Abstract The NSTP theory mainly advocates that
material universe is exclusively a group of thinking process/es existing in form of non-spatial feelings. In computer terminology it regards (material) universe as a non-spatial computer (whose hardware is made up of non-spatial feelings and software is made up of superhuman thoughts) and space as a virtual reality (i.e. a projection of non-spatial mind, a form of illusion/mere appearance). It entails 7 theorems which are to some extent proved or reasonably demonstrated / supported. It is found to be a master-key that can resolve mysteries surrounding Zeno’s paradoxes, quantum mechanics, biology, etc through its non - spatial universal mechanical framework. Main Body The term NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process) in NSTP theory means thinking process existing in form of non-spatial feelings. The theory is comprised of 7 theorems that are stated and demonstrated below.
Theorem 1 : Phenomenal mind (i.e. feelings or qualia) is non-spatial. In other words, no kind of feeling, e.g. feeling of bodily pain, can be represented by any spatial structure. 1. The feeling of bodily pain, for example, is conceptual distinct from its bodily counterpart (i.e. identification of some electrochemical signal in brain) for following two reasons. a. This conceptual distinction is obvious or self - evident or axiomatic to me. [ It is important to note that I advocate ‘the principle of universal doubt’ : anything may be possible, for that which is believed to be absolutely (or 100 %) certainly true at present could be false as intellectual capacities of believer may be limited. Thus all axioms are at most 99.99...% certain to me. ] b. The knowledge of identification of electrochemical signal is not at all sufficient for knowledge of feeling of bodily pain, for example. 2. Theorem 1 has been axiomatic to me. The abstract nature of a spatial structure and mechanism, involving transfer of information (in general, spatial actions), and abstract nature of a feeling (which can only be experienced) are not equivalent.
Theorem 2 : All kinds of experiences, even abstract thoughts I know I am having, are ultimately feelings (or qualias). 1. When I know I am thinking, for example, this knowledge ultimately comes through some kind of feeling. 2. Theorem 2 is axiomatic to me.
Theorem 3 : I am a (temporal) stream of (non-spatial) mental events (i.e. feelings). I am an NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process). 1. I am a group of feelings. I am not something other than feelings. a. The feeling of pain, for example, is itself sufficient for its own existence. There is no need of some other substance (which is not a feeling itself) for feeling of pain, for example, to exist. b. When I know that I am feeling pain this knowledge itself, according to theorem 2, is ultimately represented as some feeling. 2. The feeling of bodily pain, for example, represents idea, concept, or thought of feeling of bodily pain (itself). Thus every feeling represents some thought. So I am an NSTP.
Theorem 4 : Feelings are most certainly real and thus physical or material. 1. The proposition ‘feelings are real’ is axiomatic to me. I cannot deny I am feeling something at moment. This feeling is most real thing while whole space, with all spatial entities including my body, could be a form of illusion. (I feel therefore I am.) 2. If something is real then it is physical or material.
Theorem 5 : Space ( as a room or void out there : whether three or higher dimensional, bounded or unbounded ) is a mere form/kind of illusion. ( i.e., exclusively / only a virtual reality; a projection of non-spatial mind; a kind of feeling.) 1. The problem of spatial - non-spatial interaction and ontological complexity- If space and non-spatial mind are both realities (i.e. ontologically existent) then there are following two possibilities : a. Spatial and non-spatial entities interact b. Spatial and non-spatial entities do not interact but rather follow a parallelism In first case there is a problem ‘how spatial and non-spatial physically interact’ and in both cases model of universe becomes unnecessarily (ontologically) complex as there are two real (ontologically existent) entities involved rather than just one. 2. The Zeno’s paradoxes - a. The racecourse or dichotomy paradox : ‘There is no motion because that which is moved must arrive at middle of its course before it arrives at end. In order to traverse a line segment it’s necessary to reach halfway point, but this requires first reaching quarter-way point, which first requires reaching eighth-way point, and so on without end. Hence motion can never begin. This problem isn’t alleviated by well-known infinite sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... = 1 because Zeno is effectively insisting that sum be tackled in reverse direction. What is first term in such a series ?’ (See David Darling : The universal book of mathematics, 2004) b. Achilles and tortoise : ‘This is perhaps most famous of Zeno’s paradoxes. The slower when running will never be overtaken by quicker; for that which is persuing must first reach point from which that which is fleeing started, so that slower must necessarily always be some distance ahead. Thus, Achilles, however fast he runs, will never catch plodding tortoise who started first. And yet, of course, in real world, faster things do overtake slower ones.’ (See Simon Blackburn : Dictionary of Philosophy, 1996) The Zeno’s paradoxes are out of misbelief that space exists in ontological sense, i.e. as a reality, out there. In fact, space is a virtual reality, a form/kind of illusion (existing in form of non-spatial mind/s). Consequently (spatial) motion is also a form of illusion (to non-spatial observer/s). Thus reality (which is non-spatial) is not constrained by spatial infinities as whatever that is seen (i.e. experienced or felt) as happening in space is a mere illusion, with no resemblance to (non-spatial) reality. And illusion could be of any logically possible kind. In other words, that which creates (or is responsible for) spatial illusion do not have to bother whether mover has to first reach half of distance and so on, or faster has to first reach point where slower started or has infinitely many gaps to traverse, etc. The only thing is that it has to produce some dynamic spatial pattern (actually represented in form of some non-spatial feelings or states of consciousness), as if a mover moving or faster overtaking slower. That’s it. [ In analogy with desktop computers a software programmer or graphic designer do not at all have to worry with Zeno’s arguments or paradoxes. All s/he has to do is to design and write a program in order to create an appropriate dynamic or changing pattern on computer monitor screen. ] ( The last two of four Zeno’s paradoxes have different solutions which are stated in my article ‘The NSTP theoretical resolution of Zeno’s paradoxes’. ) 3. The problem of non-locality in quantum mechanics - In 1997 experiments were conducted in which light particles (i.e. photons) originated under certain conditions and travelled in opposite directions to detectors located about seven miles apart. The amazing results indicated that photons interacted or communicated with one another instantly or in no time. (See Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos, 1999. The non-local universe. 1st ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press) This problem is also out of misbelief that space exists in ontological sense, i.e. as a reality, out there. (Because if we believe that space does exist in that sense then any spatial communication would need some appropriate spatial structure and time, whereas in case of quantum non-locality communication between photons is instantaneous and with apparently no spatial structure/mechanism in between.) However, space being a virtual reality (to non-spatial observer/s) quantum non-locality is no longer mysterious or problematic as photons and their behaviour is a mere form of illusion, a virtual reality. [ Again in analogy with (spatial) desktop computers such a photonic behaviour on computer monitor screen has no slightest mystery surrounding it, as it is just a dynamic or changing pattern of pixels modulated by some hidden software process/es. ]
