Science is the language we use to describe reality and the fundament of scientific description is mathematics. We err when we claim mathematics is the basis of reality – it is not – because it is merely how we describe reality. Currently, there is no better way to describe reality than through mathematics but reality would still exist without mathematics. Moreover, starting with the empty set we can formulate the entirety of mathematics from a single concept of zero.

Reality can be formulated in it's entirety from a single concept of nothing: the boundary layer between reality and the void. The boundary layer comprises points, on its surface, where real things pop into and out of existence [being real]. That many of these real things pop out of existence, perhaps never to return as part of reality, is a Theory of science [1, 2, 3, 4]. The boundary is reminiscent, and perhaps is, a phase change with pure energy on one side and particles and residual energy on the other side.

The fact that we use mathematics to describe reality has nothing to do with the existence of the real things that pop into and out of existence. Using zero to equate with nothing is a descriptive process used by mind. I reiterate: reality exists without the mathematics that can describe it.

The theory is that when an object comes into existence it possesses mass or energy, or both. If we want to go further we must ask 'do all particles have the same mass and energy as they pass the boundary layer between reality and the void', or, 'is there more than one kind of object that can pop into existence'? I regard this as the key question to unlock the riddle of why I am real. This is the problem physicists must concentrate on if we humans are to understand reality. What is occurring at the boundary layer between reality and the void? This is not a mathematical problem, even though we must be able to describe it in mathematical terms: it is an experimental problem that must be performed. The experiment must determine if there is a class of objects that creates reality or if a single particle or energy field exists that builds reality.

Early religious belief was anthropomorphic: gods were made in the image of humankind! Similarly, the anthropomorphic theory of evolution used humankind as the central theme. Both of these anthropomorphic ideas are wrong. The principal hypothesis pertaining to reality, the Copenhagen Interpretation, is anthropomorphic: reality exists only through observation by mind. The hypothesis that nothing is real until it is observed was clarified by John von Neuman who defined observation as the action of a conscious mind which causes possibility to condense into reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation confuses reality with a description of reality. Consciousness in humankind has evolved through earlier developmental stages that can be seen not only in all living systems but indeed in all material objects. Consciousness is the end result of the complex evolution of the reactive process between an object and its environment [5]: it is the product of reality not its mother! We need to discard our ill-formed theories of what causes reality and concentrate on what is real: particles and energy and their origin from the void.

• 1 Hart G. F. , 2009 Creation from the Void



• 2 Close F., 2009. Nothing – a very short introduction.



• 3 Hart G. F. 1993. Is zero a better name than God: for the phenomenon that created the universe



• 4 Hart G. F. 2010 Time, death and reality.



• 5 Evolution and the Future of Humanity: homo sapiens' galactic future. ISBN-13:978-0-9818642-0-4