Hello all,

And now for something completely different.

I have made several observations about our nature and have produced several provactive logical conclusions from these observations. These conclusions may be the new directions required by physics to find a viable alternative model to the standard model of physics. Then again, maybe not.

In any case, before actually diving into alternative models, I'm interested in discussing the non-scientific observations and reasoning that perhaps could lead to real scientific advancement. Here's what I have:

======================
I. Introduction

1. The fundamental forces and particles create everything

We have identified two forces that account for every observable phenomenon in Nature: Gravitation and Electromagnetism. There are two more forces known as the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces but it is widely accepted that these forces are actually the electromagnetic force.

To provide some justification to the claim that the forces and the particles of matter that they act on can explain much of nature consider the world around us. Every object you see, including yourself, is a nicely pieced together atom puzzle.

The atom itself consists of particles of matter. These individual pieces of matter work together in two ways to make an atom. Some particles are bound together to create larger particles like the proton and neutron in the atom's nucleus, and some particles orbit the nucleus. The electromagnetic force is responsible for both holding the nucleus together and causing the electron to orbit it.

It follows that if atoms make up everything we see the forces create all the objects we see. But they do more than that. The same forces that hold an atom together are the same forces that put them into action. Gravitation and Electromagnetism can explain every observed behavior of an atom. In fact, since light is an electromagnetic wave, the forces even explain how you and I, atom-based creatures, observe other atoms interacting.

2. I observe time, therefore it exists

As it falls to the ground an apple progresses through many changes of its position and velocity; as a result the apple's fall can be modeled as a series of states. When something changes state like this, a consequence is the object exists in multiple states that must be differentiated from each other. This process is called time. When something changes state, I observe time. I observe time, therefore it exists.

3. I observe that I observe

One important term I will use throughout will be "observation." What exactly is observation? For this paper observation is an interaction between an observer and it's environment where information about the environment is relayed over some distance to the observer.

I'm looking around my room right now. And I'm seeing where the walls are and where the door is. This information to is coming to me by way of a phenomenon called light.

If a human being observes the universe by interacting with light then I think that all interactions that occur by those means should be considered observation. To explain this look at your out stretched hand. Information about the features of your hand is delivered from your hand to your eye by an electromagnetic wave. If we were to put a compass in your hand, the needle would point north due to it's interactions with an electromagnetic wave too.

As a human being I have the ability to recognize patterns within the incoming information, but that's not required for observation. I also have the ability to store information in my memory about what I observed and recall it, but that's not necessary for observation either. I observe my compass fundamentally the same way the needle on the compass observes an electromagnetic wave to point north.

Observation itself is merely an interaction. If I observe something, I am interacting with that system. By observing something I am actually changing state as well.

4. The phenomena that we observe is called nature

The forces, by holding an atom together, create something. The forces, by making atoms interact with each other, make something change state. Time is a by-product of the forces interacting with particles to create something and make them change state.

The product of the forces is the set of everything we observe, including time. I call this set nature.

II. The unification of the study of nature

1. We exist in nature

Human Beings are phenomenons of nature. And we have known nature for quite some time. We have even developed methods to study nature. The Greeks of 2500 years ago developed Philosophy as a tool to study nature.

2. We have found much success by devising science as a stricter form of philosophy

The system of physics we use today didn't really exist until 500 years or so ago. Physics, with the scientific method, is the same thing as Philosophy but much more strict about the statements it is allowed to make. It does this by limiting what can be regarded as scientific facts to only phenomena that can be observed in nature; and when physics speaks it uses the language of mathematical equations.

3. If nature is a result of the forces interacting, science cannot address the interaction

Because physics only deals with data that can be observed, the mechanism that allows for the observation to occur cannot be completely contained within the observational data. I make this statement from my own sense of reason, however Gödel's Incompleteness theorem should provide the appropriate authority if the claim does not seem reasonable enough on it's own.

If nature is an open system, then there is another system which encompasses it. If nature is a closed system, the Incompleteness Theorem states that (unless nature is to be an exception) the rules of nature cannot be completely contained within the observed phenomena of nature.

In other words, because our observation is a rule of nature, the statements that we can make about what we observe can be considered all the true facts contained in the system that we call nature. According to the Incompleteness Theorem, a system cannot prove all of its statements without the assistance of a larger encompassing system. In order to be internally consistent, a final theory of nature can only be complete by demonstrating its own incompleteness.

4. Unifying the study of nature requires unifying physics with philosophy

We see now that there is a flaw in physics that will prevent it from reaching it's goal of describing nature consistently. This flaw comes in two degrees. The immediate concern is that to explain the universe we must account for observation. But science deals with data that we can obtain through observation, which cannot completely contain observation itself.

The more critical degree of this problem is that we exist in nature, and because we created the study of nature, the study of nature also exists in nature. And so the study of nature cannot completely contain a consistent description of nature.

A final theory of nature must address observation, which is beyond the scope of science, and in doing so we will account for the final theory's own incompleteness.

With that in mind, I will conjecture an idea that I think is capable unifying the incompatible theories of physics because the theory would represent a unification of physics and philosophy as the complete study of nature. Without the acceptance of philosophical and metaphysical arguments the idea that physics alone can describe nature consistently is logically flawed... unless of course nature is to be an exception to the Incompleteness Theorem.
=======================

Does this seem reasonable or have I made logical errors somewhere?

Mike