I know I say many strange things. I also know that I don't know many ordinary things. I believe that I think, and maybe that doesn't only prove my existence, but it also defines it. Here we go...
I have some problems with physics. I must confess that my knowledge does not go beyond the famous introduction booklet by Stephen Hawking, but for me it is enough to question two issues.
a) The beginning of the universe. Physicists say that there was no singularity (complete homogeneity of mass) at the time of the big bang, because if there was, there would have been no diversity in the universe. That makes sense, but it goes against the idea that there was nothing before the big bang. The Greeks were actually already that far, assuming that first there was chaos and then suddenly the universe originated. Physicists reply that whatever there may have been before the big bang is irrelevant, because it is out of time, as time originates by the expansion of the universe at the speed of light, since the first emission of it. They say photons are particles of light with no mass, and this is why they reach maximum speed - nothing else can. This is all we can or should know. I disagree.
b) The smallest unit. We keep splitting atoms. Every ten years, we take another shell off of a grain of sand. Each time we dig deeper in what creates mass and what surrounds it. We have atoms, neutrons, protons, quarks in all colours and flips, the Brout-Englert-Higgs boson, and what's next? The idea, again by the Greek philosophers, that at some point particles are impossible to split (a-tomos), may be false. It is, of course, certainly not an atom. But is it anything at all? Physicists argue that if you fire a particle through two doors, the wave that carries it goes through both, but the particle itself only goes through one. The mystery is that its road seems predestined by a future result, attracting the particle through one of the seemingly equally likely doors. Now I understand nothing about quantum mechanics and I wonder whether Schrödingers cat is probably dead for the ease of computing or whether it is really 70% dead. It is said quantum calculations are correct because they make the models work, but that is pragmatic irrationalism. It is more reasonable to trust in the waves, which go through both doors. The particle may be a modality. Perhaps waves have different shapes, some circular or orbital and therefor observed as particles, yet still intangible. It would be strange in that case that it hurts to get hit by a rock. Yet we know from experience that waves can shake things up, and if there is nothing but waves, we are waves ourselves. Electricity shocks you, microwaves heat up 'matter', wind and water create waves and turbulence, bass in soundwave go through your body. In fact, everything we perceive and feel are waves. For now I haven't fully explained the two-door problem, but I have redefined the particle into some kind of orbital waves, spinning balls, which we call matter. There used to be some rather crazy medical research on waves, led by the Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier, the man who discovered the AIDS virus and later believed in some form of homeopathy. According to him, such systemic viruses have DNA that resonates, and the resonance is maintained in other substances, like water - which is why homeopaths sell water or alcohol with no traceable amount of the substance that is assumed to activate the immune system. Regardless of homeopathy, if there is something like resonation beyond the human eye and understanding, it would be a biomarker and possibly a tool to influence. There could be more radiation and resonance than we can observe at this stage, which puts limits to our knowledge of chemistry and biology. However, we know that we have not yet reconciled the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics and chemistry, and it would not be astonishing if we would find that the same forces that make moons orbit around planets, planets around stars, and stars around black holes, also makes matter stick together. Note that most planets are gas clouds, and while gas is still matter, it is by definition not a solid in that state and therefore it helps making the connection to the 'wave state'. If physics and chemistry would be the same science, I would not be surprised, but today we deal with gravity on the one hand and with proton exchange and whatnot on the other, and the connection is not clear.
These two elements suffice to connect the dots. What I believe is that the universe does not exist. That is, there is nothing and there has never been anything. In fact, it is not so new: we say there is matter and there is antimatter, which leads to annihilation much like silence is the sum of a positive soundwave and its exact opposite. However, suppose mankind is on the positive side, where things happen, surfing the waves in some random realisation of all possible universes. As there is an infinite number - as in really infinite, not as in 'billions of galaxies' - of configurations, in a number of them, where life is created, it must be possible to observe yourself and other things, because we don't run into impossible contradictions that would have ended our universe already long ago or from the start. In the universe that is observed, there should be a rule of logic. So we can only observe ourselves (as part of the imaginary split-up wave, because we're in one such configuration. In any other configuration we are not present and able to see that no life has been created, but only noise, or something plain and boring. Hence our universe is an imagination, a possible decomposition of silence, of nothing, and there is a parallel universe of antimatter, or as I would see it of opposite waves. This is not a place where we can go to shake hands with our counterpart and evaporate like in the movies. It is not in our observable space and it will never be. It bears more similarity to a mirror image than to a twin. You see an image behind the glass at the same distance from you, and the only way to touch it is to become the glass. The allegory goes on, because if you would look into the mirror and not see your image, you would not exist. Put otherwise, you exist because you imagine your mirror-image, and you believe it because you can touch yourself. This solves the issue of particles and the beginning of the universe, it is perfect to live with and we can proceed with the math on how waves shaped our universe and what the role of the big bang might have been. The bang bang may or may not have been the point of annihilation. Both contracting and expanding universes (on our side of the decomposition) are equally possible within this theory. Essentially the theory is untestable, but it philosophically explains that the broader universe (= everything ever) is neither finite nor infinite, but in fact ... does not exist.
Post Scriptum: apparently my intuition comes a bit late, as Einstein considered waves and particles as equivalent in his first seminar in 1909. Thank God we have Wikipedia.
Edit 2026: by now ChatGPT has the last word. I've discussed this until we agreed: link (last two replies summarize the discussion).
