Initial Navigation
This page is still operating at the top level of the Mysearch website, which is subdivided into multiple website sections. Please select one of the websites shown along the top-bar above to enter a specific section, where extended navigation options allow topics within each website to be selected.
Page Navigation
On entering a website, there will be various forms of navigation in the insets on the left of every page. However, this site requires ‘Javascripts’ to be enabled within your browser in order to access these navigation features.  It is highlighted that these navigation features have only been tested against the later versions of the most popular browsers on systems with larger screens. As such, the sites are not really compatible for smartphones.


It is stated upfront that much of this website has been guided by an essay by William Clifford, written in 1877, entitled 'The Ethics of Belief', in which he draws the conclusion that: `it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence`. The issue of belief and what to believe can be an emotive topic for many, possibly for the simple reason that we do not like to be told what we can and cannot believed. In this respect, it might be argued that what we choose to believe is an extension of a basic human right associated with the ‘freedom of speech’. However, our beliefs also have to be held up to examination based on some ethical principles, as collectively, the beliefs of a society may come to define the future direction of humanity as a whole. In this context, belief is not just confined to religion, but rather to all beliefs that guide our actions, both as individuals and collectively. Hence, the reader is urged to read Clifford's essay before proceeding. 

Each section of the Mysearch website was developed using word processing software from which the 'publications' listed in the tables below  are produced as PDF files. The process from document to website is outlined in the discussion entitled 'The Mysearch Website' that is also part of the learning process that motivates this website. However, while there are advantages of making each sub-section of the original document into an individual webpage, publishing the PDF file allows those interested to review the work in another format. While links to the PDF files are included within the relevant webpages throughout the site, it was felt there may be some advantage in collating these references in a single webpage at the top level of the website.

Again, just for clarity, this website has no political or religious agenda and no affiliations with any other organization, such that it simply reflects a personal learning process. Therefore, it is recognized that some information may be in error and require correction and, in this context, will always remain, work in progress.

Publication Synopsis Webpages
A worldview is the fundamental understanding or belief we have about the world in which we live. This worldview may be individualistic or collective in scope and can be founded on education or indoctrination.

The first part of the discussion of evolution focuses on biological, human and extraterrestrial life. As a generalisation, evolution is often considered in terms of classical Darwinism, although ultimately it may only be part of the wider search for an answer to the fundamental question: What is life?

The second part of the discussion of evolution focuses on artificial life and intelligence, which it is argued should not be considered in technical isolation, but rather seen as the next potential step in the evolution of intelligent life on Earth. As such, the discussion does cover a wide sweep of topics that are believed to be relevant to the potential development of a concept being called 'Hybrid AI' and its eventual impact on the future of humanity.


Paradigm Shifts.pdf
This work was first published in 2003 as a book, 'The Paradigm Shifts Towards AI', although over time, the work has been superseded by the evolution discussions above. However, in writing the book, it was realised that how people react to the idea of Hybrid AI depends on their worldview, which may encompass religious, philosophical and scientific understandings, as well as mis-understandings, such that it triggered the development of many other sections of the Mysearch website from a learning perspective.


This publication is the introductory overview to the 'science' section of the Mysearch website, which is sub-divided in terms of foundation, accepted and speculative science. However, this sub-structure also aligns to the structure of an essay by William Clifford called ’The Ethics of Belief’ based on 'A Duty of Inquiry', 'The Weight of Authority' and 'The Limits of Inference'.

Foundation Accepted

Within the overall discussion of science, this publication was only intended to provide a brief introduction to basic mathematics, classical physics, particle model, wave mechanics and electromagnetism. It also reflected my own learning curve rather than any pretentious attempt to teach others.

Unlike the foundation section, accepted science encompassing relativity, quantum theory and cosmology were all topics that were too wide in scope to be reviewed as one publication. Therefore, each topic is published separately, where relativity covers both special and general relativity.

The topic of quantum theory can possibly be divided into two distinct  eras, i.e. pre-war and post-war. At one level, quantum physics appears to be a successful mathematical theory for predicting the outcome of certain experiments. It also appears to have been successful in its ability to underwrite the experimental evidence supporting the particle model of physics in terms of both quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. However, despite this success, there is clearly a level of fundamental concern regarding its ability to provide any cogent description of quantum reality, as reflected in the scope of so many conflicting interpretations.



This addendum has been added to  the original review of quantum physics, where the final commentary entitled ‘An Unqualified Commentary’ veered off into some of the wider issues surrounding modern science. As such, it was felt that some form of summary of the issues that ordinary people, i.e. me, find so hard to accept about quantum physics might be useful.

The scope of cosmology discussed in this publication is slightly wider than that presented on the Mysearch website. Within the structure of the website, cosmology was first discussed in terms of ‘Accepted Science’ and, as such, the discussion was basically constrained to the standard model of cosmology, as defined by the ‘Concordance Model’, which encompasses both an ‘Inflationary Model’ and ‘Energy-Density Model’. However, in the process of the review of accepted science, it became apparent that many other speculative ideas existed, which either challenged or contradicted these accepted models. As many of these ideas are highly speculative, they were subsequently reviewed under the heading of ‘Speculative Science’. This said, many of the ideas contained within the remit of accepted science might also be described as highly speculative; especially in the area of cosmology. Therefore, it was decided that this PDF publication should include the final section of discussions under the heading of ‘Cosmic Speculation’.




Note: The table above covers the publications associated with website-1 covering worldviews, evolution and science. The next section covers publications associated with website-2 under the sectional headings of perspective, developments and technology.

Publication Synopsis Webpages
The definition of ‘finance’ basically relates to the management of money. As such, its scope can apply to nation-states, corporations and even individuals, although this set of discussions is essentially a basic primer covering personal finances. Strangely, while being able to manage personal finances is clearly important, few are ever taught even the basics in school and therefore possibly enter the adult-world understanding little about the necessity to manage their finances in either the short or long term.

An ‘ideology’ often aspires to change the world, whereas a ‘philosophy’ might simply aspire to understand the world as it is. In this respect, much of economics is grounded in an ideological belief, which in turn can be anchored in the worldview of individuals and collective groups. As such, economics has been subject to evolutionary development over the span of human history. However, whether the current models of economics are robust enough to meet 'the growing storm' when subject to some finite 'limits to growth' is questioned.


While the previous publication may possibly provide some insights of the development of a globalised economy, the accuracy of any predictive model has to be questioned, such that it is recognised that any prediction can only rest on probability not certainty. However, by the process of trying to come to some basic understanding of economic theory, there appears to be much criticism of present-day economic models and their ability to predict any of the ‘boom and bust’ cycles, even from the perspective of a few months, let alone years. Therefore, this second discussion of economics will be more focused on the criticism of today’s accepted economic theory and why it might actually be contributing to another global crises, which may have very negative repercussions on the majority of the world’s population.

In many respects, politics simply reflects the complexity of the human condition and, as such, few things are obvious. For while the concept of ‘political correctness’ may be critical of governments that still operate on autocratic and authoritarian principles, such governments can sometimes be effective. Likewise, a democracy based on an ill-informed majority and subject to manipulation by a free-press, possibly with its own agenda, may turn out to be ineffective. For example, one may consider the evolution of the political system in China as possibly understandable in light of its turbulent 20th century history; while in the same timeframe, politics in the US has seen many democrat/republican presidents, heading up an executive, which is then repeatedly undermined by an opposing republican/democrat legislative body.

This addendum was conceived as an update of an earlier discussion of political evolution, which on reflection was more of a statement of perceived problems rather than as an attempt to consider an evolutionary solution. Likewise, while a subsequent discussion entitled ‘Brave New Worlds’ attempted to widen the scope of the problems to include technology and its potential impact on social, economic and political institutions, its overall summation was not necessarily optimistic for the somewhat abstracted concept of a ‘wider majority’.

Frontier Populism Perspective Freedom Economics Democracy Summary
The idea of a human perspective is  being used to suggest a mode of objective thinking, based wherever possible on empirical evidence, rather than the acceptance of some super-natural deity based on either unsupported scriptures, superstition or even simple falsehood. If you reject the idea of miracles, unless supported by extraordinary empirical evidence, as yet absent, then almost all religious belief has to be questioned, at least, in terms of its many miraculous events. However, while this perspective might also question the ‘historical truth’ of almost all religious belief, it does not necessarily reject or attack the reasons as to why so many people believe in so many apparently different and contradictory religions. This said, from an agnostic position, all religious beliefs are open to critical questioning, which might then be rejected on the grounds of both scientific and historic evidence, while leaving the door open to the larger issue of whether there is purpose in the universe. However, this position does not pre-suppose that a purpose exists, simply that it cannot necessarily be proved or disproved at this stage.

When viewed from a historic perspective, it is clear that even much smaller global populations have caused over-consumption of natural resources faster than they could be renewed. However, historic cases of over-consumption were essentially localised events, where today, the problems linked to over-consumption are global and possibly multi-faceted in scope when viewed in terms of the demographic complexity of the modern world. While the data shows that over-consumption can be mainly attributed to a relatively small percentage of the population, i.e. 10-20%, it is unclear that there is any practical solution on the horizon. In 1972, the results of a computer simulation called the ‘Limits to Growth’ was published, which attempted to simulate the effects of economic and population growth when constrained by finite resources. The project's findings were not optimistic.


The idea of human evolution is often assumed to be driven by natural selection, although the underlying dominance of this process as always been challenged by human developments. At first, these developments were simply associated with the increased benefits of a hierarchically structured society, which offered greater survival protection and an improved quality of life for many. However, we also need to highlight the many ‘paradigm shifts’ associated with technology within this process, e.g. written language, mathematics, printing press, steam engine, industrial revolution, electricity and last, but not least, computing leading towards AI. As such, it might now be predicted that the future of human evolution will not be decided by natural selection, but rather man-made developments, although it is unclear that humanity, as we currently understand it, will be the ultimate beneficiary of future technology developments.


The scope of the climate change debate is complex and includes issues that extend beyond science and encompasses both the politics and the economics of climate change plus the self-interest of individuals and nation-states. While it is recognised that this entire discussion cannot hope to address the scope of all this complexity, it might initially attempt to outline some of the issues by way of various linked references. As will be stated on several occasions throughout this entire discussion, the goal is not to deny that climate change is happening or to suggest that man-made greenhouse gases do not contribute to the climate change, but rather provide a general assessment of the scope and causes of climate change.


It is assumed that all possible ‘brave new worlds’ will still be defined in some way by the evolution of winners and losers, but where the idea of ‘winning’ may become increasingly dependent on ability and skills, rather than birth-right or simple luck. However, there is a distinct probability that developments in genetics and AI-robotic systems will act as a ‘wild-card’ in the evolutionary process of humanity, which might allow a small minority to function essentially without need of the larger majority of the population. If this proves to be the case, it will be a ‘paradigm shift’ between the past and the future, which will profoundly change the nature of human society. Many may be disturbed by the direction of this line of reasoning, and in truth they probably have good reason to be, as it suggests that some portion of the ‘larger majority’ may come to have a diminishing role in the ‘brave new world’ of the future, where an increasing number of functions might be carried out by AI automated systems. Of course, today, many will reject the possibility of this idea, let alone accept its probability, which is not necessarily unreasonable as what has been described is not certainty, but rather just one possible path that might be taken.


If the idea of a ‘consensus of opinion’ does represent some collective position, we possibly need to better understand the history as to how this collective position or worldview was formed, i.e. its cultural context, which may have involved both education as well as indoctrination. Likewise, an apparent consensus does not necessarily have to represent a majority view as history suggests that powerful minorities have often simply imposed their worldview on a broader majority.


Note: The next table below relates to website-3 still under development, which is considering a speculative concept entitled the 'The Wave Structure of Everything'.

Publication Synopsis Webpages
The WSE publication is essentially an introduction to a set of discussions that  attempt to highlight a number of issues and possibly requirements on any potential wave model. In this respect, the idea of a WSE model is anchored in the simple idea that matter particles can have no definable ‘substance’ beyond some form of energy-density in the sub-atomic domain of protons, neutrons and electrons. In the early days of the 20th century, science was only just beginning to understand the sub-atomic structure of matter, which was initially thought to be analogous to a mini-solar system, where the electrons orbited a central nucleus. However, while this model was later shown to be incorrect, it still suggests that the 'substance' or 'mass' of an atom, as a percentage of its volume, had to be negligible, i.e. an atom is essentially 99.9999999999999% empty space. So, by way of an example, if you could take away all the empty space in the subatomic particles of the 7.3 billion people on planet Earth, they could be compressed into a volume only a little larger than a grain of rice.


The science section of website-1 was subdivided into three parts: foundation, accepted and speculative science. In this context, website-3 should be seen as an extension of speculative science specifically discussing various types of wave models, where the opening section entitled the Wave Structure of Everything was more of a statement of requirements and not the assertion of a new wave model. As such, the WSE discussion was intended to outline a number of issues surrounding any potential wave model. While these issues are complex, the basic idea is simple: Matter particles can have no definable ‘substance’ beyond some form of energy-density in the sub-atomic domain of protons, neutrons and electrons. However, if energy is a scalar quantity, a causal mechanism is required for its propagation within the universe. As such, the various reviews of different wave models attempt to consider problems associated with physical causality. For example, how might potential energy propagate between two points in space, both as radiation and as a particle, which a wave model considers in terms of wave mechanics. If so, there is an implicit inference that any such wave model must challenge some aspects of accepted science founded on relativity and the quantum model. In this respect, this section will attempt to discuss aspects of relativity and the quantum model that might be challenged on the grounds that they have become too dependent on mathematical abstraction and, in so doing, fail to provide an adequate explanation of physical causality. This challenge is presented in terms of three discussions that should possibly be seen as a necessary precursor before reviewing any of the wave models.

Relativity Issues
 Quantum Issues
Bell’s Theorem

The goal of this review is simply to consider as many of the 'Matter is Made of Waves (MMW)' concepts and assumptions as possible, although this review is not necessarily constrained to the original format of LaFreniere’s website or its conclusions. However, the full review of so many fundamental and speculative ideas is far from complete. It is highlighted that many of these ideas sit outside accepted science and therefore cross-referencing other sources of supportive information has proved problematic. Likewise, many of the MMW ideas are predicated on simulation programs, which have proven extremely time-consuming to review in any detail, especially as the underlying causal explanations are often opaque. While dozens of 2D wave simulations were produced in the MMW site based on a number of wave equations, it appears that the equations used may not necessarily represent a physical description of the actual causal mechanisms at work.

Planck Scale
Overall, the Cordus Conjecture describes itself as a non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) model. As such, it assumes that the structures of its particule model physically exist at the sub-particle level of the standard model although the scale at which these structures are assumed to exist is not necessarily specified. However, the Cordus model states that it wants to anchor its description of causality to physical mechanisms and variables that exist objectively, although they may not be measured directly, even if they exist.

Time Comments References
The Phi-Wave Aether:
A Wave Theory of Everything
 Caroline H Thompson, October 2004,
revised December 2005

Caroline Thompson died in 2006 and many of the references and links in the original paper were no longer valid. Therefore, this is a reformatted version of Caroline Thompson’s paper that was produced in 2020 with updated links and references.

This discussion of John Macken’s book: ‘The Universe is Only Spacetime’ is being positioned as part of the Mysearch website-3 discussion of various wave models
OST Model

Note: The next table below relates to website-4 still under development, which is currently taking the form of a series of essays.

Publication Synopsis Webpages
The point of essays is the point of writing anything. It's not to tell people what they already think or to give them more of what they already believe; it's to challenge people, and it's to suggest alternate ways of thinking about things. 

Nature & Nurture
This is a summary analysis of the impact of Covid-19 pandemic, primarily in the UK. Its findings are worrying because the risk assessment does not support the government lockdown policy.

The Covid-19 Pandemic
This discussion is a commentary rather than a review of some of the ideas presented in a book by Iain McGilchrist entitled ‘The Master and his Emissary’, first published in 2009.

In Two Minds
Beyond Darwin.pdf  
While this is a review of the work of Jose Diez Faixat, it starts with a wider overview of the evolutionary model, such that it might be better positioned to evaluate the author’s ideas.

Beyond Darwin
Money Issues.pdf  
For most of us, the primary issue with money is that we do not think we have enough. However, the concept of money has a long history entwined with the development of economics, both as a theory and as a practical reality, which do not always align. However, while this discussion is not necessarily focused on the development of money in its physical form, as indicated below, it is interested in how the flow of money has changed, not only the way economies operate, but its wider effects on society that depends on the flow of money .

Nature of Money
Feynman's quote raises a key question as to 'why' nobody understands the model? Of course, there are a number of possible ways of addressing this question. First, some may dispute that nobody understands quantum mechanics, although we might question the scope of this understanding in the few individuals that claim to do so. Second, we might assume that quantum reality is so far remove from human experience that we simply do not have the vocabulary to physically described quantum causality. Third, is the suggestion that quantum reality does indeed exist far below human experience and is further  obscured by 'measurement problems' as highlighted by Dirac and described in terms of decoherence. Expanding on this third option, it might be accepted that a lack of direct access to quantum reality has left the door open to models, and speculation, that do not try to explain quantum causality, such that they only focus on predicting probability outcomes. However, whether this means that we can never have a better model is left as an open question.

All models are wrong. Some are useful.

The quote above by George Box possibly tells us something about science that we should not forget. Models are by necessity simplifications of the real world, where its complexity cannot be fully comprehended. In this context we might understand why simplified models must, in part, be inherently wrong by the omission of detail. So, while accepting that some models are useful, there is an obvious corollary that suggests that some are not. In many ways, Einstein himself realised this problem in the following quote.   Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labelled as 'conceptual necessities’. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors.   If you accept that the theory of relativity must be a simplified model of reality, it may possibly be wrong in important details. In this respect, society as a whole has the responsibility to continuously challenge all its accepted models and not let them gain authority over us.