**Interesting Question: Is a paradigm shift imminent? Maybe..**

**It’s about following fundamental questions:**

**Do we need to completely change our understanding of the universe?**

**Does it work according to a higher logic?**

**Are formulas and mathematics, as we know, not applicable to this universe at all?**

**If we really want to describe our universe consistently, will we have to do without all formal systems, statements and mathematical formulas and numbers in the future – and instead describe everything in some kind of a “TIME”-code ?**

**That’s crazy, you’ll say. And yet it is so! And why this is so, and
why it has to do with the so-called “Tetragrammaton”, i.e. with the name of God
“JHWH” from the Bible, which according to some we should not use or even
pronounce, let’s look at the following:**

We describe our world (including all conceivable models) with axioms, theorems, formulations and numbers. We do this for centuries, even since antiquity. We use mathematics, propositions, even propositions about propositions. Since Kurt Gödel’s decision procedure for COMPLETENESS, PROVABILITY and CONSISTENCY, we know: His “incompleteness theorem” applies to everything said. (But with one single exception, which we will examine in the following). All mentioned became described so well in the book “Gödel, Escher, Bach” by Douglas Hofstaedter, and can be reduced to the following sentences (in a way that is easy for a layperson to understand):

**A FORMAL SYSTEM CANNOT PROVE ITS OWN CONSISTENCY.**

and:

**PROVABILITY IS A WEAKER NOTION THAN TRUTH.**

But what if this world, this system, or this model we want to describe, does not operate with axioms, mathematical formulas and NUMBERS as they are known to us? Completely different than we had imagined before, because we just didn’t understand it? Because it is built on the basis of a higher kind of logic? Then we have got a problem!

The fact that such a system is technically possible was first described in 1999 by a completely unknown Austrian technician. A patent(!) was even applied for in the USA. It was actually granted under number US6172941, and can be googled. More importantly, the applicant came to the conclusion (and proved it) that the entire universe, including all biological structures – even including the brain – work according to that “technology” described therein.

A system he describes produces and processes only times. It acquires and records the elapsed times or time sections. The time data is continuously measured and compared, and the system is constantly trying to emulate it in order to adapt to it. The times to be measured are derived from sensors and/or receptors. The system can organize and optimize itself and there is no redundant data (no calculation steps are required).

**In such a system, Gödel’s incompleteness theory does not apply. It is
simply not applicable.**

Such a system or model, to which Goedel does NOT apply, would continually say of itself: “I am true, provable, complete and consistent!” I WILL PROVE THIS !”

Does such a proposition (btw. assertion) actually exist? Yes, indeed! IT ACTUALLY EXISTS!

And that brings us to the heart of this article. Namely the meaning of the
so-called “Tetragrammaton” YHWH (JHWH). To our great surprise, **EXACTLY
THIS is the key(!)** that gives us insight into the principle of
creation:

The Bible’s Divine Name “YHWH” or “JHWH” (also called the Tetragrammaton) comes from a Hebrew verb meaning “to become” and is therefore causative. It is emphasizing the “unfinished” aspect. This verb clearly has a FUTURISTIC connotation. It is a self-referential assertion. According to reputable scholars, this assertion means in ancient Hebrew something like “I will be proved” or “I cause to become”. One don’t know exactly. But that doesn’t matter, as we shall see. Because the basic property of this assertion cannot be doubted by anyone. It cannot be reinterpreted as a tautology. Neither from any religious community, nor from so-called Bible experts, nor from an atheist. And they cannot change the meaning. It is impossible. It remains for all time. Incidentally, vowels were not yet known at that time, only the consonants were written. Therefore, the correct pronunciation (Yahweh or Jehovah) is not exactly known. But that doesn’t matter either.

**
In the Bible, the absolute sanctification of this name was demanded. We will
soon see why this is so: it stands for nothing less than the teleological
principle of order and creation in the universe!**

If we try to examine sentences like these and similars regarding completeness, consistency and provability – according to meta-mathematical propositional logic (see „Goedel, Escher, Bach“ of Douglas Hofstaedter, 1979) – then we discover the following:

1) There are no decision-making procedures for sentence of a type “I am being”, or “I am what I am” etc. as interpreted by some epologists of some large Christian churches. These are pure tautologies!

2) There exists propositional and meta-mathematical decision-making procedures for sentences such as “All Cretans are liars”, or “I am provable” or “I am a liear”. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem applies here: They are undecidable. The decision-making procedure leads to infinite regress.

3) Also there are decision-making procedures for those of the type “JHWH”
(YHWH), meaning “I shall be proved” or “I cause to become” etc. Also in the
personal pronoun, for example in the form “He causes to become”. **But it
is an important difference to 1) and 2): Surprisingly,** **from the
point of view of the meta-mathematical propositional logic, a formulation like
“JHWH” is indeed COMPLETE, CONSISTANT and PROVABLE, since it claims so to say:
>I generate my own model in which I am provable< ! So, it is a singularity! The
American logician Leon Henkin discovered already in 1947 that such logic exists.
In this way it places itself outside of (or above) Goedels Incompleteness
theorem.**

**
In his book “Goedel, Escher, Bach” Douglas Hofstaedter tried to find some
sentences, theorems and formulas that are generated in such a model. This is
possible but difficult if one is restricting to well-known formal systems and
models, as known in 1979. We must go beyond! We need to look at a time-domain-
model! Described solely in terms of TIME btw. timecode! Then Henkin becomes
significant! Is there such a thing? Yes! This was described in said unknown
patent published under US6172941 in 2001! Only TIME is measured or generated
here. If the model were based on axioms, formulas and theorems as we have
imagined so far, it would fall under Gödel’s incompleteness theorem! Imagine: It
doesn’t need any mathematical formulas and numbers! No physical values either!
For such a model, consisting of “time code”, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem does
not apply! There are no formulas or formulations or assertions that would be
“undecidable”!**

Let’s look at the physical and philosophical consequence of this:

**“JHWH” (or: YHWH) – as the origin of all beings and principles – is
itself NOT bound to the existence of “time”. He/she/it exists as a
mathematical/logical condition – just like a mathematical law! And as a CREATION
PRINCIPLE! So also “outside” a so-called “Big Bang”. He/she/it is representing
the “ground state of the universe” at a quantum level!**

This also answers the well-known philosophical question: “Why is there anything at all and not rather nothing?” Because the answer is: JHWH (YHWH) also exists in the “nothing”! Since this condition does not stand alone, but brings something into existence through its mere existence, namely “TIME”, there is also no “nothing”! Has there never been a status where "nothing" was; no point in time "zero"? That's something to think about...

**Note:”YHWH” – viewed as a being – does not require a physical
(“classical”) world of its own. But: He “lets it become” by bringing TIME into
existance in quantum form. And in order to “produce” this TIME, elements and
elementary particles are necessary, sensorium and measuring property are also
necessary to measure them – better said (because sensors/receptors are
involved), “to feel TIME subjectively”! If this ability of matter expires (e.g.
in a “black hole”), then there is neither TIME nor space nor matter. Therefore,
the existence of the universe is a consequence of the existence of the creative
principle “JHWH (YHWH)”! Without that there would be nothing!**

**The atoms and molecules together with the elementary particles
represent tiny time-measuring, comparing and self-organizing structures in which
auto-adaptation and auto-optimization prevail! This therefore,
as there is an inherent endeavour to emulate and optimize previously acquired
times and timing patterns!**

This trend towards self-optimization exists in all elementary material structures in the universe! For the layman, this can best be compared to the efforts of a juggler or track and field athlete to find their optimum again and again through intensive continuous training! Matter is constantly striving for optimization to counteract entropy!

It would now be necessary to briefly address the question of HOW the forces in the universe came about, which are called “fundamental interactions” in physics. Weak to immensely strong forces: They all stem from the striving for self-optimization (or auto-optimization) mentioned above at elementary level. How strong they work depends on how much effort is required to emulate measured times and time sequences!

**
These are laws based on a mathematical/logical level! No physical principles!
All physical laws known to us are EPIPHENOMENA, which are based on the logical
PRINCIPLE described!**

**
IT IS TIMING THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE! EVERYTHING IS TIMING!!**

(Various experts, including physicists, will read along and laugh at these lines. Let me tell them: Have fun while you still have something to laugh about. Laughs).

Finally, we want to look at how these knowledges can be derived and even proven (even Popper’s falsification is permissible!). Surprisingly, they emerge from the following scientific/technological patent (filed 1999) by a single inventor and engineer, which described the basic function of an ideal self-organizing (level 5) autonomous robot. Please read this paper!

see:**Excerpt of Patent Description:**

**“Method for the Generation of Self-Organizing Processes for
Autonomous Mechanisms and Organisms”**

**US 6172941 (filing
date Dec. 16, 1999)****
EP 01145406 A1 (filing date Dec. 03,1999)**

**Author: Erich Bieramperl,
4040 Linz, Austria**

1) The “primary act” of every autonomous organism (including autonomous self-organizing robots) is to “explore” their surroundings in order to ascertain whether temporal-spatial variation exists between its own physical state and that of its surroundings. In order to do this, a multiplicity of sensors or receptors 135a, b…,n are necessary.

2) Only when deviation exists, are the current STQ elapse times Tw(1,2…n) or Td(1,2…n) 137a,b,…,n derived. The time counting frequency of their measurement depends currently acquired STQ(v)- quanta Tv(1,2,3….n) 136a,b,c,…..n, which represent parameters for the temporal-spatial variations vm(1,2 …n) between sensors 135a,b,….n and external signal sources. These deviations are identical to the “relative speeds” vm(1,2,…n).

Note: vm(1,2,…,n) are always acquired by means of an invariant time counting frequency f, respectively, at an absolute time base.

3) The current STQ elapse times Tw(1,2..n) or Td(1,2..n) flow into so-called “information pots” 138 (or time data memories) and form STQ time data patterns Tw'(1,2….n) or Td'(1,2…n),”information pots” which serve as reference patterns. If the organism finds sub-sequences of these Tw’ or Td’ patterns which in some combination are covariant with a currently recorded Tw or Td -pattern, then the organism interprets these combinations of sub-sequences as an “isomorphous pattern” significant for defining the “actually perceived event-pattern” (i.e. what actually is). In this way, the present event (represented by temporal or spatial deviations between sensors and external signal sources) is “recognized”.

4) An organism is equipped with “actuators” that influence a self-referential change that is concurrently being recognized – in an organism’s temporal-spatial condition (e.g. its own motion) in such a manner, that the change is highly covariant with a prior recorded pattern of change of a temporal-spatial condition (it emulates the prior pattern). Because the shortest and most efficient time patterns have a tendency to be of high priority while new Tw or Td sequences are being recorded in the memory, organisms continuously try to optimize changes in temporal-spatial conditions. Both processes result exclusively from comparison of quantized STQ elapse times and from recognition of isomorphous time data patterns (see also Fig.

5) An essential consequence of these considerations is that a teleological
tendency inheres in generates the ability for self-organisation. As seen from
Fig. 10, both “time” and “velocity” unequivocally depend on the existence of
sensors for their perception. Actually, all time data and information flow from
the “present” (the origin of the recording) into the “past” (the verifiable
existence). Indeed, time and velocity are not “sensed” as a continuum, but in
the form of quanta. In order to feel both physical quantities as a continuum, an
enormous capability for auto- adaptation and auto-emulation is required of an
organism. It can be said that the above fundamental principles are valid not
only for robotics and biological units,

but also for molecular atomic and
subatomic structures. Also, these have to be “time sensing organisms” otherwise
they can have no basis for existence. Consequently: time, space – every physical
quantity – only sensorial together with distinct sensitivity zones; and these
form the basis for local subjective time sensing together with a general
universal tendency for auto-adaptation, auto-optimisation, and auto-emulation.
This is a fundamental teleological principle.

**FINAL SUMMARY**

1) The herein described invented method is universally applicable and describes the ultimate achievable mechanisms and organisms.

2) Discrete time quantization methods, according to which the received signal is scanned and digitized at predetermined points in time, prove themselves to be inadequate in the generation of highly efficient autonomous self-organisation processes.

3) In redundancy-free autonomous self-organizing systems, there are no “points in time” and there is no determinism. In these systems, STQ elapse times are quantized which are derived from the temporal/spatial changes in physical conditions between sensors and external sources.

4) Each such system has its own time counting pulses and produces its own time. The time counting frequency for the quantization of elapse times is continuously adapted in an auto-adaptive manner according to the relative velocity vm with which changes in condition occur. The time recording has in each case a quantum nature; i.e. it has the properties of a “discrete counting”, no matter whether the recording is analogue or digital. Moreover, the time recording is subjective and passive; i.e. the time quanta are “sensed” and not “objectively measured” as in the conventional physical understanding.

5) In order to be able to quantize elapse times in autonomous self-organising systems, the individual receptors or sensors must have distinctive grades of perception zones (or threshold values).

6) In order to explain precisely the difference between “synchronism” (in the conventional understanding) and “auto-adaptation”, we define the following:

a) parallel synchronism (i.e. “synchronism”): this occurs when temporal
changes of physical conditions of different systems are covariant at the same
time.

b) autonomous adaptation (i.e. “auto-adaptation”): this occurs when
temporal changes of the physical state of a particular system are covariant at
different times.

7) In all redundancy-free autonomous systems the capability for self-organisation increases with the quantity of elapse time parameters available for autonomous adaptation and for optimisation process, as well as with the number and variety of sensors or receptors.

8) With synchronism (definition 6a above), the number of quantized elapse time parameters vanishes; in 3b this number is a maximum (and point 7 above is valid!). Therefore one can conclude that there is an inherent tendency in all autonomous systems of the type discussed herein, towards continuous auto-adaptation, auto-optimization and auto-emulation. This is similar to the biological term “vitality”.

9) In autonomous self-organizing systems, there is no “timing” (i.e. temporal motion coordination) without the comparison of currently acquired elapse time patterns with previously recorded elapse time patterns. Briefly stated, there is no “timing” without accompanying “time keeping”.

10) Auto-adaptation theorem of Erich Bieramperl :

Every current non-chaotic change (A) in condition of an autonomous system (X) with the variable dynamic trajectory vm(1,2,3….n) underlies a currently acquired sequence of elapse times TW(1,2,3 …n) as well as a covariant sequence of elapse times TW'(1,2,3 …n) from a temporal displaced condition change (A’) or from a combination of distinct temporal displaced condition changes (A1 ‘) (A2 ‘)…( An’), whereupon (A) with (A’) or (A) with (A1′) (A2′) ….(An’) are approximately isomorphous.

Hence: TW = vm adaptively acquired current STQ(i) or STQ(d) elapse times Tw
or Td

TW’ = vm adaptively acquired covariant STQ(i) or STQ(d) elapse times
Tw’ or Td’

**Other consequences in the scientific domain are the following:**

11) Each preselection of a certain time for an intended action, a so-called “act of free will” by an autonomous organism, results from continued autonomous adaptation of the described type, and is therefore not realizable in a deterministic manner.

12) From the ability of an autonomous system to find previously acquired elapse time patterns matching with currently acquired elapse time patterns, and from trying to emulate these, not only is auto-adaptation, auto-optimization, self-organisation and recognition of physical surroundings and self-motion made possible, but ultimately also motion co-ordination (timing), intelligent behaviour and conscious action are produced.

13) Auto-adaptive, auto-optimizing and self-organizing processes of the described type have universal validity not only in autonomous mechanistic systems, robots, automatic machines biological organisms, but also in molecular and atomic structures. All autonomous selforganizing systems contain information in form of time data.

**The following results from the property that in such systems, “time”
is “subjectively sensed” and not “objectively measured “:**

14) In the universe, all time dependent physical values are “subjectively sensed”. If there is no adequate sensorium for time and velocity, then “time” cannot exist objectively. Example: in “black holes”, no “time” exists because there is no sensorium for it. In this case, the atomic and subatomic sensorium is quasi “dead”. Each change of physical condition, which does not underly an auto-adaptive process, continues increasingly chaotically; whereupon it follows that the described tendency for auto-adaptation in the universe counteracts the tendency towards entropy and chaos.

15) If vm is too high and STQ(v) is too short to be measured (or “sensed”), then neither an auto-adaptation nor any self-organization process results (because no elapse times are derivable). Therefore, for example, the velocity c of propagation of light is an “ultimate value”, because it implies the shortest STQ(v) quantum that can be “perceived” by atomic structures.

16) If there is absolute physical invariance between the sensorium of autonomous systems and their surroundings, then also no STQ quanta are derivable. This is the reason why, for example, absolute zero ( 273,15°C) is an ultimate physical quantity. In this case, the atomic and subatomic sensorium is not capable of recognizing a lower temperature because of lack of STQ quanta, and no auto-adaptation process can take place.

17) As mentioned before, atomic and subatomic structures also display sensory and time quantization properties. Their description from the view of quantum theory is inadequate. If there is no measurement or observation of an event, then exists also neither “time” nor velocity” (S.13). Quantum phenomena appearing in the known two slit experiment or in the SCULLY experiment (quantum indeterminism) are explicable in this way.

18) The electromagnetic force, gravitation, the strong and weak interaction (nuclear force), so-called “autocatalysis” (KAUFFMAN), “synergetic effects” (HAKEN), or other phenomena are produced by the existence of time quantization sensorium, auto-adaptation and auto-emulation. These features can be regarded as the inherent teleological principle of the universe (S. 8).

19) The ability to perceive time and velocity as a continuum, and not as an endless series of sensed elapse times, is likewise produced from continued auto-adaptation and self-organization processes. The higher the “intelligence” of an autonomous system as a result of such processes, the more distinctive its subjective time perception and its ability to anticipate.

**Consequences for metamathematics and propositional calculus are:**

1) Because there are no deterministic point of times, the status of a system can neither be ascertained to be at a certain “point in time”, nor “points in time” can be determined for a future status. There is nowhere any type of determinism. Since the classical physics as well as the quantum theory are based on the postulate that a system is in a certain status at a certain “point in time” (in the first case as points of phase space, and in the other case as probability distributions in phase space), neither theory can be completely consistent (see also THOMAS BREUER / 1997) [1].

2) Regarding WIGNER (1961)[2], an absolutely universally valid theory would have to be capable of describing the origin of human consciousness. The auto-adaptation theory described herein could be capable of this; the quantum theory cannot. (Wigner postulated that complex quantum mechanics delivers a usable description of the physical reality only when there is no “subjective sensing”. The author holds the view that subjective sensing also exists in atomic and subatomic structures).

3) Sequences of elapse times like TW and TW’ are definable as strings of an
axiomatic formal system; albeit this system is a “time domain system” and not an
arithmetic systems in the usual sense of the classic number theory. Indeed, said
formal system shows at least one axiom and derives from it continuous strings of
numbers through the application of a certain algorithm. Regarding TURING, an
axiomatic number theoretical system can be produced also by a mechanical
procedure, which produces “formulas and algorithms”.For this reason, the known
logic theorems of GOEDEL, TARSKI or HENKIN are absolutely applicable on such a
model. GOEDEL`s incompleteness theorem [3] shows that each extensive number
theoretical model includes consistent formulations which cannot be proven with
the rules of the model, and which therefore are undecidable. This is valid also
to metatheoretical models and to meta-metatheoretical models etc. For example, a
self-referential metatheoretical sentence like the type of the Goedel
formulationis neither provable nor disprovable. A decision procedure for this
proposition leads to aninfinite regress. TARSKI showed that a decision procedure
for number theoretical “truth”[4] is also impossible, and leads to an infinite
regress. Thus, a self-referential sentence of the type is admittedly “true”, but
not “provable”. It follows, that “provability” is a weaker notion than “truth”.
HENKIN showed that there are sentences, that assert their own provability and
“producibility” in a specific number theoretical model and which are invariable
“true”[5]. A self-referential sentence based on Henkins theorem would be: <It
exists a number theoretical model in which I am provable>. Strings of quantized
elapse times like TW and TW’ approach the domain of validity of HENKIN`s
theorem. Applying Henkins logic, these strings assert: . TW and TW’s are
therefore strings or sentences that are produced in a specific formal model,
which induces its own decision procedure on truth, consistence, completeness and
provability through continued self-generation (see also description to Fig.10).

In contrast to self-referential strings or sentences of the Gödel or Henkin
type, strings of elapse times are never asserted to be “true”, “consistent”,
“complete” or “provable” to a certain “point in time”, because within the
“number theoretical model” in which they are produced, no “points of time”
exist. This model also prohibits superior semantics or metatheories or
meta-metatheories. It is plainly obvious that each formal system, each
metatheory, each meta-metatheory and each semantics, in which axioms, strings or
sentences of any type are formulated, is the result of continued autonomous
adaptation (which is based on the quantization of elapse times) and therefore a
derivation of the model described in this work.

4) The cognition, that a specific formal system exists asserting absolute universal validity, from which everything has been produced and to whom all other systems have to be subordinated, is not new. Already in early antiquity, many years before PLATO and ARISTOTLE, the Hebrew Scriptures (2. Moses 3: 14) let this say from itself: “JHWH” (spoken: Jahwe or Jehovah), that is about: “I shall be proved”[6]. This sentence asserts its own decision procedure on provability, truth, completeness and consistence; through a specific formal system, that it “induces to be”.

5) There is no “cognition” without “recognition”.

**References:**

[1] Thomas BREUER (1997) “Quantenmechanik: Ein Fall für Goedel” ISBN
3-8274-0191-7

[2] Eugene WIGNER (1961) “Remarks on the Mind-Body-Question”,

see also: Roger Penrose: “The Emperors New Mind”/ ISBN 0-19-286198-0 (page 381)

[3] Kurt Goedel “On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia
Mathematica and Related Systems I. (1931), see also: Douglas HOFSTADTER “Goedel,
Escher, Bach” (pg. 17) ISBN 0-394-74502-7` `

[4] Douglas HOFSTADTER “Goedel, Escher, Bach” (page 579, 580: “Tarskis
Theorem”)

[5] Douglas HOFSTADTER “Goedel, Escher, Bach” (page 541: “Henkin`s
Sentences”)

[6] See WIKIPEDIA “JHWH” and “YHWH”