Saturday, May 29, 2010

An every-person's description of the origin.

The seventh step
This is a very rough description of why the universe began, and begins with the seventh step of the order of development that I set out in my introduction. Reiterating - this is just a rough sketch. The full and terse development will be added
soon. First read the introduction. Comments are welcome.

In the beginning
Let an omnet stand in for anything at all. Cats, tables, thoughts, nothingness, things we are not and cannot be aware of, or anything else, is an omnet.

Let 'asset' refer to anything and omnet has. Properties, tropes, relations, names we call things, may all be assets. Equally, none of them might be. We have no way of knowing that we have captured a reality by referring to it from experience. For example 'red' is just my way of referring to what I see as a particular color; but this is more likely just my recognition of a particular wavelength of light, and even this is not sufficient, because the wavelength changes if I move relative to the source of emission. So lets ditch properties, relations and so forth, and stick to assets.

For good reason, in the beginning was the simplest omnet possible. This was not a spacetime singularity. This was not infinitely dense, and all matter and energy was not contained within it. To think it might be so is ridiculous. How would the world know what attributes it had? Why mass and energy, space and time, as opposed to something else? Rather, this omnet is essentially windowless. You cannot know much about that simple omnet because its interior is opaque to inquiry. To investigate its 'inner contents' is impossible for then it would no longer be simple.
Nevertheless, this initial simple omnet has the assets that all omnets necessarily have. For example we can be sure it has identity - it has what it has that makes it what it is. That is, this omnet has the assets it has and no other, and you don't need to know which for this to be true.
Equally one can also say that it has 'place', as in Aristotles idea of place, where all things have their place, and place too has its place. It is easy to see that its identity is the foundation of its place, for if it had any different asset, it would have a different abstract place in the scheme of things.

Importantly, this omnet is finite, in that it cannot be infinite, for this would require that it be other than simple, for it would require extension into something that does not yet exist. Such extension requires variation, and variation would require that the simple not be simple, for there would have to be variations within it.

Being finite, this simple omnet has a boundary; a place at which its domain ends. This does not mean that there is 'outside' the boundary. Exactly what a boundary is is unimportant. What is important is that the boundary is different from the simple omnet, and we can know that it has the assets of a boundary. Moreover, that boundary is itself finite, so it too must have a boundary. And so must its boundary have a boundary.

This does not imply an infinity of boundaries all at once, for the existence of the second boundary first requires the first boundary. That is, the second boundary is ontologically dependent on the first.

After the beginning
Consequently there is order to this growth of boundary omnets
, and this order is independent of time. Rather, this implies a timelike metronome - one state of the world per boundary iteration. Hence time has a foundation.

Because each boundary is, apart from order, the same as every other, there is an interaction between boundary omnets. In one sense, all boundaries would exist at the same place, there being no difference in assets between them at one level. In another sense, no boundary can exist at the same place due to ontological dependence - there is another boundary already in that place, and two omnets which have this one difference cannot take the same place.

These interactions express themselves in all equivalent ways. One way is in one dimension, and this can be regarded as the simplest expression of the universe. When you set out this system of interactions, with each interaction having an interaction value of 1, in a graphical form, the shape of the universe is rather amazing. The sum of the interaction 'vectors' immediately demonstrates several important constants of physics - ln2, exponentials, and so forth. In equivalent higher dimensional interpretations (and this requires some further consideration before you just rush off and do it) fundamental constants such as i and Pi pop out.

Now there is no Big Bang just yet.
This growth is certainly not a Big Bang. It is a regular growth of structure. But for special reasons this growth is expressed in all kinds of ways, in different kinds of universe that all live on top of one another. We can access these kinds through a newly founded mathematics that is a lot like the present mathematics (and simpler in some ways).

There are several options. One is that, soon enough, physical structures of the kind with which we are familiar coalesce in the expanding space as the world gets bigger. Another possibility is that eventually structures collapse in on themselves and pass through the center of the world. Here 'the center' is defined by the point through which these pass, because in some ways (for reasons a bit involved to go into in this rough description) everywhere is the center of the universe for that point, exactly as we find it to be today. (Yes. You are the center of your world, but don't let it go to your head.) For those who have been reading widely, this is indeed the solution to the paradox brought by Bell's inequality - everywhere is connected to everywhere else in one description of the universe (the graph theoretical description - look it up) so any change is immediately conferred (in one sense) to the world at large (no, this doesn't conflict with Einstein's theories, but, again, we aren't really up to that yet).

That said, its a bit more complicated than that.
If you get the gist of all this, then you can go away happy, but this is a very rough outline. Probably there are things I have said here that are not as clear as I would like. Feel free to ask questions and I will use this as a basis to fill in any blanks. Otherwise you can wait for my more in-depth posts.

No comments:

Post a Comment