*Basic Statements Required for a Minimum Contradictions Everything*

Scientific Paper | |
---|---|

Title | Basic Statements Required for a Minimum Contradictions Everything |

Author(s) | Athanassios A Nassikas |

Keywords | minimum contradictions, [[]] |

Published | 2005 |

Journal | Proceedings of the NPA |

Volume | 2 |

Pages | 129-135 |

## Abstract

It is commonly accepted that so many scientists disagree on various physics theories proposed. The reason why someone believes that a perfect theory can be stated is based on his faith that the basic communication system, through which any theory can be stated, is perfect; if this system is contradictory it is meaningless to try for a perfect theory since it would be stated through a contradictory system. The basic communication system consists of logic , i.e. classical logic plus Leibniz sufficient reason principle, and of an axiom that states that there is anterior-posterior; in fact for everything we seek the reason of its power and we put one phrase or one word after another. In previous works, efforts have been made to show that this communication system is inherently contradictory. If this is the case, a least contradictory physics can be stated through a claim for minimum contradictions; this implies that this physics can be stated through the basic communication principles, i.e. through logic and the anterior-posterior axiom, and in extension through space time terms. Thus matter-everything is space-time itself, which is stochastic i.e. not continuum. Note that Einstein had expressed his thoughts on this. On this basis, a minimum contradictions physics can be stated and this is, under certain simplifications, compatible either with the GRT or the QM; forces unification can be achieved, arrow of time, electric clusters stability, cold fusion, Biefeld?Brown effect can be explained. All these are based on two statements proving that the basic communication system is contradictory and on the claim for minimum contradictions. Thus there might be a constructive question to the scientific community of whether these statements proof, which constitutes the main part of this paper, is valid or not.