human beings believed, until I discovered the EDWs, in the existence of one world, the “Universe” (obviously, the “multiverse” idea is constructed within the same wrong idea, the “world”/“Universe”/same spatiotemporal framework. However, we don’t want to follow the same mistake to believe in the existence of only one kind of EDWs. The rule is the following: since spacetime cannot exist within the EDWs (see Vacariu 2016), there is no reason to believe in the existence of only one relationship between the EW0 and a single chain of EDWs. Therefore, we postulate the existence of many different chains of EDWs. Nothing can force us to think that only the chain of EW0, EW1, etc. really existed. Since space and time cannot even exist, then nothing can stop of thinking at the beings of many kinds of such chains.[10] How many chains of EDWs are? We have no idea. What are the rules of formation these chains of EDWs? “Accidentally rules”, therefore, the number of these chains is also accidentally. Within the EDWs perspective, thinking of only one chain of EDWs is like thinking the Earth is flat![11] Exactly as we indicated that the “world”/“Universe” did not exist, we would like to emphasize that not only one chain of EDWs really are, but many chains of EDWs are.

The main question that automatically will appear is this one: we accepted the EDWs, we can accept also the “chains of EDWs”, but why do we need to stop there? Why don’t we introduces “the chains of the chains” of EDWs. Obviously, we can go further… What can stop us for these further steps? We believe that we cannot go further and further just because we would fall into regress ad infinitum, and in our book 2019 we showed that the infinite cannot even exist. If we accepted the existence of “infinity”, for instance infinite “spacetime”, for instance, it would be meaningless to talk about our existence now and here. Therefore, because of our living now and here, we have to exclude the ontological existence of infinite.

How many chains of chains are? Again, I have no idea. Can we talk about the chains of the chains of the chains of EDWs? Yes, we can. The main idea that arises from the “chains of chains” of EDWs is that there is no rule to stop somewhere. Everything is accidentally: the apparition of EDWs, the laws that govern them, and any other feature of any entity/process is somehow accidentally. That means, these laws are not “pre-establish” by “something” or “somebody”. Obviously, there are just correspondences between the appearance of these laws in a particular EW and EDWs (each EW has its one entities and laws). Anyway, the laws of a particular EW are in general determined by the entities of that EW. For instance, “entanglement” between the two microparticles (which belong to the micro-EW) corresponds to a particular wave (which belongs to the wave-EW). Working on the mind-brain problem, I discovered the first chain of EDWs in 2002, but we can imagine that with the discovery of this first chain of EDWs, we are in the situation of Magellan (discovering America). Putting together all the chains of EDWs, we will be able to understand what the EW0 hyperis, why the EW0 is the EW0, and why “before” the EW0 nothing existed/was.

We can notice that even if one EW does not exist for any EDW, there are some (indirect) “dependence” (i.e., correspondences) between an EW and at least the next one in this chain of EDWs. For instance, the macro-EW “corresponds” to the being of micro-EW (even if one EW is not for the other EDW). Without the appearance of the micro-EW, the macro-EW would not appear. The same assertion is available for the relationship between the wave-EW and the micro-EW. I called this dependence the “chain-dependence” (Vacariu 2023). We can notice without any problem that there are some dependences in the EDWs. We believe we cannot reduce all the EDWs only to these particular kinds of dependence, therefore, we believe there are other chains of EDWs. Where? In the same place (since “spacetime” does not exist) or in other places.

We emphasize another point: within the first chain of EDWs, we cannot explain everything. For instance, eliminating spacetime, God, infinity, and many other pseudo-notions from sciences (mainly physics), we were not able to explain completely the “beginning” of EW0. I believe that, since we eliminated “infinity” (our book 2019), nothing can stop us to introduce more chains of EDWs. In the future, with more chains of EDWs, it will be much easier for us to explain the Beginning. In ED chains of EDWs, there are ED phenomena which combined with know or unknown EDWs will can eliminate certain unsolved problems like the Big Bang.

Bibliography

Kauffman, Stuart: 1995, At Home in the Universe, New York: Oxford University Press

Terhesiu Dalia and Vacariu Gabriel (2002), “Brain, mind and the perspective of the observer”,

Revue Roumanie de Philosophie, 46, no.1-2

Vacariu Gabriel, Terhesiu Dalia, Vacariu Mihai (2001), “Towards a very idea of representation” in

Synthese, vol. 219, no.2

Vacariu Gabriel and Terhesiu Dalia (2002), “Brain, mind and the role of the observer”, in

Philosophy of Consciousness and Cognitive Science, Angela Botez and Bogdan Popescu (eds.), Bucharest, Cartea Romaneasca

Vacariu Gabriel (2004), “Brain, mind and epistemologically different worlds”, in Revue

Roumanie de Philosophie, 48, no.1-2

Vacariu Gabriel (2005), “Mind, brain and epistemologically different worlds”, Synthese             Review: 143/3: pp. 515-548

Vacariu Gabriel (2006), “The epistemologically different worlds perspective and some pseudo-

notions from quantum mechanics”, Analele Universitatii Bucuresti

Vacariu Gabriel (2007), Epistemologically Different Worlds (Ph.D. thesis) (EIPRS and UIPA scholarships). The thesis was submitted at Graduate Centre, UNSW on 06.09.2007 and posted on the internet by the staff of University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia) on 21.09.2007 and then on 29.04.2008 at https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo-             explore/fulldisplay?vid=UNSWORKS&docid=unsworks_5143&context=L

Vacariu Gabriel (2008), Epistemologically Different Worlds, (in English) Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2009), “Physics and Epistemologically Different Worlds”,

Revue Roumaine de Philosophie, vol. 53, 2009, nr. 1-2. (ISI)

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2010), Mind, Life and Matter in the Hyperverse, Editura

Universitatii din Bucuresti

Vacariu Gabriel (2011), Being and the Hyperverse, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti

Vacariu Gabriel (2012), Cognitive neuroscience versus Epistemologically Different Worlds, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2013), “Troubles with cognitive neuroscience“, Philosophia

Scientiae 17/2 (France) (ERIH)

Vacariu Gabriel (2014), More Troubles with Cognitive Neuroscience. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Hyperverse, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2015), Is cognitive neuroscience a pseudo-science?, Datagroup-Int.

Vacariu Gabriel (2015) “God even cannot exist!”,

http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015-Vacariu-God-cannot-even-exist.pdf

(chapter in our book 2019)

Vacariu Gabriel (2016) Illusions of Human Thinking: on Concepts of Mind, Reality, and Universe in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Physics (English         and Germany), Springer Publishing Company (This book has been published in Romanian in 2014: Lumi epistemologic diferite – Noua Paradigma de Gandire (in engl.: Epistemologically Different Worlds – The New Paradigm of Thinking),       Editura Datagroup

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2016), Dark matter and Dark Energy, Space and Time, and Other pseudo-notions in Cosmology, Datagroup-Int, S.R.L.

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2017), From Hypernothing to Hyperverse: EDWs,

Hypernothing, Wave and Particle, Elementary Particles, Thermodynamics, and Einstein’s Relativity Without “Spacetime”, Datagroup-Int

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2019), The Metaphysics of EDWs, Datagroup-Int

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2020) “Rethinking ‘dark matter’ within             the epistemologically             different worlds (EDWs) perspective”, in Michael Smith (ed.),

Cosmology 2020 – The Current State (CEO, IntechOpen, United Kingdom)

https://www.intechopen.com/search?term=cosmology%202020

Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2022), “A New Philosophical Paradigm of Thinking for Particular Sciences: Physics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and             Biology” in Nima Rezeai and Amene Saghazadeh (eds.) Thinking: Bioengineering of Science and Art, Springer Nature Switzerland AG

Vacariu Gabriel (2022), Could be ‘Nothing’ the Origin of ‘Everything’ (The metaphysics of the

Hypernothing), Amazon

Vacariu Gabriel (2022b), “Epistemologically Different Worlds (EDWs) versus “nothing”,       Big Bang, anti-matter, dark matter/energy, spacetime”, Revista Timpul

Vacariu Gabriel (September 2023), Quantum mechanics versus Epistemologically Different

Worlds, Editura Revista Timpul https://editurarevisteitimpul.ro/p/quantum-mechanics-versus-epistemologically-different-worlds/?fbclid=IwAR20abFcSLPstDUgeLk_Eo9kYSbcKcr6_UHQLnr3LhZM_29fdGNUQax8hUc

Vacariu, Gabriel (December 2023), “Some pseudo-conceptual dichotomies in the history of

human thinking”, Revista Timpul

https://portal.revistatimpul.ro/some-pseudo-conceptual-dichotomies-in-the-history-of-human-thinking/?fbclid=IwAR3DZjcxbtHhAFfJDmpwXOUDHjjpIHPlGABDl8Gx_96omMfeux6SKtsZYSM

Vacariu Gabriel (2023), Hypermetaphysics, Amazon

https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/bookshelf?publishedId=AH8YWJEB6F0T2

Gabriel Vacariu (2023), Dedublarea Fiintei si Eterna Reintoarcere: Constantin Brancusi, Cristi

Puiu, Wong Kar-Wai, Andrei Tarkovski, Editura Revistei Timpul

Vacariu Gabriel (April 1^st, 2024), “Extension without space/spacetime, quantum wavelengths and

prosopometamorphopsia”

https://www.academia.edu/116945167/Extension_without_space_spacetime_quantum_wavelengths_and_prosopometamorphopsia

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379460641_Extension_without_spacespacetime_quantum_wavelengths_and_prosopometamorphopsia

https://www.scribd.com/document/719035102/Gabriel-Vacariu-1st-April-2024-Extension-Without-Space-POM-and-Quantum-Wavelenghts

Vacariu Gabriel (2024), The New Philosophy: Epistemologically Different Worlds, Editura Revistei Timpul,

https://editurarevisteitimpul.ro/p/the-new-philosophy-epistemologically-different-worlds/?fbclid=IwAR1uvC2LNbxEUWCn9-15a3hM39Q56RKVoAfMNNko86PZhZjBZDb5WYj7sFQ_aem_ASvhbZgipGnho4l31kGavhbNfaRgr7Q97zJeYraHcdp1r5eIVjBRCsk-lE37rwBrNp8Mrc8aEzCBwQAtis0S7PNZ

Vacariu Gabriel (2024), No logical/mathematical “truths”, no physical “laws”, Editura Revistei Timpul,

https://editurarevisteitimpul.ro/p/no-logical-mathematical-truths-no-physical-laws/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2na9OADXE_rWElOGGkIDSExhfn4ETNW175RGPYgXbsj3wxBPYBIKc2MTo_aem_ATbyJzdWHq5m6uq_GcVJMwyYyuDWTuXf-UKwyrhVbiB1KDK1RKu2LvLwVwupXbXue4vfQpkBdcV8Be3hk7rveyvF

[1] More details about these principles in my previous works.

[2] From the EDWs perspective, any notion of emergence is quite wrong. (see my previous works)

[3] About Kauffman’s theory of complexity and the EDWs perspective, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2010.

[4] For more details, see my Hypermetaphysics 2023.

[5] The notion of “accidentally” rejects the existence of God or regress ad infinitum. Regarding the rejection of the existence of God (God of any religion), see this article Free at my webpage: https://filosofie.unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015-Vacariu-God-cannot-even-exist.pdf

[6] Large parts from the next paragraphs are from Vacariu (2023), Hypermetaphysics.

[7] I cannot state that Hypernothing is/exist (or isn’t). Otherwise, I would either regress ad infinitum argument or all EDWs would not be.

[8] “Multiverse”: These “universes” are all within the same “spatiotemporal framework”, one universe can interact with another universe. For instance, our “universe” can interact with another “universe” in the future. Therefore, the “multiverse” is a completely different notion than the “EDWs” since one EW does not exist for any EDW (so it is meaningless (or totally wrong) to consider “one EW can interact with an EDW” or to believe that all the EDWs are in the same “spatiotemporal” framework).

[9] The reader has to be aware that these principles (through their meaning) are some of the most important statements in the history of human being (even if some parts of these principles can be found in the previous principles – just because of their importance, I inserted them here). Translated in my terms: “Each human being is an EW having her own rationality, and before all EDWs was “nothing” (the EW0) and nothing else. I furnish, for the first time, the metaphysical framework of “nothing” as being the “origin of the universe”. This statement had been supposed by many physicists (obviously, they have been correctly forced to exclude “god” and “infinity” from their scientific framework of thinking), but they presupposed matter and antimatter, for instance. Anyway, all scientists and philosophers had been working within the unicorn world until I discovered the EDWs. I rejected, for the first time, the antimatter in my previous works. Each man is an “universe”/“God”, but each EW has happened accidentally. Amazing, isn’t it? Each person is totally responsible for its own life/mind since nothing is/exists for it (not even your body). I believe, this framework of thinking the most incredible one in the history of human thinking. From the old framework of “believing in God”, regarding the “last believer”, we have to recall the Russian director of movies Andrei Tarkovsky. (See my book about him and other artists…) Since God could not even exist, large parts of your destiny is “in your hands”… amazing, isn’t it? I believe “religion” has been the worst thing for human beings in all times; it produced the most crimes in the history of human thinking, it has been the wrong umbrella (a refugee) for many great thinkers (philosophers, artists, scientists), for the majority of many human beings. If Nietzsche knew “God was death”, I indicated God could not even exist.

[10] Working on the mind-brain problem, Gabriel Vacariu discovered the first chain of EDWs in 2002, but we can imagine that with the discovery of this first chain of EDWs, we are in the situation of Magellan (discovering America). There are other continents, but all these continents (including the water) are the same earth. Putting together all the chains of EDWs, we will be able to understand that the EW0 hyperis, why the EW0 is the EW0, and why “before” the EW0 nothing existed/was.

[11] Until the beginning of 20^th Century, we believed that our galaxy is the only galaxy in the Universe. However, later, we have discovered hundreds of billions of galaxies! Anyway, the EDWs perspective is another Copernican movement in the history of human thinking…