Farzad Didehvar

Why is space three-dimensional? Here, we discuss the reasons and, ultimately, open the discussion further. If fuzzy time is a fundamental concept in physics, then another fundamental concept is the three-dimensional world. Why three dimensions? Are these two fundamental physical concepts related? Here, we answer this question in the negative. The central subject here is an argument based on embedding a graph in three-dimensional space, cognition, and parsimony in formulating the problem. The fourth factor is the idea that space is created rather than discovered. In brief, the argument and observation are as follows: 1. Our primary cognition of space is formed on the basis of objects and the binary relations among them, represented by a directed graph. 2. Mathematical theorem: Any finite directed graph can be embedded in three-dimensional space. For finite families of binary relations, this remains true only after specifying the precise notion of embedding or representation. 3. Space is then created through these two considerations, and the metric emerges afterward. Applying, the Mathematical theorem and using parsimony of mind, 3 dimension is sufficient to explain the Physical world around us. This simple fact is remarkable: any n-array relation can be written in terms of binary relations. For example, (a,b,c) represent as ((a,b),(b,c)). It could be generalized by induction. There is a noteworthy point to consider. Above, we examined our intuitive conception of space. Historically, this conception underwent at least two significant transformations. First, René Descartes introduced the Cartesian coordinate system, thereby providing an analytic framework that fundamentally altered the representation of spatial relations. Second, Augustin-Louis Cauchy and Richard Dedekind advanced rigorous models of continuity: Cauchy formalized limits and convergence within analysis, while Dedekind introduced cuts to construct the real numbers, thereby grounding continuity in precise mathematical structures derived from discrete entities and the notion of infinity. We should regard this point as a form of alienation. A distance has emerged between our contemporary understanding, especially within academic discourse, and the earlier conception of space.

One of the possible hypotheses about time is to consider any instant of time as a fuzzy number, so that two instants of time could be overlapped. Historically, some Mathematicians and Philosophers have had similar ideas like Brouwer and Husserl. Throughout this article, the impact of this change on the Theory of Computation and Complexity Theory is studied. To rebuild the Theory of Computation in a more successful and productive approach to solve some major problems in Complexity Theory, the present research is done. This novel theory is called, here, the fuzzy time theory of computation, TC∗. Here, we show the situation of some major problems in Complexity theory and Quantum computation. This article is the edited version of the first part of Theory of Fuzzy Time Computation(TC * vs TC, TQC), HAL, Philpapers after correction and answering some errors and questions. Later we will discuss about Quantum Classes in this new field.

Throughout this manuscript, we introduce no new informational content; rather, we demonstrate that there exists at least one logical system, namely LP (Logic of Paradox), that accommodates our goals and thereby allows the project to proceed [1. Is this a contradiction in Mathematics? (The paradox and Foundation of Mathematics, First version), Philpapers 2026]. At this stage, the central objective is to remain as faithful to Classical Logic as possible. A more conclusive discussion will be presented later. It is evident that the solution is not unique. Artificial intelligence tools were employed in the preparation of this manuscript.

In [Is Classical Mathematics Appropriate for Theory of Computation?] we show there is a contradiction which in [“Fuzzy Time”, a solution of Unexpected Hanging Paradox (A Fuzzy interpretation of Quantum Mechanics), Philpapers 2019-04-13] we give a solution for that. This is the starting point for new Theories, Theory of Fuzzy Time Computation and Fuzzy Time –Particle interpretation of quantum Mechanics. A question is remained which was mentioned in [Two points and two questions, F.Didehvar, Philpapers, Researchgate, 2025]. Is this contradiction a contradiction in Mathematics too? Here, we try to answer this question. The article belongs to a group of articles which presents the logical back bone of this line of research.

This text presents a project plan rather than a completed article. The project is designed to test Theory C, which emphasizes Iranian continuity and eastward diffusion. The plan outlines a comparative genetic study using three aspects—mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), Y-chromosome haplogroups, and genome-wide autosomal distances. Two baseline hypotheses will be tested: (1) all populations contain non-Iranian genetic contributions, and (2) similarity to Iranian anchors decreases with geographic distance. The major hypothesis is that Iranian genetic signals persist more strongly eastward along Silk Road corridors than in northeast or southeast directions. The project is structured in two parts: the main body, which develops the spectrum from Persians to Yakuts, and the critical reflections, which address methodological limits, caveats, and digressions.

This paper explores the paradox that societies composed of rational individuals often act irrationally at the collective level. While rationality guides individual decision-making, aggregation produces systemic distortions, coordination failures, and unconscious dynamics that undermine collective coherence. The study begins with an intellectual history of attempts to explain collective irrationality, from crowd psychology and social choice theory to economic sociology and the concept of the social unconscious. It then proposes a holistic categorization of mechanisms by which rationality collapses in the aggregate. Finally, three case studies—the collapse of the Soviet Union, contemporary apocalyptic dynamics, and the Middle East scenario—illustrate how rational actors, guided by both conscious and unconscious motives, can collectively generate irrational outcomes.

This paper explores the paradox that societies composed of rational individuals often act irrationally at the collective level. While rationality guides individual decision-making, aggregation produces systemic distortions, coordination failures, and unconscious dynamics that undermine collective coherence. The study begins with an intellectual history of attempts to explain collective irrationality, from crowd psychology and social choice theory to economic sociology and the concept of the social unconscious. It then proposes a holistic categorization of mechanisms by which rationality collapses in the aggregate. Finally, three case studies—the collapse of the Soviet Union, contemporary apocalyptic dynamics, and the Middle East scenario—illustrate how rational actors, guided by both conscious and unconscious motives, can collectively generate irrational outcomes.

This article investigates the role of evangelical apocalyptic thought in shaping conflicts in the Middle East, with particular attention to U.S. foreign policy and Israeli politics. Beginning with the guiding question—Do some evangelicals and their apocalyptic ideas shape the fighting in the Middle East?—the study traces the historical roots of evangelical influence in American society, their rise as a political force, and their division into passive and radical groups. While the passive majority emphasizes moral living and cultural values, the radical minority interprets contemporary events as fulfillments of biblical prophecy, exerting disproportionate influence on U.S. policy. The article examines the views of prominent radical evangelicals—John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, and Marjorie Taylor Greene—particularly regarding Iran, highlighting how prophecy-driven narratives intersect with geopolitical strategies. It then poses two further questions: whether Benjamin Netanyahu, intentionally or not, aligns more closely with radical evangelicals than with mainstream Jewish perspectives, and whether U.S.–Israeli policy risks drifting away from pragmatic security concerns and geopolitical calculations toward apocalyptic frameworks. By situating evangelical apocalypticism within the broader context of religion, politics, and war, the article underscores the dangers of prophecy-driven policymaking and its potential to destabilize the Middle East by neglecting realpolitik security imperatives and long-term geopolitical stability. This article was written with the assistance of AI, although the major idea and conceptual framework belong to the author.

Abstract This article, A Bridge of Continuity in the History of Iran: Sasanids, Samanids & Albuyeh, Seljukids and Safavids, explores the enduring thread of Iranian identity across successive dynasties from late antiquity to the early modern era. It argues that despite political ruptures and shifting centers of power, a symbolic and institutional continuity persisted, linking the Sasanid legacy to the Persianate formations of the Samanids and Albuyeh, the imperial structures of the Seljuks, and the cultural renaissance of the Safavids. By examining dynastic legitimacy, cultural synthesis, and the transmission of shared traditions, the paper highlights how these regimes collectively sustained a civilizational umbrella under which diverse communities reconciled and coexisted. The study proposes a comparative framework—contrasting rival theories of discontinuity with a model of cultural resilience—to demonstrate that Iran’s historical trajectory is best understood as a bridge of continuity rather than a sequence of isolated episodes. This perspective invites interdisciplinary reflection on the mechanisms of cultural endurance, the role of institutions in mediating reconciliation, and the symbolic power of kingship in shaping collective identity. Theory C is proposed here; by using it together with the discussions provided by Theory A and Theory B, we establish a background for further investigation and historical debates.

This paper revisits and extends the proof first presented in Epistemological Observations about Mind–Machine Equivalence by Farzad Didehvar and Mohammad Saleh Zarepour (2007). The central claim is that no agent can ever attain certainty of being a machine — even in the case that it truly is one. The argument is based on two principles: fairness, which forbids privileging self-testimony, and comparability, which requires that self- and adversary testimony be treated as epistemically equal. By embedding the original proof into modal logic systems (K, T, D, S4, S5), we show that fairness alone suffices to block certainty in weaker systems, while comparability becomes essential in S5. This meta-theorem clarifies the logical foundations of self-certainty and highlights the philosophical significance of accessibility conditions in epistemic logic. (THIS PAPER IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SEEMINGLY IT NEEDS TO MUCH WORKS IN LOGICAL PART).

This paper explores the paradoxical claim “This article is not written by helping AI.” On the one hand, if AI contributes to the drafting process, the claim appears false. On the other hand, if authorship requires semantic intention and responsibility, then the claim may be true even when AI generates text. Drawing on Searle’s Chinese Room, Tarski’s theory of truth, and debates on authorship in philosophy of language, I argue that authorship requires intentionality and responsibility, which AI systems lack. The paradox is resolved by distinguishing between syntactic production and semantic authorship. AI can assist in generating words, but authorship remains a human act of responsibility. (This article is distinctive in nature, and its central problem is: who is the author?) Farzad Didehvar provided an AI system with only a single phrase in Persian, which translates into English as: “This article is not written by Helping AI.” From that seed, the AI generated a complete article in English. The article itself argues—semantically—that it was not written by an AI tool. At the same time, it was not literally written by Farzad either, since he only supplied the initial phrase. This raises a paradoxical question: if the article is neither authored by the AI nor by the human, then who is the true writer? An answer will be provided in the next article, but the author is interested in hearing other opinions.

Here, the author presents two points and two questions and tries to solve the related problems. (THE LAST CONCLUSION (FOURTH) SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED) Refrences 1. How do we calculate η from μ?, Farzad Didehvar, Philpapers 2025 2. Is Classical Mathematics Appropriate for Theory of Computation? 2017, Philpapers 2019 3. Generalized Surprise Exam Paradox (GSEP), only Problem of time or problem of Mathematical Modeling in General? Philpapers 2025 4. Relative To A Random Oracle A, ?? ≠ ??? ≠ ?? − ???, With Probability 1, Charles H Bennett, John Gill, Siam Journal on Computing, 1981 5. Theory of Fuzzy Time Computation (TC* vs TC, TQC), Hal, Philpapers 2023 6. ?? ∗ = ??? ∗ ? (Second Version), Philpapers 2025

Here we complete and develop the subjects in [2], [3], [4] based on [1]. It should be mentioned again that the author knows TC* more near to the real situation of Computation rather TC even if we forget the fuzziness of time, the reason is different errors especially in computing time. By accepting this point the author tries to show the importance of such type of articles. This manuscript is the first version. In chapter 1 we define the major Complexity classes and we discuss about. In chapter 2, we prove for μ which has a finite area, P_μ^*≠NP_μ^*. In chapter 3 we define some fuzzy functions μ such that P_μ^*=NP_μ^*.

Here we complete and develop the subjects in [2], [3], [4] based on [1]. It should be mentioned again that the author knows TC* more near to the real situation of Computation rather TC even if we forget the fuzziness of time, the reason is different errors especially in computing time. By accepting this point the author tries to show the importance of such type of articles. This manuscript is the first version. In chapter 1 we define the major Complexity classes and we discuss about. In chapter 2, we prove for μ which has a finite area, P_μ^*≠NP_μ^*. In chapter 3 we define some fuzzy functions μ such that P_μ^*=NP_μ^*.

One of the possible hypotheses about time is to consider any instant of time as a fuzzy number so that two instances of time could be overlapped. Historically, some Mathematicians and Philosophers have had similar ideas. Brouwer and Husserl are two examples. This article studies the impact of this change on the Theory of Computation and Complexity Theory. In order to rebuild the Theory of Computation in a more successful and productive approach to solve some major problems in Complexity Theory, the present research is done. This novel theory is called here, the fuzzy time theory of computation, TC*. Here, we show the situation of some major problems in Complexity theory and Quantum complexity theory in the new model, and how some major problems would be solved.

Throughout this paper, we prove TC+CON(〖TC*〗 )ͰP≠NP. To do that, firstly, we introduce the definition of scope*. This definition is based on the practical situation of computation in the real world. In the real world and real computational activities, we face a finite number of efficiently computable functions which work in a limited time. Inspired by this fact and considering time as a fuzzy concept, we have the definition. By employing this definition, we reach a world of computation in which our time is non-classical and fuzzy, so we have random generations, but the set of all computations (our computational world) is the same as we have in classical time (TC). The result will be P≠NP and P*≠NP*. Throughout this article, we discuss the impact of TC* on TC.

One of the possible hypotheses about time is to consider any instant of time as fuzzy number, so that two instants of time could be overlapped. Historically, some Mathematicians and Philosophers have had similar ideas like Brouwer and Husserl [5]. Throughout this article, the impact of this change on Theory of Computation and Complexity Theory are studied. In order to rebuild Theory of Computation in a more successful and productive approach to solve some major problems in Complexity Theory, the present research is done. This novel theory is called here, the fuzzy time theory of computation, TC^*.

This is a presentation about the impacts of Logic and Theory of Computation. It starts by some explanations about Theory of Computation and its relations with the other subjects in science. Then we have some explanations about paradoxes and some historical points. In continuation, we present some of the most important paradoxes. Forthcoming, Five subjects around the relations between Logic and Theory of computation is introduced. Finally, we present a new approach to solve P vs NP problem via Paradoxes (Presentation 6/20/2022 In Persian, Online seminar of The Iranian Association for Logic (IAL)