The term NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process) in the NSTP theory means thinking process existing in the form of non-spatial feelings. The theory is comprised of 7 theorems that are stated and demonstrated below.

Theorem 1:

Phenomenal mind (i.e. feelings or qualia) is non-spatial. In other words, no kind of feeling, e.g. feeling of bodily pain, can be represented by any spatial structure.

1. The feeling of bodily pain, for example, is conceptually distinct from its bodily counterpart (i.e. identification of some electrochemical signal in brain) for the following two reasons.

a. This conceptual distinction is obvious or self - evident or axiomatic to me. (It is important to note that I advocate the principle of universal doubt: anything may be possible, for that which is believed to be absolutely (or 100 %) certainly true at present could be false as the intellectual capacities of the believer may be limited. Thus all axioms are 99.99...% certain to me.)

b. The knowledge of the process of identification of electrochemical signal is not at all sufficient for the knowledge of the feeling of bodily pain, for example.

2. Theorem 1 is axiomatic to me. The abstract nature of a spatial structure and mechanism, involving transfer of information (in general, spatial actions), and the abstract nature of a feeling (which can only be experienced) are not equivalent.

Theorem 2:

All kinds of experiences, even abstract thoughts I know I am having, are ultimately feelings (or qualias).

1. When I know I am thinking, for example, this knowledge ultimately comes through some kind of feeling.

2. Theorem 2 is axiomatic to me.

Theorem 3:

I am a (temporal) stream of (non-spatial) mental events (i.e. feelings). I am an NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process).

1. I am a group of feelings. I am not something other than feelings.

a. The feeling of pain, for example, is itself sufficient for its own existence. There is no need of some other substance (which is not a feeling itself) for the feeling of pain, for example, to exist.

b. When I know that I am feeling pain this knowledge itself, according to theorem 2, is ultimately represented as some feeling.

2. The feeling of bodily pain, for example, represents the idea, concept, or thought of the feeling of bodily pain (itself). Thus every feeling represents some thought. So I am an NSTP.

Theorem 4:

Feelings are most certainly real and thus physical or material.

1. The proposition feelings are real is axiomatic to me. I cannot deny I am feeling something at the moment. This feeling is the most real thing while the whole space, with all spatial entities including my body, could be a form of illusion. (I feel therefore I am.)

2. If something is real then it is physical or material. (The only exception to this rule is supposed to be the laws of logic which are meant to be eternal as they must exist forever. They cannot be changed and thus, despite being real, are not called physical or material.)

Theorem 5:

Space ( as a room or void out there: whether three or higher dimensional, bounded or unbounded ) is a mere form/kind of illusion. ( i.e., exclusively / only a virtual reality; a projection of non-spatial mind; a kind of feeling.)

1. The problem of spatial - non-spatial interaction and ontological [Ontology means theory of being. Here the term ontological is thus meant to be that which exists as real (esp. physical/material).] complexity- If space and non-spatial mind are both realities (i.e. ontologically existent) then there are following two possibilities:

a. Spatial and non-spatial entities interact

b. Spatial and non-spatial entities do not interact but rather follow a parallelism

In the first case there is a problem how spatial and non-spatial entities physically interact and in the both cases the model of the universe becomes unnecessarily (ontologically) complex as there are two real (ontologically existent) entities involved rather than just one.

2. The Zenos paradoxes -

a. The racecourse or dichotomy paradox:

There is no motion because that which is moved must arrive at the middle of its course before it arrives at the end. In order to traverse a line segment its necessary to reach the halfway point, but this requires first reaching the quarter-way point, which first requires reaching the eighth-way point, and so on without end. Hence motion can never begin. This problem isnt alleviated by the well-known infinite sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8... = 1 because Zeno is effectively insisting that the sum be tackled in the reverse direction. What is the first term in such a series ? (See David Darling: The universal book of mathematics, 2004.)

b. Achilles and the tortoise:

This is perhaps the most famous of the Zenos paradoxes. The slower when running will never be overtaken by the quicker; for that which is persuing must first reach the point from which that which is fleeing started, so that the slower must necessarily always be some distance ahead. Thus, Achilles, however fast he runs, will never catch the plodding tortoise who started first. And yet, of course, in the real world, faster things do overtake slower ones. (See Simon Blackburn : Dictionary of philosophy, 1996.)

The Zenos paradoxes are out of the misbelief that space exists in the ontological sense, i.e. as a reality, out there. In fact, space is a virtual reality, a form/kind of illusion (existing in the form of non-spatial mind/s). Consequently (spatial) motion is also a form of illusion (to non-spatial observer/s). Thus reality (which is non-spatial) is not constrained by spatial infinities as whatever that is seen (i.e. experienced or felt) as happening in space is a mere illusion, with no resemblance to (non-spatial) reality. And illusion could be of any logically possible kind. In other words, that which creates (or is responsible for) the spatial illusion do not have to bother whether the mover has to first reach half of the distance and so on, or the faster has to first reach the point where the slower started or has infinitely many gaps to traverse, etc. The only thing is that it has to produce some dynamic spatial pattern (actually represented in the form of some non-spatial feelings or states of consciousness), as if a mover moving or the faster overtaking the slower. Thats it.

[ In analogy with (spatial) personal computers (PCs) a software programmer or graphic designer do not at all have to worry with Zenos arguments or paradoxes. All s/he has to do is to design and write a program in order to create an appropriate dynamic or changing pattern on the computer monitor screen. ]

[ The last two of the four Zenos paradoxes have different solutions which are stated in my article The NSTP theoretical resolution of Zenos paradoxes. (Published online. Please consult www.google.com) ]

3. The problem of quantum non-locality -

In 1997 experiments were conducted in which light particles (i.e. photons) originated under certain conditions and travelled in opposite directions to detectors located about seven miles apart. The amazing results indicated that the photons interacted or communicated with one another instantly or in no time. (See Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos, 1999. The non-local universe. 1st ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press.)

This problem is also out of the misbelief that space exists in the ontological sense, i.e. as a reality, out there. (Because if we believe that space does indeed exist in that sense then any spatial communication would need some appropriate spatial structure and time, whereas in the case of quantum non-locality the communication between photons is instantaneous and with apparently no spatial structure/mechanism in between.) However, space being a virtual reality (to non-spatial observer/s) the quantum non-locality is no longer mysterious or problematic as the photons and their behaviour is a mere form of illusion, a virtual reality.

[ Again in analogy with personal computers such a photonic behaviour on the computer monitor screen has no slightest mystery surrounding it, as it is just a dynamic or changing pattern of pixels modulated by some hidden software process/es. ] Zenos paradoxes (being logical) imply that space is logically necessarily a virtual reality. While quantum non-locality (being empirical) implies that space is not logically necessarily a virtual reality. That is, it may exist as a reality in some kind of world where quantum non-locality does not exist.

Theorem 6:

The spatial illusion (to individual non-spatial minds, such as humans, animals, etc.) is (orderly / thoughtfully) created or modulated by some superhuman non-spatial thinking process/es (NSTP/s). In other words, the individual (or peripheral) NSTP/s are created or modulated by some (central) superhuman NSTP/s (i.e. non-spatial feelings representing superhuman thoughts or ideas).

1. There should be some intelligence responsible for the immense order in the universe (e.g. gravitational phenomenon or quantum non-locality). I/we, the individual NSTP/s, are not responsible for the order (i.e. orderly spatial illusion). In general, in any machine where its peripherals are not intelligent enough to account for their own behaviour there has to be some central intelligent part in the machine to bring out the peripheral happenings or phenomena.

[ In analogy with personal computers the order in the dynamic pattern on the monitor screen is created by some central intelligent hardware representing some software. ]

2. As the spatial illusion (say, gravitational phenomenon or quantum non-locality) could be of any logically possible kind there has to be some way to change the ways individual NSTP/s are generated (or created or produced). And for that to be possible there has to be some central intelligence existing in the form of (non-spatial) feelings (It could be existing in some unknown non-spatial form instead, but its my conjecture that it exists in the form of (non-spatial) feelings.), which itself could be modulated to alter (or modulate) the modulation of individual NSTP/s. [ In analogy with personal computers if the software instructions or parameters (ultimately some hardware pattern) are changed the dynamic pattern on monitor screen could be changed (or even destroyed). ]

3. The central NSTP/s represent superhuman thoughts or ideas (or, in general, mind) as they orderly create individual (non - superhuman) NSTP/s which is a super-task, distinctively beyond human capacities.

Theorem 7:

The central superhuman NSTP/s are processed instantaneously (i.e. in zero time).

This is because of no spatial limitations. (In space it takes time to transfer data from one spatial location to another.)

[ Although a conscious human being, for example, is nothing but an NSTP, it is, at least partially, conceptually (as in contrast with physically) bound to the spatial biochemical brain, and thus the central NSTP/s introduce time lag (i.e. temporal experience) in individual NSTP/s. ]

[ Thus, in computer terminology, in the NSTP model of reality the hardware of the universe is composed of non-spatial feelings, while its (central) software is made of superhuman thoughts, and the peripherals represent non-superhuman thoughts, concepts, or ideas. ]

How the non - spatial universal computer exactly works. -

Consider some experimental setup for detecting quantum non-locality. A conscious (human) being observing one of the photons (say A) is actually a peripheral NSTP. An event in this NSTP has some superhuman or meta representation in the central NSTP/s, which is caused and further processed by static (representing laws of physics : in computer terminology main instructions and parameters in the software) as well as dynamic (representing thoughts used merely for the purpose of processing : in computer terminology the run time data) NSTPs. According to theorem 7 this central processing takes no time, and thus within no time (i.e. instantaneously) creates appropriate illusion of the other photon (say B). Ultimately it appears that the two photons communicate with each other instantaneously or in zero time.

[ Theorems 1 to 4 are relatively axiomatic; theorems 5 to 7 are relatively hypothetical; while theorem 6 and thus theorem 7 are not necessary for the NSTP theory, at least for its nomenclature. ]

Conclusion

The 7 theorems of the NSTP theory

1. Feelings are non - spatial.

2. All experiences are feelings.

3. I, a conscious being, am an NSTP (Non-Spatial Thinking Process).

4. Feelings are physical or material.

5. Space is a virtual reality, that fact which the Zenos paradoxes necessarily imply (for if space is a reality, i.e. ontologically existent, then Zenos paradoxes would arise/be unsolved).

6. Individual or peripheral NSTP/s are orderly created by central superhuman NSTP/s.

7. The central superhuman NSTP/s take zero time for being processed.

The NSTP theory

1. Maintains both mentalism (or idealism: only mind is real), as only non-spatial mind is a reality, and materialism (or realism: only matter is real), as mind itself is matter.

2. Coincidently entails the ideas of philosophers, viz Descartes (mind as non-spatial), Kant (space as a projection of mind), Leibniz (material reality as fundamentally non-spatial : windowless monads in Leibniz monadism), and Sankara (world of appearance as Maya, i.e. illusion).

3. Strongly supports that idea of solipsism (Im the only mind in the universe) as well as the idea that any apparently spatial entity could be conscious.

4. Falsifies general relativity, for example, on its physical or ontological side, while retaining its (so called) mathematical validity.

Problems with two other models of reality

1. Many - worlds:

a. Does not explain exactly how a single world splits into many (i.e. multiple) worlds and how multiple worlds unite into a single world.

b. Does not explain consciousness. (i.e. Does not provide appropriate physical basis for consciousness.)

2. String theories:

a. Do not explain consciousness.

b. Do not solve problems like quantum non-locality.