Process Physics, Process Philosophy

Process Physics, Process Philosophy


From Process Physics Introduction

What is information-theoretic process physics?

“The fundamental assumption of process physics is that
reality is to be modelled as
self-organising semantic information,
that is, information which is ‘internally’ meaningful,
using a self-referentially limited neural network model.”
– Reg Cahill

It is difficult to commence a summary of process physics simply because its implications are extremely far-reaching in many fields of human discipline and endeavour. In one sense it is as if the modern scientific program has now been given a new set of reading glasses through which everyday life, the world, and the cosmos itself, might be seen in a slightly different perspective. In another sense, more related to the philosophy of science, it is as if a fresh start has been made in examining the logical principles utilised at the foundations of man’s present understanding of physics and saying, how can this situation which has been now with us for many generations, be changed for the better.

The refreshing thing about the program is that the author (Reg Cahill) openly admits into the foundations of science a new lease of life, and does so in a very real sense, by consideration of the above assumption – incorporating the emergent property of self-organising systems – at the foundations of science.

Process Physics represents a return to natural science, as distinct from what might be termed technological science. Mankind has explored the technological side of nature and has exploited a small number of nature’s myriad facets. Technological production is up, and everything is looking good except for a few small and obscure rainclouds that have crossed the horizon of theory (Godel, Turing, Chaitin) and look to be consistently depositing rain on some quarters of the logic space.

Gravity and process physics

However, all technological innovation set aside, the philosophy behind the modern scientific program in general has been relativity stagnant for some time, driven increasingly on the one hand by industrial and political (eg: war) initiatives, and on the other by a romance with mathematics.

Present day understanding of the nature of gravity is mathematical and not physical. We think we know some “Universal Laws”, and that they are being tenured in the mathematical physics department, not the physical mathematics department. Increasing precision is manifest in our understanding of technological physics. On the contrary, in 1998 CODATA increased the uncertainty in relation to the natural physics associated with the measurement of G from 0.013% to 0.15%.

Process physics delivers a account of the mechanism behind the phenomenom of gravity that might be described as an inflow, or sink model:

“Matter is merely topological defects embedded in the process space, and we expect such defects to have a larger than usual gebit connectivity; indeed matter is a violation of the 3D connectivity of this space, and it is for this reason that we needed to introduce fields to emulate this extra non-spatial connectivity. One consequence of this is that in the region of these matter fields the gebits decay faster, they are less sticky because of the extra connectivity. Hence in this region, compared to other nearby matter-free regions the gebits are being ‘turned over’ more frequently, but at the same time are less effective in attracting new gebits. Overall this suggests that matter-occupying-regions act as net sinks for gebits, and there will be a trend for the neighboring quantum foam to undergo a diffusion/relaxation process in which the foam effectively moves towards matter: matter acts as a sink for space, but never as a source. Such a process would clearly correspond to gravity.” – Ibid

In this, the treatment is not unique. There have been a fair number of other portrayals and modelling gravity as either an inflow of space, either as a sink-flow model, or as a radiant pressure arrangment, that extend in recent scientific history back to Le Sage. See the Theories of Aether resource index for a collection of many of these.

The treatment of process physics however is unique in that firstly it has been published in peer-reviewed physics journals whereas most (but not all) of the other articles have not. Secondly, process physics encapsulates a profound, but not new, logic and philsophy, and it does so rigorously and comprehensively.

Philosophy and Logic: East & West

It is pleasant to read a physics paper that is so well versed in other regions of discipline-space. Precisely, this well versed nature is manifold – firstly in providing philosophical context to the theory, and secondly in providing full credit to the wisdom of the east, as distinct from that of the west.

“Western science and philosophy has always been dominated by non-process thought. This ‘historical record’ or being model of reality has been with us since Parmenides, and his student Zeno, of Elea, and is known as the Eleatic model (c500 BCE). However, nevertheless, and for the dubious reason of generating support for his supervisors being model of reality, Zeno gave us the first insights into the inherent problems of comprehending motion, a problem long forgotten by conventional non-process physics, but finally explained by process physics.

The becoming or processing model of reality dates back to Heraclitus of Ephesus (540-480 BCE) who argued that common sense is mistaken in thinking that the world consists of stable things; rather the world is in a state of flux. The appearance of ‘things’ depend upon the flux for their continuity and identity. What needs to be explained, Heraclitus argued, is not change, but the appearance of stability. With process physics western science and philosophy is now able to move beyond the moribund non-process mindset.

While it was the work of Godel who demonstrated beyond any doubt that the non-process system of thought had fundamental limitations; implicit in his work is that the whole reductionist mindset that goes back to Thales of Miletus could not offer, in the end, an effective account of reality. However the notion that there were limits to syntactical or symbolic encoding is actually very old. Priest [12] has given an account of that history. However in the East the Buddhists in particular were amazingly advanced in their analysis and comprehension of reality.

Stcherbatsky [13], writing about the extraordinary achievements of Buddhist logic in the C6 and C7 CE, noted that;

Reality according to Buddhists is kinetic, not static;
but logic, on the other hand, imagines a reality
stabilized in concepts and names.
The ultimate aim of Buddhist logic
is to explain the relation between
a moving reality and the static constructions of logic.

— Ibid


From Process Physics: Emergent Unified Dynamical 3-Space, Quantum and Gravity: a Review

Experiments have repeatedly revealed the existence of a dynamical structured fractal 3-space, with a speed relative to the Earth of some 500 km sec−1 from a southerly direction. Experiments have ranged from optical light speed anisotropy interferometers to zener diode quantum detectors. This dynamical space has been missing from theories from the beginning of physics. This dynamical space generates a growing universe and gravity when included in a generalised Schrodinger equation and light bending when included in generalised Maxwell equations. Here we review ongoing attempts to construct a deeper theory of the dynamical space starting from a stochastic pattern generating model that appears to result in 3-dimensional geometrical elements, “gebits” and accompanying quantum behaviour. The essential concept is that reality is a process and geometrical models for space and time are inadequate.


Key Sources of Research:


Process Philosophy Resources


Process Physics Resources


Process Physics: Emergent Unified Dynamical 3-Space, Quantum and Gravity: a Review

Reginald T Cahill


Click to access 1504.0127v1.pdf


Dynamical 3-Space: A Review

Reginald T. Cahill

Click to access HPS37.pdf



A Quantum Cosmology: No Dark Matter, Dark Energy nor Accelerating Universe

Reginald T. Cahill


Click to access HPS39.pdf



Reginald T. Cahill


Click to access HPS13.pdf


The Water Falls but the Waterfall does not Fall: New perspectives on Objects, Processes and Events

Antony Galton and Riichiro Mizoguchi


Click to access 0c96053c9acb565693000000.pdf

Shape of the Universe

Shape of the Universe



From The Status of Cosmic Topology after Planck Data

In the last decade, the study of the overall shape of the universe, called Cosmic Topology, has become testable by astronomical observations, especially the data from the Cosmic Microwave Background (hereafter CMB) obtained by WMAP and Planck telescopes. Cosmic Topology involves both global topological features and more local geometrical properties such as curvature. It deals with questions such as whether space is finite or infinite, simply connected or multi connected, and smaller or greater than its observable counterpart. A striking feature of some relativistic, multi ­connected small universe models is to create multiples images of faraway cosmic sources. While the last CMB (Planck) data fit well the simplest model of a zero curvature, infinite space model, they remain consistent with more complex shapes such as the spherical Poincaré Dodecahedral Space, the flat hypertorus or the hyperbolic Picard horn.

From The Status of Cosmic Topology after Planck Data

The overall topology of the universe has become an important concern in astronomy and cosmology. Even if particularly simple and elegant models such as the PDS and the hypertorus are now claimed to be ruled out at a subhorizon scale, many more complex models of multi-­connected space cannot be eliminated as such. In addition, even if the size of a multi-­connected space is larger (but not too much) than that of the observable universe, we could still discover an imprint in the CMB, even while no pair of circles, much less ghost galaxy images, would remain. The topology of the universe could therefore provide information on what happens outside of the cosmological horizon [35].

Whatever the observational constraints, a lot of unsolved theoretical questions remain. The most fundamental one is the expected link between the present-day topology of space and its quantum origin, since classical general relativity does not allow for topological changes during the course of cosmic evolution. Theories of quantum gravity should allow us to address the problem of a quantum origin of space topology. For instance, in quantum cosmology, the question of the topology of the universe is completely natural. Quantum cosmologists seek to understand the quantum mechanism whereby our universe (as well as other ones in the framework of multiverse theories) came into being, endowed with a given geometrical and topological structure. We do not yet have a correct quantum theory of gravity, but there is no sign that such a theory would a priori demand that the universe have a trivial topology. Wheeler first suggested that the topology of space-­time might fluctuate at a quantum level, leading to the notion of a space-­time foam [36]. Additionally, some simplified solutions of the Wheeler-­‐‑de Witt equations for quantum cosmology show that the sum over all topologies involved in the calculation of the wavefunction of the universe is dominated by spaces with small volumes and multi-­connected topologies [37]. In the approach of brane worlds in string/M-­theories, the extra-­dimensions are often assumed to form a compact Calabi-­Yau manifold; in such a case, it would be strange that only the ordinary, large dimensions of our 3-­brane would not be compact like the extra ones. However, still at an early stage of development, string quantum cosmology can only provide heuristic indications on the way multi-­connected spaces would be favored.



Key People:

  • Jeffrey Weeks
  • Jean-Pierre Luminet
  • Neil Cornish


Key Sources of Research:


The Poincaré Dodecahedral Space and the Mystery of the Missing Fluctuations

Jeffrey Weeks


Click to access fea-weeks.pdf


Dodecahedral space topology as anexplanation for weak wide-angletemperature correlations in thecosmic microwave background

Jean-Pierre Luminet, Jeffrey R. Weeks, Alain Riazuelo ,Roland Lehoucq & Jean-Philippe Uzan

Click to access luminet-nat.pdf


A cosmic hall of mirrors


Jean-Pierre Luminet

Click to access 0509171.pdf



The Shape and Topology of the Universe

Jean-Pierre Luminet



Click to access 0802.2236.pdf


Luminet, Jean-Pierre.

The wraparound universe.

CRC Press, 2008.


Cosmic Topology : Twenty Years After

Jean-Pierre Luminet



Click to access 1310.1245.pdf


The Shape of Space after WMAP data

Jean-Pierre Luminet


Click to access v36_107.pdf



The Status of Cosmic Topology after Planck Data

Jean-Pierre Luminet

Click to access 1601.03884v2.pdf



Geometry and Topology in Relativistic Cosmology

Jean-Pierre Luminet


Click to access 0704.3374.pdf



Constraints on the Topology of the Universe: Extension to General Geometries

Pascal M. Vaudrevange,  Glenn D. Starkman, Neil J. Cornish, and David N. Spergel


Click to access 1206.2939.pdf



Topology of compact space forms from Platonic solids. I.

A. Cavicchioli∗, F. Spaggiari, A.I. Telloni


Topology of compact space forms from Platonic solids. II

A. Cavicchioli∗, F. Spaggiari, A.I. Telloni


Ancient Map of Universe and Modern Science

Jeoraj Jain


Discovering the Total Contents of the Universe

Jeoraj Jain


Poundstone, William.

The recursive universe: cosmic complexity and the limits of scientific knowledge.

Courier Corporation, 2013.