In this paper Stein Johansen introduces, apparently for the first time, the novel ‘hadronic philosophy’,

namely, the philosophy underlying the novel hadronic mechanics and chemistry, invented by

R.M. Santilli and constructed to its present level by himself along with contributions from

numerous other scientists around the world. It is stated that the emergence of hadronic

mechanics, as well as the new hadronic sciences in general, follows the usual pattern of scientific

revolutions, characterized by generalization, broadening and lifting from earlier theories. The

hadronic sciences de facto have far-reaching ontological underpinnings as well as implications,

consistent with the ontological framework established by David Bohm as well as the differential

ontology worked out by the author. The direct universality of hadronic mechanics is consistent

with a universal differential ontology, while Gödel’s theorem(s) is argued not to hold ontological

universality and truth. In differential ontology the universality of causality is implied in the very

concept of information. This follows the intuition of Einstein, and the information flows

corresponding to the new, non-trivial time categories established by hadronic biology represent

scientifically legitimate causality operators. From the fundamental ontological attributes of the

abstract category of “border”, implied in the very category of information, it is argued that the

Fibonacci algorithm is the elementary and universal form of nature’s information processing.

The generation of prime numbers is stated as glued to the unfolding of the Fibonacci sequence.

Also, it is shown by a complementary weeding out approach that there is a pattern in the prime

number sequence, as well as what pattern this is.

Stein E. Johansen – Institute of Basic Research

University of Science andTechnology, Trondheim, Norway

To most scientists David Bohm is known as a master of quantum physics, suggesting a new

interpretation of quantum physics named the CAUSAL interpretation of quantum physics, and

suggesting the notion of “hidden variables” determining particle attributes from the quantum

potential, as well as a more “loose” and speculative philosophical notion of an “implicate order”.

However, this comprehension does not do justice to the scientific life work of Bohm, and misses

most of its most radical and far-reaching results. As a physicist Bohm was not only concerned

about quantum physics. He worked out the platform of plasma physics as a new important field,

he was the first – in 1959 – to discover non-locality (the Bohm-Aharonov effect), and he was

concerned about working out a fruitful framework for a synthesis of quantum physics and

relativity theory by anchoring physics as a whole from deeper underpinnings which quantum

physics and relativity theory did agree about. In this work he argued that the Copenhagen

interpretation was a WRONG interpretation, due to a philosophical mistake in category when

asserting that chance and causality could be established as categories at the same footing, or

even worse: That the universe was build from chance as OPPOSED to causality, as expressed in

the famous saying of God playing dice. Bohm argued from strict philosophical category logic

that there exists NO such thing as a category of randomness SEPARATED from causality; such

thoughts had to be judged as ILLUSIONS from MISTAKES in thinking correctly. Hence, he

named his interpretation of quantum physics CAUSAL, and this not to be understood as an

ALTERNATIVE interpretation, but as the ONLY possible without making mistakes of category

LOGIC. However, his work The Undivided Universe, finished at his day of death in 1992, wore

the sub-title An ONTOLOGICAL interpretation of quantum physics, hinting at the causal

interpretation having its foundation in a specific ONTOLOGY, and the establishment of such an

adequate ONTOLOGY being the most important achievement of the life work of Bohm,

quantum physics more to be regarded as a precisely established mathematical and experimental

KEY HOLE to understand the significance of this ontology for scientific works and adequate

thinking IN GENERAL, whatever the concrete issue at hand. Bohm was much more than a

physicist, he also made fundamental contributions to the theory of communication and

language, to informatics, meaning theory and culture theory, and to the theory of art. All these

works were anchored in the SAME ontology which was quite sophisticated, complex, precise and

richly differentiated, as well as with some radical new achievements, such as the stressing of

higher order having the primacy of explanation, causality being universal, the higher unity

SIMULTANEOUSLY manifesting in consciousness and matter, and the four forces of physics

just representing more trivial and superficial laws of the universe, far from being the

FOUNDATION of the universe as still believed by most scientists as well as by the ordinary

western mind-set. In spite of this, for strange reasons Bohm’s ontology and philosophy are still

not much known and absorbed. To me, beyond doubt Bohm was one of the greatest

PHILOSOPHERS of the last century, a philosophy being inspired by his contributions to the

different sciences, as well as MAPPING and CATALYZING these contributions. The scientific

work having the greatest impact on Bohm was Hegel’s Wissenschaft der Logic, and Bohm talked

about the quest of physics as giving this Logic FEET, so it could WALK.

Let me pass to the life work of another genius from the last century, and – different from Tesla or

Bohm – still being around and still busy fulfilling tremendous scientific revolutions initiated by

himself, as well as creating powerful technologies with far-reaching and potentially wonderful

implications for the 21. century: Ruggero Maria Santilli. My impression is that Santilli has not

wasted much of his precious time to intercourse with hermetic academic philosophy. The proof

of the pudding lies in the eating; neither did Tesla engage in quantum physics to work out his

inventions, nor does Schumacher make all the complex algorithms of his racing car mind

available to conscious out spelling. The important thing is what kind of philosophy is being de

facto IMPLIED and IN ACTION in Santilli mathematics and the hadronic sciences, and if some

radical new thinking is at hand here, even if it to some extent is what Michael Polanyi called

TACIT KNOWING. In this little lecture I will outline some foundations of the implicate order of

hadronic science, a radical and potentially powerful hadronic PHILOSOPHY, that far from being

an issue for speculation, taste or superficial garniture, may be established as a FERTILIZER for

the further scientific and technological progress, as well as for the general supra-paradigm for

what Robert Pope, heading the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, has called the second

Renaissance from CREATIVE physics. If Bohm, at least in some crucial aspects, succeeded in

giving Hegel feet, Santilli and his co-workers have succeeded in moving the feet to WALK, and

even more: to fuel and move cars to DRIVE, and in the upcoming future even space ships if

Betavoltaic and the Caribbean aristocrat state of New Utopia is about to succeed. If Bohm

worked out a more abstract cartography or at least crucial guidelines for a new and much more

ambitious science, Santilli and hadronics by now de facto have MAPPED much new scientific

territory, or delivered a lot of MEAT to the skeleton, hence having established a new and much

more healthy and vigorous living ORGANISM of science.

In his analysis of the history of the science of physics, Bohm made some significant

modifications to the famous paradigm theory of Thomas Kuhn. Among other things Bohm

stressed how every revolution in physics follows the same essential pattern: successive leaps

from restricted and separated theories to broader and more overarching theories being able to

cover the separated theories as well as anomalies and new kinds of phenomena by a LIFTING of

earlier theories to a more abstract level and a higher order with a more universal conceptual

framework. In this way we have experienced successive synthesises of electricity with

magnetism, then with the weak force, and then with the strong force, as well as attempts to

integrate gravitation in a Grand unified theory. Also, Bohm stressed that later liftings quite often

was ENFOLDED as a theoretical potential in much earlier theories, but that this was not

understood and unfolded before much later, such as the case with the Hamilton/Jacobi theory

from 1860.

The creation and development of hadronic science has already to be judged as a prototypic case

following this general pattern of successful periodic scientific revolutions in the evolution of

science. In his groundbreaking Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, published the first year of the third

millennium, and probably the most important scientific book published since Newton’s

Principia, Santilli states as a main objective the submission of a GENERALIZATION BROADENING

of quantum chemistry which extends the theory to include an invariant

representation of the most GENERAL possible NON-unitary transforms representing SHORT RANGE

NON-linear, NON-local, and NON-potential interactions. This extension is necessary to

explain the overlapping of valence electrons in the iso-electron, the so-called FIFTH force in

nature, first modeled by Animalu in 1994, and the key to understand superconductivity and the

new chemical species of magnecules. Also, this extension is necessary to understand

IRREVERSIBILITY in time characteristic of chemical reactions and biological processes. At the

same time hadronic chemistry PRESERVES the validity for closed-isolated REVERSIBLE

systems and for quantum chemistry where the fifth force is NOT involved.

In general, the construction of the more advanced and covering theory is made by

PRESERVING the axiomatic consistency of quantum chemistry and the abstract Lie axioms, but

in a way that submit BROADER REALIZATIONS of said axioms. The same is the case for the

axioms of special relativity, giving room to supplementary and more complex theories of

relativity as well as non-relativity, developed inside the new and huge theory castle of hadronic

physics.

This LIFTING of old stream physics, chemistry, and biology, was not possible without the

discovery of new and powerful numbers and the development of new landscapes of

mathematics, initiated by Santilli in 1978 and constituting the successive floors of iso-, geno and

hyper-mathematics (with isoduals for anti-matter), necessary to explain more complex

systems of nature than what was possible for quantum physics having only complex numbers to

its disposition and hence limited to make partly unrealistic presuppositions such as all particles

being point-like.

Hence, quantum chemistry is no longer to be regarded as the ONLY scientific chemistry, but as

the most simple BRANCH or lowest floor of hadronic chemistry, overlaid by the more complex

branches or floors of iso-chemistry, geno-chemistry and hyper-chemistry. All in all, the hadronic

sciences represent a lifting and reconfiguration of ALL pre-Santilli mathematics, physics and

chemistry.

As already stated, this broadening-universality is the PROTOTYPIC pattern of far-reaching

scientific revolutions. To take Newton as an example, a crucial insight towards broadeninguniversality

was to assume the SAME laws of nature, in casu gravitation, to encompass objects

BOTH of heaven and earth, a thought alien to the mind set of Middle Age man. And, as for

Newton, far-reaching implications will unfold from the broadening, lifting and generalization to

hadronic science, and has ALREADY unfolded from there. Mathematical maturity of genomathematics

was not achieved before the year 1996, with corresponding physical maturity the

year after, and with the astonishing prediction, discovery and patented technology of

magnecules in the year of 1998, a hallmark in the history of chemistry as the take-off year

revealing for exploration a huge, new terra incognita of hitherto unknown substances with some

spectacular and extremely useful attributes, as far as I can see the most important scientific

discovery and expansion in the history of chemistry since the discovery of the periodic table.

Hadronic chemistry has already been able to establish a higher chemistry explaining and

designing superconductivity in fluids and gases, with powerful ecological applications for new

clean and cheap enough fuels able to clean up the atmosphere, and to overcome the increasing

global energy crises connected to the peak oil scenario. Also, there already exist strong

indications of a huge potential for using specific types of magnecules or perhaps hypermagnecules

to improve farming as well as human health by adequate ingestion.

Hadronic science has cleaned up most of the scientific fog with regard to synthesizing microand

macro-physics from a lifted and more universal physics, a physics already having showed its

immediate potent implications for developing more advanced chemistry and related chemical

technology. However, the lifting to a level of mathematics and scientific abstraction being able to

overcome the obstacles of irreversibility, has also shown its potency for radical progress in

BIOLOGY, as indicated by the studies of Illert and Santilli in conchology, and by Santilli stating

that the genome having such a degree of complexity to require hyper-mathematics. In the

history of science, the field of biology usually has been delegated to a grey zone between the hard

and soft sciences. With the emergence of hadronics, biology as a tendency has been pushed

under the same umbrella as the sciences of chemistry and physics, this congruent with the

tendency of hard science to include broader domains when having developed more powerful

mathematics. Also, I will suggest that the landscape of hyper-mathematics in its time will show

fruitful for upcoming advances in even more complex fields of nature, such as systems of

meaning, culture and communication. The structure of the hypernumber is ontologically two

folded, with one higher number connecting plural lower numbers, hence indicating similarity to

poly-vocal words and signs. All in all, hadronics shows the pattern of a Grand unified theory, but

on a level far above the restricted dream of old stream physics about a grand unified theory

embracing only the four forces. At least as a strong tendency, hadronics is in accord with Bohm’s

arguments about nature enfolding much more complex laws and patterns than the second or

third order laws of old stream physics. On the last page of Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry

Santilli predicts the discovery of hyper-magnecules in living organisms, not being reducible to

the five forces so far discovered. This implies an ontology inverting the old paradigm which

understood nature as just a gigantic building made by the blocks of elementary particles and

forces. Rather, the approach has to be top-down, acknowledging more complex laws of nature in

living systems, corresponding to the more complex relations of the higher Santilli landscapes of

mathematics.

John Wheeler posed the picture of the evolution of the universe in the model of the letter U, the

evolved human creature through its thinking eye looking back on its origin, and in this way

hinting at laws of self-reference being manifested at some step in the evolution of the universe.

In complexity science, relations of self-referentiality and self-organization have been studied for

20 years, also connected to the theories of autopoiesis formulated by the biologists Maturana

and Varela and the growing field of second-order cybernetics which includes human

consciousness.

In general, there is an inadequate limitation in the ordinary approach drawing a basic line

between soft and hard sciences. What counts as an objective fact, is what most scientists

experience as the most compelling perception to their sober senses, i.e. the most compelling

SUBJECTIVE experience of facticity. In this sense, the hardest fact is the softest fact; there is no

such thing as experimental facts SEPARATED from human perception. Hence, the ontology of

even the hardest physics de facto IMPLIES a RELATION between the subject and the object.

The topological figure of the KLEIN-BOTTLE is adequate to understand this dynamic

interpenetration of subject and object CONSTITUTING what counts as an objective fact from a

UNITARY operator unfolding in BOTH subject and object, the movement of the Klein-bottle

systematically SWITCHING between its 3D-manifestation and its invisible 4.D-manifestation,

hence offering an abstract template for the general relation between matter and consciousness

from an overarching framework containing both domains of reality as necessary aspects of the

universe as a whole. The Necker-cube is a perceptual object where the perception is irreversibly

forced to switch between two different variants of the abstract cube, inverting each other insideout,

effectively demonstrating that the human perception has enfolded in its very construction a

hidden Klein-bottle operator. Important points related to the universal significance of the Kleinbottle

have been worked out by the multi-disciplinary scientist Steven Rosen and the Australian

philosopher Melanie Purcell. Also, the Klein-bottle seems to be the only operator able to explain

dimensional generation – or rather unfoldment, when viewed top-down, such as consciousness

moving in and out of dream space every night.

Chris Illert proved that the correct representation of the growth of sea shells as Angaria

Delphinium requires a DOUBLING of the Cartesian coordinates, i.e. a 3×3-dimensional space.

Hence, to our 3D-limited PERCEPTION this real hyperspace is not visible, but on the other

hand our 3D perception must be COMPATIBLE with the growth from hyperspace. Santilli

showed that this apparent contradiction is resolved when acknowledging the MULTI-VALUED

character of biological structures, requiring hyper-mathematics for analysis. Klein-bottle

operators seem useful to understand the dynamic constitution of such multi-valueness and the

interface between the restricted perception and the higher dimensionality of hyperspace.

Another important theoretical contribution to the further understanding of the 3D/hyperspace

paradox is the organic geometry developed by Erik Trell. Trell has shown that any n-D space,

whatever the number of n, can be translated in toto to a corresponding structure in 3D space.

Therefore, it is possible to translate any complex space to quite simple 3D correlates, leaving the

algorithm of the discontinuous STEP from one state of growth to the next as the only universally

necessary supra-3D operator, and indicating that the universe is a configuration of nothing else

than 3D spaces, apart from the discontinuous steps inside such a space or between different 3D

spaces. This takes away much of the mysticism of multi-dimensional theories.

In the philosophy of Jakob von Üexkull, there is the key concept of Umwelt, specific to every

species and organism. What is beyond its Umwelt, is not available for the organism, and does

not count as information for it as such, but only as the difference the external difference makes

INSIDE the Umwelt, depending of the organism’s sensory apparatus and its overall constitution.

Santilli has stated that with regard to the notion of time, in analogy to the notion of space, we

must distinguish between the intrinsic or actual reality of time flows and these time flows as

perceived by our senses as conventional time inside the organism’s Umwelt. However, the two

time flows have to be COMPATIBLE, which is mathematically achieved by the basic invariant of

the product of intrinsic time squared and the sensory unit squared. Hence, the focus is lifted

from a common sense notion of time to the overarching RELATION between hypertime and

conventional time, this in some analogy to the Klein-bottle not regarding the subject and object,

4.D vs. 3D, consciousness vs. matter, as autonomously separated, but focusing the RELATION

constituting the relata and their mutual dynamics. From this lifting a more complex and

consistent theory of time is offered from hadronic science, than the earlier picture of reversible

time of quantum physics co-existing with the one-way time arrow of thermodynamics. Also, the

subjective quality of perceptual time is being respected as a more primary notion than the quasiobjective

time flow of old stream physics, as argued by Bohm in the book Thought as a System.

The German physicist and philosopher, Eva Ruhnau, has summed up the empirical studies of

human time perception, showing a clear hierarchical structure of time windows characteristic

for our species, and – without our conscious knowing – CONSTITUTING our concept of

“objective” time intervals. Following the invariance equation of Santilli, the pace of time must be

experienced as inversely proportional to the span of the time window, a span that will vary with

the specific Umwelt of the specie. From the invariance assuring compatibility between

hypertime and Umwelt time, Santilli deduced four different new categories of time provided

already by isotopies and their isoduals: Motion forward in future, backward in past, forward in

past, and backward in future. Climbing up from iso-structures to GENO-structures, necessary to

understand irreversibility, adds four new time categories to the model, irreversibility elegantly

being explained from the difference between the generalized units for forward and backward

motion in time. Climbing up to HYPER-structures adds another four categories of time. Hence,

state-of-the-art for hadronic theory of time is a clear-cut panorama of 12 different categories of

time flow having to be involved in the make-up and work-out of the biological world (in addition

to the basic category of the NOW). Of course this is a complexification as well as a radical

departure from the ordinary common sense mind set, but it is done by using the precise power

of scientific abstraction, necessary to leave the limitations of the immediate Umwelt. Besides,

the common uni-linear notion of serial time is a quite restricted notion of time compared with

the notions among sages of most cultures in history, as for example the more complex time

theory of the old Maya cosmology.

Santilli has proved that the most general Lie-admissible theory implies nonunitary time

evolution, and can only be connected to quantum mechanics via a nonunitary transform on a

Hilbert space over the field of complex numbers. However, the use of nonunitary transforms

without LIFTING quantum physics has to generate lack of invariance and theoretical

inconsistency predicting different values for the same quantity under the same conditions at

different times. Different from this crucial limitation of quantum physics, hadronic chemistry

has the most general nonunitary structure that is possible, and shows DIRECT UNIVERSALITY

in the fixed frame of the observer. Hence, making a nonunitary transform the fundamental

generalized unit of the theory seems to overcome some crucial difficulties connected to the

observer problem, by lifting the Archimedean point to the RELATION between Umwelt and

hyperspace. Bohr regarded the wholeness of the observation/measurement situation as unique

and expressed epistemological pessimism concerning any real understanding of the subclassical

world outside our Umwelt, apart from working out formulas for statistic probabilities of

quantum events. Contrary to this, the direct universality established by hadronic physics

promotes an epistemological optimism concerning access to true knowledge from the frame of

the observer, even in much more complex issues than those treated by quantum physics. This is

much more in line with Bohm’s statement of an INFINITE potential for human access to the

information of the universe.

In his last book from 1982, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, the great philosopher of

science Karl Popper, pointed out Santilli – and ONLY him – as the upcoming future of physics,

delivering sufficiently advanced mathematics to restore the Rutherford model of the neutron,

and creating hadronic physics able to overcome the basic limitations of quantum physics in a

new theoretical framework re-establishing the “sane” Einstein approach for an overall physics

built on causality.

Santilli has stated “that backward motions of time within biological structures is as causal as the

conventional motion forward”. More precisely, the isodual isotime – referring to a negative unit

of time – satisfies the same basic invariance as the conventional time perceived by our senses.

This is contrary to the popular notion of physical causality where motion backward in time

seems non-causal and therefore either absurd or requiring strange kinds of explanation, this

notion also being an obstacle for admitting and understanding experiments from the last dozen

years claiming to have observed velocities faster than of light in vacuum. However, the common

notion of physical causality in physics is much to shallow to grasp the core of causality as well as

the precise nature of its physical manifestation. To claim the impossibility or the non-causality

of the effect preceding the cause, only shows that this relation is an unfolded manifestation of

ANOTHER relation, or set of relations, that HAS to be causal, a distinction leading to a

necessary differentiation of reality LEVELS.

Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem from 1930 may serve as an important case illustrating

the hidden limitations when presenting theorems of logic and informatics without framing them

inside a sufficient and consistent ontology. To my knowledge the theorem has never been

seriously challenged or criticized, with the exception of some recent important statements from

Peter Rowlands. In the core of Gödel’s argument for the theorem stands the self-referential

statement: “This statement is unprovable”, which through the coding scheme of Gödel

numbering, translates to the Gödel Sentence G, saying “M cannot prove G”, where M is a formal

system for whole number arithmetic. Gödel claimed to have proved that 1) G must be true for

any consistent formal system M; 2) for any M, G is not possible to prove FROM M; hence the

conclusion that for every formal system truths will exist in logical space not possible to prove

from the restricted part of logical space covered from M.

However, when saying “This statement is unprovable”, “this statement” as a fragment INSIDE

the expression is never TOTALLY the same as the WHOLE expression. Viewed from OUTSIDE

the expression, the Gödel sentence cannot at the same time and in the same regard be BOTH the

whole expression and a fragment of the same expression. It is like saying: “Concerning the space

you are now in the viewing of, it is not possible to know whether it is true that you are viewing it

or not.” Is this saying true? The observer would say that obviously it IS true that he is viewing a

space, hence the expression claiming this not possible to decide, has to be WRONG. On the

other hand, it is possible for the observer that if he could view the SYSTEM of himself and the

space from an OUTSIDE space, for example an awake person observing a person dreaming or

immersed in a virtual reality consol, then the first observation could turn out to be UNTRUE in

another sense, i.e. inside a BROADER supra-framework. And he would have reason to believe

that in SOME such cases, depending of the SPECIFITY of the space observed, it WOULD be

possible to decide if the space was true in this sense, as for the virtual reality display; and in

OTHER such cases, as with a powerful hallucination, it would NOT be possible to decide if the

space was true in this sense as long as the person was immersed in the hallucinations. This

simple analogy illustrates that whether a Gödel sentence is true or not, or whether it is possible

to decide this, depends on FURTHER QUALIFICATORS of meaning and ontology. Of course

one may choose minimalistic qualificators such as a Flatland ontology of thought space with

simple rules for moving symbols around. Such a choice of simplistic procedures for the

movement of thought in a conflated universe of formal logic may be convenient as well as

fruitful for restricted tasks of research. But at the same time, such a choice will dramatically

limit the implications possible to draw from relations of logical space to relations of nature

OUTSIDE logical space. Already the hierarchical structure of time windows in human

perception shows that our reality is basically multi-layered. Whatever the fruitful consequences

of the Gödel theorem for informatics and logic, I find this important to clarify due to the high

overall prestige of the theorem, having made a great impact towards scientific pessimism and

post-modern nihilism, and claimed to be the final proof that many truths will never be possible

to discover or decide, hence not much use in trying too hard.

In general, self-referentiality such as the Gödel sentence, installs an ontological paradox,

claiming the part and the whole to be the same. DE FACTO this implies a VERTICAL

ONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION in at least two LEVELS, because the paradox can only be

resolved by the formulation of the identity on ONE level, and the non-identity on ANOTHER

level. By CONFLATING these levels and IGNORING the ontological differentiation necessarily

enfolded in the argument, the Gödel theorem gives a false impression of ontology NOT being

crucial for the reasoning, HIDES its ontological anchoring and restriction, and DENIES the

CONTRADICTION at hand when using paradox operators, presupposing at least two levels, and

in spite of this simulate that legitimate logical reasoning still can be done inside the silent

ontological framework of just ONE ontological level. For more complex reasoning, whether

inside or outside formal logic, paradox operators seem extremely potent, such as for example

Klein-bottle-operators or holographic operators, the last ones crucial in the ongoing

development of quantum holography computers extending the quantum informatics of David

Deutsch and powered by the supra-mathematics developed by Peter Rowlands. But for clear-cut

and powerful reasoning, paradox operators have to be anchored in a precise and differentiated

enough ontology and used consistently inside this ontological framework. For many tasks, it is

sufficient that an adequate ontological architecture stays implicit if mastered precisely enough

by tacit knowing, as in much everyday communication. For other and more complex tasks of

science, I will argue – as Bohm or complexity scientist William Sulis – that radical and fast

ontological progress is crucial for the further progress of science.

Most scientists still believe to live in a binary universe, with matter and consciousness, where

something either are existing or non-existing, real or illusory, and where facts and statements

are either true or non-true. In the Middle Ages we had the great conflict between nominalism

and realism, not agreeing about concepts being real or not, however implicitly agreeing about a

binary ontology being the condition for the conflict. Of course concepts are real in some sense,

but not in the same sense or at the same reality level as material objects. And the concept of

Santa Claus is not real in the same sense that the concept of George Bush. In mathematics the

concept of 0 is not real in the same sense as the concept of 4, a negative number does not have

the same kind of reality as a positive number, and so on. To answer precisely in WHAT sense a

phenomenon is real, one needs a richly differentiated and concise ontology with much more

than two boxes.

I have written a book to establish such a concise DIFFERENTIAL ontology, including a

differential epistemology, because a mapping of thought always is implied in a mapping of

overall reality. In this ontology there are three dimensions apart from 3D space + time, named

algorithmic, meta-algorithmic, and trans-algorithmic. The overall configuration of these

algorithms makes up the structure of a system, unfolding in the non-algorithmic PROCESS of

the system, the unity of structure and process established at a level of abstraction sufficiently

high to describe ANY dynamical system and hence with a catalyzing potential for ANY science.

Each dimension has different levels, degrees and spaces, and as a whole this establishes an

ontological architecture where everything existing will have its proper place. From this matrix,

an ILLUSION can be determined as something placed at a WRONG spot or room in this reality

map. However, in perception and in thinking there are a lot of NECESSARY illusions involved,

such SIMILI operators being crucial for many movements between different ontological floors

and rooms.

The generality of this ontology is ensured and worked out by a systematic and quite rigorous

unfolding of what is implied or tacitly enfolded in the very concept of INFORMATION.

Concerning QUANTITATIVE concepts of information, we have the useful concept of Shannon

on one hand, and the in some sense contrary concepts of Chaitin and Kolmogoroff on the other

hand, as well as the concept of Zurek trying to synthesize the two. However, all the quantitative

concepts have as their basic the QUALITATIVE concept of Gregory Bateson, defining

information as “the difference that makes the difference”. To my knowledge, there has not been

done much work to qualify this qualitative definition significantly further, apart from a few

points made by Bohm and some more points worked out by myself. In this context it is sufficient

to use the definition of Bateson. If information is to be understood as an input-difference

making an output-difference, there has to be a NECESSARY relation between the two

differences in this making. Hence, the universal, abstract, and elementary concept of

CAUSALITY has to be determined as this relation. This means that the notion of causality is

situated in the heart of the very concept of qualitative information, representing the GLUE

between differences CONSTITUTING information. Therefore, there is no information, no

thinking, no description or no explanation apart from causality. The question must be how the

abstract concept of causality unfolds in different TYPES of causality on different levels and

domains of reality, and how these types COMBINES to complex operators of thought.

I have tried to nest up the causality complex and solve the fundamental problems related to it,

not by discussing causality separated and per se, but by deducing the different necessary and

sufficient types or branches of causality from a map of the necessary ONTOLOGICAL

architecture of reality as being a reality of INFORMATION. From such an ontological

framework, the causality operators is anchored and falls out as different modes of moving

around in the building, depending on which room in the building the move has as its departure

and destination. From a dozen of BASIC causality types (in addition to the abstract, universal

type), more secondary causality types is (re-)constructed as representing specific

COMBINATIONS of the basic types. As examples on such secondary combinations can be

mentioned chance causality, intentional causality and physical causality. With regard to the last

one, it is clearly shown that this is NOT a basic type of causality, but a specific combination of

basic ones, this holding truth also for simple mechanic causality as of billiard ball clashes.

Newton’s laws can be reformulated in such a framework, showing clearly that there is no such

thing as physics without supra-physics, i.e. without meta- and trans-algorithms. Also, the

common notion of “energy” can be reformulated inside such a causal-ontological framework,

showing that it is non-scientific to limit a priori the concept to a closed and restricted domain of

reality, such as in Pavlov-like reactions against the possibility of tapping vacuum energy.

A useful analogy to understand the causality thematic is to imagine the different causality types

as the move pattern specific for different chess pieces. To move from one room to another in the

ontological matrix, different causality types have different paths and potentials for moving. As

chess has a limited amount of pieces, there is a limited amount of basic causality types with

corresponding paths. However, some squares can only be connected by COMBINATION of

moves by DIFFERENT pieces. In the ordinary mind-set such causality combinations are not

understood as such, but conflated to the movement of a virtual quasi-piece. This is due to

economy of thought, to the difficulties involved in abstract precision to understand the issue,

and to the capacity of the human un-(or rather supra-) conscious being able to handle huge

amounts of algorithmic information content with speed and precision, in spite of the

consciousness having little or no knowledge about the involved algorithms, such as in most

sensory-motoric behaviour. However, the unconscious is not always that clever in hitting the

mark, as illustrated by all kinds of superstition, paradigmatic blockings and psychological

defence mechanisms. For good scientific solutions of basic and complex issues connected to

causality, a more conscious and micrologic understanding of causality seems fruitful. The

precise understanding of why and how different time flows established by hadronic biology is

NOT violating scientifically legitimate causality operators, may be one of many such fields. For

example, RETROACTIVE causality falls naturally out as a specific type of causality in my study,

removing the dogma of backward flow of information being impossible.

The implications of precise ontological abstraction and reflection may be more direct and far-reaching

than understood by most scientists. I will give an example by sketching an argument

from my book related to my determination of the ontological status of BORDERS.

For difference to make a difference and constitute information, it must make a difference FOR

something/someone, as stated by Bateson himself. This third entity constitutes the concept of a

SUBJECT in the most abstract sense possible, following from the very concept of information.

For a subject to perceive a difference, it must spot a BORDER in its environment (including

inward perception). However, a border as such can never exist in the environment at the same

ontological level as the environment itself. This has to be the case because there cannot be any

physical domain existing BETWEEN a phenomenon and the different phenomenon on the other

side of the border. The border itself cannot have any physical extension, but is VIRTUAL in

relation to the environment, an inherent category of the subject PROJECTED into the

environment. Due to the necessity of this projection, the subject experiences falsely the border

as outside itself in its immediate experience and elementary reflection. And without this

projection, there IS no border, no difference, and no information. As a metaphor we can imagine

the border projector from the inherent algorithms of the subject, as a universal thought knife,

experienced by the subject only second-hand as border cuts INSIDE the environment. This is a

basic, necessary illusion, involved in ALL information processing done by all kinds of subjects.

Information can only be processed by the subject projecting inherent algorithms to an

ontological level at least ONE LEVEL LOWER than what is the case from the bird’s eye view of

adequate reflection. The borders APPEAR as autonomous inputs constituted from outside, but

ARE not inputs, but algorithms of the subject PROJECTED into the input. On the other hand,

this projection is the only way to CONSTITUTE the input as a REAL input for the subject to

process, because it is the ONLY way borders can be made and processed, and the only way for

information to exist. Hence, it has to be universally true BOTH that the subject projects

differences downwards the ontological hierarchy, i.e. an ILLUSION, AND that this projection is

a necessary operator to constitute information, i.e. the universal building block of what’s REAL,

i.e. NOT an illusion, including the architecture of ontological levels as such. To USE it’s thought

knife the subject HAS to throw it to the lower level to constitute an input possible to process and

hence to produce an output necessary to proceed to a HIGHER ontological level. This is a

universal basic paradox enfolded in the very quality of information, and hence in the general

make-up of the universe. However, this is not an unresolved paradox, but the way the universe

works and walks. With necessity the basic unity of information processing must have this double

nature, both projecting an algorithm to one step below its real existence, and USING this

projection to reach the next higher step in its successive processing. We can imagine this double

nature as the walking thought as having to step one step back in the ontological staircase with

one “thought foot”, the other foot still standing on its original step and regarding the first foot as

not being its own, in order to in the next run discontinuously JUMP to the step above, the first

foot leaping two steps, the second only one. Thereafter, this procedure has to be repeated for

every further walk by thought.

Then let’s go to empirical nature itself with her quantitative laws, to check out this result from

strict philosophical abstraction, in this context of course only possible to present as a short-hand

sketch. In an increasing degree the Fibonacci series has been shown to pop up in natural

systems, and it may also be that deviations from the series can be described from second order

Fibonacci series. Still Mother Nature’s preference for the Fibonacci algorithms, especially

striking in biological growth, is regarded as a great mystery.

The Fibonacci algorithm proceeds from a number B in the series to the next number C, by

moving back from B to the preceding number A and then moving forwards by adding A and B

into the proceeding number C. This is equivalent to stepping one step back with one foot, and

then jumping with both foots to the step above. Hence, the form of the algorithm is EXACTLY

THE SAME as the pattern described above as the abstract, universal and elementary form of

border constitution and information processing. Thales of Miletus stated that if being did not

have a quantity, it would not be. This must mean that the Fibonacci series expresses the

QUANTITATIVE aspect with necessity involved in ALL information processing of nature,

because it is implied in the universal QUALITY of the very category of information. Whether and

how this fact APPEARS on a manifest level for human observation is quite another question.

By Pavlovian reflex most scientists will protest that nature can be that simple. The answer is that

following from strict philosophical reasoning, nature HAS to be that simple in its source code.

How this elementary form unfolds in complex manifestations is an issue for a mountain of

further research. In philosophy there is a line of thinking about the unitary whole holding

ontological primacy, encompassing philosophers as Plotinus, Kant and Hegel, and also of the

unitary whole when passing a critical threshold of complexity having to unfold in systematic

DIFFERENTIATION, as in the monoplural ontology of Bohm, and the branched structure of the

hypernumber in Santilli mathematics.

The universal Turing machine established the concept of an algorithm from the combination of

the simple basic operators: Binary READING of an input string, MOVING to a neighbour field,

binary WRITING on this field, HALTING or not, and moving to the NEXT state representing a

combination of these operators. By the means of this simple concept Turing proved that ANY

binary input-information could be translated to ANY other output-information with the

convenient combinations of algorithms, i.e. data programs. This may indicate that information

in a less restricted sense than required by the Turing machine, as a matter of fact the most

ULTIMATE sense, enfolds even more astonishing insights and powerful applications after

revealing the basic key steps. I argue that the Fibonacci algorithm, in quality as well as in

quantity, is the universal elementary form of ALL information processing, whatever the

complexity of the subject involved.

Then some words about a related subject, the PRIME NUMBERS, the algorithms of the

generative order from its hidden generator a great enigma of mathematics, if not solved by

Chun-Xuan Jiang without my attention. In spite of prime numbers still being used to generate

numbers for cryptography believed to be random, it is obvious from for example the Ulam spiral

that there IS an ORDER in the prime number generation. In spite of being an amateur in the

hallmarks of mathematics, I will pass some preliminary and elementary remarks in the issue,

which perhaps will be of some interest even for the world elite mathematicians in this audience.

For every whole number bigger than 10, except 12 and 15, the number can be written as a

combined multiple of the numbers 5 and 3:

(1) N = m5 + n3; m>0, n>0.

From this we can construct the following matrix:

Fig. 1

There exist three possibilities to make a cut in the matrix in such a way that every number shows

up only once. Just to colour the issue, I have given colour terms to these three bands of

numbers:

1) The Blue Band, corresponding to the five upper rows.

2) The Red Band, corresponding to the three left columns.

3) The Violet Band, corresponding to a diagonal field.

Here I will only discuss the blue band. There can not be any prime numbers in the row for n=5,

and neither in the columns that are multiples of m=3.

To easily get a picture of the underlying prime number generator, we first imagine ALL

remaining odd numbers in the blue band as being prime numbers. This is the case for the first

two “chambers” of the blue band. However, in the third chamber, which can be imagined as

constituted from the first ROTATION of the left, first chamber, the number of 49 shows up as

the first anomaly not being any prime number. The same will be the case for all clean multiples

of 7 located in chambers further to the right on the blue band. 7 is the only lower number

OUTSIDE and BEFORE our matrix, which acts as a “bullet” and “shoots out” odd numbers in

the blue band, removing their prime number status. However, the prime numbers from the two

first chambers will deliver the same ammunition when exposed for enough rotations for

multiples of internal combinations of these prime numbers or combinations with the number of

7, to show up at the corresponding arrival spots in the upcoming chambers after further

rotations. For example, 77 is shot out from the prime number universe in chamber no. 4 after

the first rotation of chamber no. 2, being a multiple of the “bullets” 7 and 11.

I have not been able to find a mathematical formula to grasp this successive out-shooting of

prime numbers from the chamber rotation constituting the blue band. However, this simple

model gives a clear understanding of the fact that there IS an order in the prime number

generation, as well as a good intuitive understanding of WHAT kind of order it is. For example,

it is easy to understand that this generative order includes as a tendential law more and more

prime number candidates to be shot out with increasing amount of rotations. To work out the

mathematics of this may be difficult, but there is no mystery around concerning the underlying,

inner workings of the prime number generator.

This was a NEGATIVE approach to the prime number generator by displaying the pattern in the

successive and increasing REMOVING of prime number candidates from the blue band. Now I

will sketch a POSITIVE approach to the problem by displaying the pattern in the systematic

EMERGENCE of new prime numbers.

Let’s write some of the first Fibonacci numbers in the same split-code of 5- and 3-multiples:

Fig. 2

(2) F(N) = m5 + n3

N F(N) m n m+n m-n

6 8 1 1 2 0

7 13 2 1 3 1

8 21 3 2 5 1

9 34 5 3 8 2

10 55 8 5 13 3

11 89 13 8 21 5

12 144 21 13 34 8

We see that both m- and n-series follow the Fibonacci sequence, and the same for the series

(m+n) and (m-n). We also see that for the same Fibonacci number, m always is a Fibonacci

number one step above the Fibonacci number of n; hence there is a Fibonacci RELATION

between m and n. Since we have argued the Fibonacci algorithm as the elementary form of

information processing, this indicates that the split-code of 5- and 3-multiples is not just a freewheeling

mathematical exercise, but intimately related to this elementary form, probably

expressing some necessary two-sidedness of the same elementary “coin” and a source code for

Fibonacci FRACTALITY.

There is an intimate relation between the Fibonacci series and the generative order of prime

numbers:

1) When factorizing the Fibonacci numbers, for each new step in the Fibonacci series, at least

one NEW prime number, not being a factor of any earlier Fibonacci number, emerges as one of

the factors of the corresponding Fibonacci number. This is always the case, with the sole

exceptions of the Fibonacci numbers no. 6 and no. 12, 8 and 144 respectively. This means that

the Fibonacci sequence, which can be illustrated as a spiral, at every rotation throws out at least

one new prime numbers as its factor. The question is WHY this is the case, and HOW the

relevant prime number is “thrown out” from the actual step in the Fibonacci spiral.

2) When numbering the Fibonacci numbers from when they show up in the series, apart from

number 5 it seems always to be the case that for a step number being a prime number, EITHER

the Fibonacci number from the step before OR from the next step contains a factor that is

IDENTICAL to said prime number. This indicates that the prime number succession has a

DIRECT LINK to an INHERENT pattern in the Fibonacci “staircase”, as two aspects of the same

process, the closeness of the link further indicated by the pattern of stepping one step back and

one step up being characteristic for the UNIVERSAL Fibonacci algorithm of information. Again,

the question is to work out exactly WHY and HOW this is so.

The outstanding Finnish scientist Matti Pitkänen has argued that the very form of the SOUL is

constituted from prime numbers, a comprehension connected to some esoteric claims. At least

the remarks above ought to be sufficient to indicate that the riddles connected to the Fibonacci

algorithm and to the prime number generator are aspects of the SAME scientific problem, and

that the solution of this problem may offer a golden key to a significant expansion of human

understanding, in science and perhaps beyond.

Bibliography

ANIMALU, Alexander Obiefoka Enukora: A nonlocal-nonhamiltonian theory of pairing in high-

Tc superconductors, Hadronic Journal 17, 349 (1994)

ANIMALU, A. O. E., with R. M. Santilli: Nonlocal isotopic representation of the Cooper-pair in

superconductivity, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 29, 175 (1995)

ANIMALU, A. O. E.: A new theory on the structure of the Rutherford-Santilli neutron, Hadronic

Journal, 26, 637 (2003)

ANIMALU, A. O. E.: A Gauge-invariant relativistic theory of the Rutherford-Santilli neutron,

Hadronic Journal 27, 599 (2004)

ARINGAZIN, Ascar Kanapievich: Exact solution of the restricted three-body Santilli-Shillady

model of H2 molecule, Hadronic Journal 23, 1 (2000)

ARINGAZIN, A. K.: On variational solution of the four-body Santilli-Shillady model of H2

molecule, Hadronic Journal 23, 57 (2000)

ARINGAZIN, A. K.: Isoelectronium correlations as a non-linear two-dimensional two-particle

tunnel effect, Hadronic Journal 23, 619 (2000)

ARINGAZIN, A. K.: Toroidal configuration of the orbit of the electron of the hydrogen atom

under strong external magnetic fields, Hadronic Journal 24, 395 (2001) 395-434

ARINGAZIN, A. K., with R. M. Santilli: A study of the energy efficiency of hadronic reactors of

molecular type, Hadronic Journal 27, 273 (2004)

ARINGAZIN, A. K., with R. M. Santilli: A study of polycarbonyl compounds in magnegases,

Hadronic Journal 27, 331 (2004)

BATESON, Gregory: Mind and Nature. A necessary unity, Dutton, New York (1979)

BOHM, David: The Undivided Universe. An ontological interpretation of quantum theory, with

B. J. Hiley, Routledge, London (1993)

BOHM, David: Science, Order, and Creativity, with F. D. Peat, Bantam, Toronto (1987)

BOHM, David: Thought as a System, Routledge, London (1994)

GARIAEV, Peter et al.: The DNA Wave computer, paper at Computing Anticipatory Systems

2000,www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc

GARIAEV, Peter: Genetica,

http://www.self-managing.net/genetica/Engl.htm

HADRONIC JOURNAL 21, Issue no 6: Special Issue Dedicated to Hadronic Chemistry (1998)

HELLERSTEIN, Nathaniel: Diamond: A Paradox Logic, Series on Knots and Everything, vol. 16,

World Scientific, Singapore (1997)

HELLERSTEIN, Nathaniel: Delta: A Paradox Logic, Series on Knots and Everything, vol. 14,

World Scientific, Singapore (1998)

ILLERT, Chris: Foundations of Theoretical Conchology…from Self-Similarity in Non-

Conservative Mechanics, Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1992)

JIANG, Chun-Xuan: Foundations of Santilli’s Isonumber Theory with Applications to New

Cryptograms, Fermat’s Theorem and Goldbach’s Conjecture, International Academic Press,

America-Europe-Asia (2002)

JOHANSEN, Stein E.: Grunnriss av en differensiell epistemology, Ariadne, Bergen, Norway

(English translation in transit: Outline of Differential Epistemology) (2006)

KAIVARAINEN, Alexander: Virtual replica of matter in bivacuum and possible mechanism of

distant mind-matter and mind-mind interaction, Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental

Interactions 1 (1) (2002)

OKOYE, C. M. I., with A. O. E. Animalu and G. C. Asomba: Nonlocal twoband model of Cooper

pairing in high temperature superconductivity as predicted by hadronic mechanics, Hadronic

Journal 20, 585 (1997)

PITKÄNEN, Matti: Topological Geometrodynamics.

http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/index.html

POLANYI, Michael: The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books, New York (1967)

POPE, Robert: Science-Art and Global Human Survival Technology (speech at Yangzhou

University, China),

http://www.science-art.com.au/china_lecture.pdf (2001)

POPPER, Karl: Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Hutchinson, London (1982)

PURCELL, Melanie Claire: What are the relationships between infinity and zero? The

implications of a cyclic universe and the diagonally woven single joined thread Klein Bottle,

Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Philosophy Postgraduate Conference, University of New

South Wales, Sydney (1998)

ROSEN, Steven M.: Science, Paradox, and the Moebius Principle. The

evolution of a “transcultural” approach to wholeness, State University of New York Press, New

York (1994)

ROWLANDS, Peter, with B. Diaz: A universal alphabet and rewrite system,

http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0209/0209026.pdf (2003)

ROWLANDS, Peter: (by British ComputerSociety):

Nilpotence,http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/nilpotence.htm

ROWLANDS, Peter (by British Computer Society):

New Era Study Program,

http://www.bcs.org.uk/siggroup/cyber/newera.htm

ROWLANDS, Peter: Citebase,

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgibin/search?submit=1&author=Rowlands%252C%20Peter

RUHNAU, Eva: The Now, Time, and the Quantum, with M. Bitbol, Editions Frontières, Gif-sur-

Yvette (1994)

RUHNAU, Eva: Time, Temporality, Now, with H. Atmanspacher, Springer, Berlin (1997)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Elements of Hadronic Mechanics Volume I: Mathematical

Foundations Naukova Dumka, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (second edition 1995)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, 1994 Volume II: Theoretical

Foundations Naukova Dumka, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (second edition 1995)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Foundations of Theoretical Conchology, with C.R. Illert Hadronic

Press, Palm Harbor, Florida (1995)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Isotopic, Genotopic and Hyperstructural Methods in Theoretical

Biology, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (1996)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry with Applications to New Clean

Energies and Fuels, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston-Dordrecht-London (2001)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: The novel magnecular species of hydrogen and oxygen with

increased specific weight and energy content, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28, 177

(2002)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Iso-, geno-, hyper-relativities for matter and their isoduals for

antimatter, and their novel applications in physics, chemistry and biology, Foundations of

Physics 33, 1373 (2003)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria, with A. K. Aringazin: Structure and combustion of magnegases,

Hadronic Journal 27, 299 (2004)

SANTILLI, Ruggero Maria: Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Volume III: Applications and

Experimental Verifications Naukova Dumka, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Kiev (In

preparation)

TRELL, Erik: Scheme for a time antenna in three-dimensional Hausdorff space, Speculations in

Science and Technology, 7, 269 (1984)

TRELL, Erik: On rotational symmetry and real geometrical representations of the elementary

particles with special reference to the N and ] Series, Physics Essays, 4, 272 (1991)

TRELL, Erik: Real forms of the elementary particles with a report of the ^ resonances, Physics

Essays, 5, 362 (1993)

TRELL, Erik: The eightfold eightfold way: Application of Lie’s true geometriske

transformationer to elementary particles, Algebras Groups and Geometries, 15, 447 (1998)

TRELL, Erik: Original Diophantine Equations Lodge BC without ABC. Review, Bulletin of

Calcutta Mathematical Society, 12, 29 (2004)

TRELL, Erik: Invariant Aristotelian from the smallest to the largest scales, Hadronic Journal 28,

1 (2005)

UEXKÜLL, Jacob von: Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere, J. Springer, Berlin (1909/1921)

WHEELER, John Archibald: Geometrodynamics, Academic Press, New York (1962)

Comments are not currently available for this post.