u/Jairo_Alves

For mainstream science, the brain is a biological computer where experience is generated and processed locally—the body’s central information processing and control unit. It is viewed as hardware composed of a biological and electrochemical network of approximately 86 billion neurons connected by trillions of synapses, whose function is to capture sensory stimuli, process, interpret, store, and command the rest of the body. From this perspective, thoughts, emotions, and consciousness itself emerge exclusively from the electrical and chemical activity of this hardware. 

Isolating the brain in this manner from any other body component is a boundary error. It ignores natural complementarity, interdependence, and, above all, biological origin: all approximately 37 trillion cells of the human body derive from a single initial cell (the zygote). They share the exact same "source code" (the genome) and differentiate only through the execution of specific subroutines during morphogenesis. 

From a systems engineering perspective, the entire body is a single node—a fully integrated, distributed biological computing network in which the brain is merely the central routing node of a continuous homeostatic system. Brain, body, and environment form a single networked system designed to execute the processes of an immense operating system: nature itself. The only acceptable justification for isolating them is pedagogical. 

Theoretically, the brain functions as Edge Hardware: a set of receptors and decoders responsible for receiving executable code instructions and rendering the physical experience on the client (the body), as no organism needs—nor could ever manage—to process and store all operational logic locally. The skin, the enteric system (the gut, with its more than 500 million neurons), pressure receptors in the joints, and the immune system all act as edge sensors, actively processing and filtering environmental inputs. 

In this architecture, natural entities operate like VM blades executed by a hypervisor on the same systemic substrate. The brain acts as the local terminal that converts data packets from the informational substrate into biological outputs, perceptions, and motor responses, keeping the session active and synchronized. Meanwhile, the entire network of biological sensors functions as the input/output (I/O) interface, sustaining a continuous packet exchange with the environment. 

This means that attempting to locate the "thinker" or "consciousness" by dissecting brain tissue is the technical equivalent of dismantling a monitor or a router to find out where the server is hosted.

Modern physicists pride themselves on being the vanguard of human rationalism. However, physics has transformed into an ideological doctrine—physicalism—the inflexible belief that reality is strictly reducible to measurable physical quantities described by field equations, ignoring the fact that the scientific method is, by definition, a dynamic tool open to revising its premises.

Physicalism is grounded in an unquestionable faith; it shares the same institutional and psychological dynamics as dogmatic religions: 

1. The Dogma: The premise that everything in the cosmos is reducible to a mathematical equation is sacred and unquestionable. 
2. Priesthood and Excommunication: Formal rituals are sacred, upon pain of intellectual isolation.

 

Behind physicalism lies a robust mechanism of institutional and epistemological preservation maintained by four core gears: 

1. The Engine and Compliance: Funding agencies and academic journals act as the guardians of the physicalist faith. Projects that contradict corporate beliefs are summarily discarded. 
2. Indoctrination: University students and professionals are taught to "calculate" and discouraged from questioning. 
3. The Mathematical Filter: Ideas are judged by the complexity of their quantitative formalism, ignoring their ontological coherence or systems logic. 
4. The Status Quo: Structural flaws or the need for new frameworks are entirely ignored to avoid undermining the careers, awards, and reputations built upon physicalism.

 

However, physicalism commits a recurring category error: it attempts to employ mathematics to derive the laws of a code from the structure of its outputs, which is equivalent to analyzing the pixels on a screen to explain the logic of the algorithm generating them. 

Whenever a protophysical contribution emerges from Systems Architecture or Information Theory—no matter how logical—it is immediately labeled "mere philosophy" or "unscientific" and discarded. 

Today, the greatest obstacle to the advancement of contemporary scientific knowledge is the belief in physicalism; faith in it wastes an absurd amount of resources. It has become a religion whose golden calf is mathematics.

Quantum physics has demonstrated that the human perception of reality is illusory. Yet, physics maintains that its observable model corresponds to reality itself. 

The foundation of this model consists of recurring events generated by processes—that is, mere outputs—which prevents these outputs from being the cause of reality. 

Why does physics insist on this perspective, knowing that its search for laws is nothing more than identifying these very processes? Because doing so would mean admitting that it deals only with outputs, which would reduce its scope and institutional prestige. 

This dogmatism carries a high cost: it stifles scientific progress, misallocates resources toward flawed premises, and delays a true understanding of reality by confusing the result (the effect) with the true cause. 

Correcting this stance is urgent. We must shift our focus to Systems Engineering and Information Theory, for the process is the sole and undeniable substrate of reality.

Time travel has fascinated humanity for centuries. 

For modern physics, traveling into the future is a proven reality (and something that, in a sense, we already do). 

The Theory of General and Special Relativity proved that time is flexible, bound to space (spacetime), and that there are two real ways to "travel" into the future: 

• Varying speed (Time Dilation). 
• Varying gravity (Time Deceleration).

 

The tool math of physics (the equations of Relativity) indicates the viability of traveling to the past based on theoretical solutions that accept closed paths in time, known as Closed Timelike Curves (CTCs). Hypothetical concepts such as wormholes or the Tipler Cylinder show that the geometry of spacetime would, in theory, accept a return to the past. 

However, in practice and in the physics of real processes, nature prevents returning to the past through seemingly insurmountable barriers, such as: 

• Logical Paradoxes: Alterations in the past would alter the causality of the present and the future. 
• Thermodynamics and Entropy: The "Arrow of Time" is dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics; reversing time would require reversing the entropy of the entire universe, from the micro to the macrocosm. 
• Safety Mechanisms: The laws of physics (quantum effects and energy instabilities) would be set to destroy any attempt to build a time machine before it can function.

 

Due to these barriers, three main hypotheses have been formulated: 

• Parallel Universes/Multiverses: The journey would lead to a new branch; altering this timeline would never affect the universe of origin. 
• The Principle of Self-Consistency: The past is immutable, as its events already incorporate the acts performed during the time travel itself. 
• Ontological Lock: Nature prevents the reversibility of causal flows at a low level.

 

Relative time travel to the future happens every day on a microscopic scale (with satellites and particles in accelerators). However, travel to the past remains viable only mathematically. 

From the perspective of systems engineering and information theory, both journeys are unfeasible beyond the natural rate, as this would require resetting or accelerating the state of all processes in the world-system concurrently—since history is, ultimately, the consolidated informational record of these processes.

 

Four centuries ago, Galileo stated that the universe was written in the language of mathematics (implicit in nature). Today, science overlooks this by assuming that the only path to understanding reality is human mathematics—a mere tool.

 In doing so, science commits a fundamental error: tool-based mathematics is excellent at describing what happens (creating predictive models), but frequently fails to explain why it happens (the real ontological mechanism).

 This occurs because reality is composed of facts, and facts are generated by nature from real mathematical possibilities. Identifying a possibility through tool-based mathematics does not necessarily mean identifying the specific mathematical possibility that actually produced the studied fact. After all, different combinations of operands and operators can yield the same result. In other words, a mathematical equation can be perfectly coherent and yet describe something completely unreal. Tool-based mathematics accepts infinite dimensions, parallel universes, and geometric absurdities that do not exist in the mathematics of nature.

Committing this error is confusing the source code behind reality with our draft interface. There is a profound—and rarely discussed—gap between the mathematics nature executes at a low level to exist and the symbolic mathematics used daily by physicists. Confusing the two severely compromises our understanding of reality.

 Despite this, when a theoretical calculation diverges from astronomical or subatomic observations, the scientific community often claims to have found a "mystery in nature" (such as the rare peaks problem in cosmology). However, nature continues to function perfectly; it was tool-based mathematics that failed by running on wrong premises.

 The only 100% reliable mathematics is that of nature. It is present in the logic of natural processes as rules (the laws of nature) and in all structures of the universe, from micro to macrocosm, as geometric and relational parameters. Tool-based mathematics is merely a slit through which we glimpse the mathematics of nature. Confusing the two is equivalent to confusing the map with the territory itself.

 Pythagoras and Galileo were right: everything is number and relationship. Facts will only be fully understood when we stop attempting to impute our mathematical abstractions onto nature and begin decoding the natural algorithm, trusting in its math.

Matter occupies about 5% of the universe. Its origin is outer space, which is intangible and occupies about 95% of the universe. It has received several names throughout history. Their origins and meanings are as follows: 

1. Primeval Abyss / Chaos (Abzu / Tiamat) — Mesopotamia (~3000 BCE): The undifferentiated, potential, and formless matrix from which everything that exists was generated. 
2. Akasha (Ancient India): Represents the subtle essence/space from which all other elements emanate and where the primordial sound (vibration/information) resonates. In Theosophy and 19th-century esotericism, the concept of "Akashic Records" emerged, considering this space a vast "matrix/memory" where all the information of the cosmos is recorded. 
3. Void / Abyss (Tohu wa-Bohu / Tehom) — Hebrew Tradition (~1400 BCE): Represents the state of raw potential, without form, structure, or rules. 
4. Greek Chaos (Khaos) — Archaic Greece (~700 BCE): The first thing to exist — the vast dark void that opened to allow existence to occur. 
5. Abyss, Chaos, or Cosmic Void (Void / Abyss): Represented the primordial nothingness before creation or the endless space surrounding the material world. 
6. Aether (Ancient Greece): Initially represented the "pure, luminous air" of the heights where the gods lived. Aristotle formalized it as the "quintessence," the immutable element filling the space above Earth where celestial bodies moved. In the 19th century, physics resurrected it as the "luminiferous aether" — the physical medium through which light would propagate. 
7. Vacuum (from the Latin vacuum, meaning "empty" or "free space"): Coined by classical physics and atomic philosophy (Leucippus and Democritus) to describe the complete absence of matter. Later renamed Quantum Vacuum by quantum physics — a seething sea of energy and virtual particles.
8. Dark Matter and Dark Energy (Modern Cosmology - 20th Century): The former was postulated to explain the "invisible" gravitational field keeping the movement of galaxies cohesive; the latter, to describe the unknown force accelerating the expansion of the Universe. 
9. Higgs Field (Modern Theoretical Physics - 1964): An invisible, scalar energy field responsible for giving mass to particles.

 

Over time, the naming of outer space migrated from mystical terms to mechanical elements (Aether), absence of matter (Vacuum), and finally, labels given by modern cosmology (Dark Matter and Dark Energy) for something current physics cannot see or explain. 

Most of these names have in common the fact that, implicitly or explicitly, they attribute the function of generating the tangible 5% of the universe to the intangible 95%. In other words, they attribute the origin of matter to outer space.

 The names in cosmology and physics are hindering our understanding of reality, as both polarize attention and direct research solely toward their own fields. To bypass this problem, I coined the term "Protomatter," meaning simply: what precedes matter. Later, I applied systems engineering and information theory to try to identify what protomatter is and its composition. The result was surprising and can be found in my book: "The Protomatter: The Origin of Matter."

Black holes are among the most intriguing and extreme structures in the cosmos. Their existence was predicted by Einstein's General Relativity as the result of the gravitational collapse of massive stars, compressing matter to a point where the escape velocity of its gravitational field exceeds the speed of light.

 

Traditional physics named the center of this collapse a singularity—a hypothetical point of infinite density where known equations simply break down. Later, Stephen Hawking introduced Hawking Radiation, demonstrating that these objects slowly evaporate and generating the famous Information Loss Paradox. Currently, there are models—such as Cosmic Natural Selection—suggesting that black holes act as seeds for generating "other universes."

 

Although these theories help map isolated gravitational and quantum effects, they remain decontextualized by seeking exotic ways out beyond our own cosmos. An analysis from the perspective of Systems Architecture and Information Theory could bypass this deficiency.

 

From this viewpoint, black holes would act as Recycling Nodes, responsible for sustaining the homeostasis of a fully closed and autophagic system—the universe—which would continuously consume its own materialized structures to maintain the continuity and viability of its processing.

 

The main physical evidence of this dynamic is the prevalence of macrocosmic disk geometry, observed in accretion disks around black holes and in the structure of spiral galaxies themselves—the ideal geometric pattern for funneling, dissipating, and channeling data in a dynamic system.

 

From a systemic perspective, nothing in the universe is lost. Instead of information destruction or an infinite-density "singularity," a black hole would be a systemic reconfiguration module. It would execute a reset routine, decompiling materialized data back to the status of protomatter (the basic, neutral informational substrate), ensuring the continuous recycling of necessary inputs for creating new physical structures—such as stars, planets, and life itself.

 

In this approach, black holes would guarantee the universe's sustainability entropically: they would be dynamic engines providing shape and stability to large-scale structures. We would be, ultimately, potential inputs in this continuous, elegant, and necessary cycle of cosmic recycling.

The fact that large celestial bodies—such as stars, planets, and major moons—exhibit spherical shapes has always been fascinating. 

Conventional Explanation: The action of gravity concentrates mass, hydrostatic equilibrium distributes it, and rotation slightly widens the equator and flattens the poles, requiring a minimum mass for spherization. 

Systemic Redefinition: The final geometry of a celestial body is generated by a process involving the simultaneous action of gravitational mass, temperature, rotation, and translation. The functions of these variables are as follows: 

1. Gravitational Mass: Induces the internal compression required to overcome the material's mechanical resistance. 
2. Temperature: Makes the matter more malleable. 
3. Rotation: Distributes matter symmetrically around the axis of spin (generating a spheroid). 
4. Translation: Breaks symmetry by slightly deforming the body into a teardrop/elliptical shape along its orbital path through gravitational variations.

 

The joint action of these variables resembles the manual rounding of a loaf of bread or pizza dough: high temperature provides malleability; gravitational mass ensures bodily integration; and rotation and translation dynamically execute the shaping (spherization). 

Asteroids and small comets are not rounded due to insufficient gravitational mass and temperature—the rigidity of cold rock overcomes weak gravity, maintaining irregular shapes despite their rotational and translational movements. 

While the traditional approach treats orbital movements as mere secondary perturbations of static gravity, the systemic perspective demonstrates that translation is the decisive variable contextualizing the real, dynamically deformed geometry of bodies in space.

 

Modern physics boasts an enviable mathematical precision. However, it commits a fatal error: it mistakes effect for cause. 

Ever since the formulation of General Relativity, science has chosen the geometry of a "supposed curvature" of spacetime as the primary cause of gravitational and dynamic phenomena. It disregards the fact that, in any systems architecture, geometry is always a process output, never a cause. This is equivalent to observing images on a screen and asserting that the geometry of the pixels is responsible for the existence of the software. 

This same mistake occurs in quantum mechanics when trying to attribute consciousness and reality to wavefunction collapses in microscopic structures. Quantum collapse is merely a physical state transition. It can demonstrate only the collective (stochastic) behavior pattern, never the laws or rules behind it. This is equivalent to assuming that the click of a mouse created the operating System. 

Traditional physics is tautological. To it: "Matter tells geometry how to curve, and geometry tells matter how to move." An equation that describes how two outputs correlate does not explain what gave rise to both. Physics describes the "how" of the medium with mastery, but errs when assigning the status of cause to what is merely the visible result. 

As long as physics continues searching for the origin of reality in the geometry of the pixels, it will remain trapped in the illusion that the effect created the cause. The true turning point will come from recognizing that space is merely the screen where the information underlying reality is rendered. 

To resolve the paradoxes that have paralyzed theoretical physics for over a century, we must become aware of a fundamental premise: visible reality is merely process input and output. 

#Systems #Protophysics #SystemsEngineering #InformationTheory #TheoreticalPhysics #PhilosophyOfScience

Statistical mathematics is indisputable proof that attempting to explain the origin and sustenance of the universe through "blind collisions of matter" is a major mistake.

The logic of creation is revealed through the omnipresence, complementarity, and interdependence of the components of the universe's structure. This arrangement could never emerge accidentally, as it is governed by natural laws that are universal, and statistical calculations show that the probability of such coherence arising by chance is strictly zero.

The facts demonstrate that mathematics, so idolized by modern science, is more than just the language through which we read the universe: it is the very source code of creation. However, corporatism leads physicists to prefer ignoring this evidence; accepting it would mean recognizing the limits of materialistic physics and surrendering their prestige and authority.

Officially, spacetime is conceptualized as a four-dimensional locus (place) where all events in the universe occur, the structure of which consists of three spatial dimensions (height, width, depth) and one temporal dimension. 

Pragmatically, time is a carrier wave upon which nature geometrically and energetically modulates the forms of natural beings. In other words: time is the continuous runtime stream of a natural operating system; physical matter is the visible manifestation (hardware/output) of an informational modulation that occurs continuously across time. 

Therefore, life and the complexity of the universe, ultimately, are information being intentionally transmitted and rendered along the timeline by a systemic substrate, rather than "blind collisions of matter." Ignoring this possibility is not science, for it is to disregard statistical mathematics.

The traditional scientific worldview is physicentric.

It attempts to explain the universe by reducing it to the foundation of its physical layer. 

This occurs because reality is interpreted through Lavoisier's classic axiom: a vast and blind arrangement where matter is merely conserved and transformed, causing complexity, life, and consciousness to be treated as mere accidental byproducts of mechanical collisions over time. 

However, this materialist narrative reveals an insurmountable logical gap when the universe is examined from a strictly integrated perspective. It disregards the origin of organization. 

The transition from physics to chemistry, from chemistry to biology, and from biology to complex systems, complementarity, and interdependence could never emerge from a "random combination of parts," as the mathematical probability of such an occurrence on this scale is equal to zero. 

What materialist science attributes to "chance" and "mechanical transformation" is actually the operational dynamics of a coordinated systemic evolution being executed by an underlying logical and informational structure (software) of which physics is merely the product.

This software is both deterministic and probabilistic. It is deterministic where guaranteeing the logical functioning of the system is essential. It is probabilistic where implementing factual diversification is required. 

Although Lavoisier's axiom favors physicentrism, it also contradicts it; the fact that in nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, and everything is transformed occurs in a complementary and interdependent manner, which itself stands as evidence that an underlying system is in execution.

Modern physics has produced extraordinary advances, but it finds itself trapped in a fundamental epistemological impasse: it attempts to explain the total architecture of the universe by focusing solely on its processual outputs — observable particles, forces, and manifestations.

This is illogical, as these products account for a mere 5% of the measurable content of the cosmos. It is equivalent to trying to understand a software's underlying logic by analyzing only the pixels displayed on the screen.

Building a truly holistic, structural, and functional view of the universe requires fitting physics into its proper layer of competence within the functional structure of the world-system, which would look like this:

• Output Layer (Traditional Physics): Composed of visible matter, elementary particles, and fundamental forces. It does not generate reality; it is merely the final result of an underlying process.
• Processing Layer (Protomatter): The remaining 95%, home to an operating system capable of implementing complementarity and interdependence, materializing the laws of nature and the other 5% of the universe.

Repositioning physics means recognizing its limits of competence based on the functional structure of the universe, without diminishing its value. This is necessary because physics does not study the primary matrix of the cosmos — it is a science of outputs.

To understand the structure and functioning of the universe in its entirety, the focus must shift from analyzing output data to the Systems Engineering of Nature — the logical and protophysical architecture that precedes, enables, and materializes energy in a complementary, interdependent, and intelligible way.

I have already done this, and the result can be explored in my book: "The Intelligencism: An Intelligent View of the World".

In contemporary science and philosophy, certain theories and ideas have turned into unquestionable dogmas. For example: intelligence has been strictly considered a "problem-solving ability." The consequences of this reductionist view are extremely harmful, such as: 

1. Improper Equating: The endogenous agent of a natural structure's processes is equated with an artifact that merely executes exogenous processes. 
2. Herd Effect: The exhaustive repetition of these dogmatic theories turns them into mantras that imprison the intellect, obscure the perception of reality, stall the advancement of knowledge, and constrain those who dare to question them. 
3. Intellectual Stagnation: Philosophical, scientific, and cultural progress stalls when genuine questioning gives way to the mere replication of manuals.

 

For philosophy and science to reclaim their vital role in expanding consciousness and understanding reality, it is essential to swim against the current, challenge these mantras, and break paradigms. 

My proposal to address these prerequisites is fully grounded in the logic of systems engineering and information theory, and can be found in my book "The Master Key to Success".

Physicentrism is the belief that physics is the only fundamental science and that physical materialism is the raison d'être of reality.

It assumes that all phenomena of existence—from consciousness and structural logic, from the microcosm to the macrocosm—result from mechanical interactions involving matter, energy, and elementary forces.

It has turned into an institutional dogma. Physics, when faced with empirical limits (such as the 95% of the universe), assigns them names like "dark matter" and "dark energy" instead of recognizing that they fall outside its domain.

Quantum physics plays a dual role in physicentrism: it is simultaneously its greatest threat and its most sophisticated weapon. For example:

1. It revealed that the substrate of reality is made of probability waves, superposition, and non-local entanglement. However, instead of admitting the possibility of physical reality emerging from something protophysical, these phenomena were reduced to mere "mathematical formalisms with no ontological meaning," imposing the dogmatic stance of "Shut up and calculate."
2. It proved that information is fundamental. Nevertheless, to maintain the illusion that matter is the primary element, this hierarchy was inverted, declaring quantum information to be a "property of particles."

Quantum physics exposed the necessary existence of a layer of data and rules governing the universe. Yet physicentrism treats it as "exotic physics" to avoid acknowledging that matter is merely the surface layer of a far more complex processing architecture.

Whenever questions arise regarding the origin of consciousness, the architecture of the universe, or the laws of nature, physicentrists bring quantum physics onto the field—ignoring, disparaging, constraining, discrediting, and paralyzing Computer Science, Systems Engineering, and Philosophy.

Physicentrism made physics the "queen of sciences." It reached the absurdity of inventing "phantom entities" with the surname of matter just to secure its monopoly over the cosmological narrative.

Physicentrism has become the greatest obstacle to the evolution of knowledge. Changing this scenario requires recognizing the importance of protophysics, computer science, systems engineering, and philosophy. More details regarding this need can be found in my book, "Protophysics."

Many people are worried and terrified of the evolution of artificial intelligence. They fear that the machine will gain consciousness, dominate, and enslave humanity. Could that actually happen?

Anyone who thinks this way ignores the basic operation of the system or simply wants to promote panic. Current AI does not think. It is incapable of understanding causes, creating original premises, or manifesting any kind of feeling. Although it uses an extraordinary statistical engine, it can only react, calculate probabilities, and correlate patterns within the data box we provide to it; it is blind to the meaning of what it executes. In other words, it can only think inside the box.

The real risk is delegating critical decisions to an unconscious tool or misusing it for self-serving motives. If AI comes to discriminate, fail, or destroy lives, the blame will never fall on the machine, but rather on whoever wrote and determined its code—the programmer and their employer.

The danger is not the machine, made of stacked silicon chips, thinking for itself—it is the human being misusing it, as its code merely executes their will.

Modern theoretical physics suffers from a herd mentality: most physicists confuse the language with the phenomenon. Over the past century, they have been conditioned to treat equations, geometries, and abstract fields as the very cause and substance of reality.

However, they observe only 5% of the universe, ignoring the fact that equations do not float in a vacuum. By disregarding the remaining 95% of the world-system, they fail to realize that the laws of nature constitute the software of this system. Physical constants—such as the speed of light or the gravitational constant—are configuration parameters; particles, in turn, are mere renderings on the local interface.

Mathematics is excellent for mapping possibilities and measuring facts (outputs). However, believing it to be the engine of the universe is equivalent to looking at source code displayed on a screen and believing that the text alone is responsible for executing all processing by itself.

Mathematics is syntax. Equations describe behaviors, but the physicalization of reality requires the execution of logical processes capable of establishing causal relationships. It is these processes that employ mathematics to convert possibilities into facts (outputs).

Continuing to attempt to explain the primary cause of the universe merely by stacking differential equations is to remain trapped in a bias loop, wasting time and resources. Mathematics maps the scope, but it is systems logic that determines the functions of the program.

The solution demands a paradigm shift: integrating systems architecture and protophysical analysis with mathematics. It is high time physics stopped looking at the tool and began focusing on the engineering that executes it.

Science attempts to explain consciousness from the brain, and the generation of reality from consciousness. This makes sense, as the role of consciousness is essential for the physical complementarity and interdependence of reality; the probability of both being accidental is zero. 

However, our consciousness could never be the agent of physical reality. The facts indicate that we are merely a kind of natural VM running under the hypervisor of the world-system substrate. 

The scope of operation for our VM is restricted to its own processing area, leaving our consciousness only to interpret reality in a customized way. For a consciousness to be capable of creating, maintaining, and evolving physical reality, it would have to belong to the substrate itself and, consequently, run above our VM.

Reality is the composite set of possibilities and facts. It can be natural or artificial. Possibilities are natural or artificial intangible mathematical structures that can be made tangible (materialized or actualized). Facts are natural or artificial mathematical structures that have already been made tangible. Fantasy is the conception or proposal of an artificial mathematical structure whose tangibilization is impossible because it violates the laws of nature, the capacity of its designer, or both simultaneously. In short, possibility is a mathematical design of reality, fact is its realization, and fantasy a mathematically infeasible design proposal.

For modern cosmology, the tangible and measurable part of the universe accounts for a mere 5%; the remaining 95% would be dark matter and dark energy. The traditional model established this simply to make the 5% observable universe function according to its expectations. 

However, this is equivalent to trying to explain the entire engine of the cosmos using only the rules and properties of the exception — much like attempting to decipher the complete architecture of the internet or a global cloud infrastructure by looking solely at the blinking LED on a physical server drawer. 

The 5% observable is energy geometrically formatted by natural processes, whose stability is sustained by recurring events. Such events are generated by the invisible 95% of the world-system, whose primary evidence is the intangibility and omnipresence of the laws of nature themselves. 

This means that energy necessarily occupies 100% of the universe: 95% “in natura” and 5% modulated. Therefore, the existence of dark matter and dark energy is a fantasy resulting from scientific reductionism, which prevents a holistic and systemic view of reality.