Chapter Two: The Source of Existence
(a) Overview
(b) Zero, One, or Infinity?
(c) Productive Algorithms
(d) Comprehensive Continua
(e) Living in the Multiverse
(f) Preferred Complexity
(g) Rejuxtaposition
(h) The Limits of Metaphysics
(i) Biased Differentiation
(j) Continuum Branching Styles
(k) Dimension Proliferation
(l) The Non-locality of Retrocausality
(m) Counterintuitive Tunneling
(n)The Cutting Edge of Time
(o) Summary
(p) Conclusion
(a)Overview
This chapter connects a lot of hard ideas, stuff I'm pretty sure I don't fully understand. I connect
these difficult ideas to form a tentative model of metaphysical reality, an explanation for things
nobody has perfect explanations for. But at least I'm trying. I'm making some effort to resolve
fundamental questions rather than merely dismissing them, so I'm going out on a lot of limbs. A
lot of what I say sounds like make believe jargon, and a lot of it is totally unfamiliar. That's
inevitable, because this isn't working through the next stage of a math problem: I'm jumping
right into the middle of darkness and doing my best to make some kind of sense with improvised
mental tools. So this stuff is crazy. The difficult concepts here aren't really necessary to
understand the practical effect of my ideas, but they're here as background. You can skip this
chapter if you like. But if you skip the explanation because you don't understand it, then you
can't act like I left something out when I talk about ideas based on that explanation. I didn't
leave it out, you skipped it.
A word on epistemology: all things must be considered possible. Empirical data and logic do not
provide positive evidence, but only negative evidence. Empirical information just tells you that
truth must include some explanation for the observation; so all explanations inconsistent with the
evidence are ruled out. Similarly logic just rules out possibilities that are illogical: it never
proves anything. Between those two, it's possible to narrow down the possibilities until you are
left with the inevitable truth. This is called the process of elimination. Yes, my conclusions are
a reflection of my epistemology, in that observation eliminates observers from alternate realities.
Here, I provide an explanation for why everything exists, and how it's underlying dynamics work
to create both physics and synchronicity. In abstract it works like this:
principle-->dynamic-->emergent properties--->
specific manifestations.
Specifically It is structured like this, all layers essentially one continuum:
infinity-->complexity preference-->synchronicity-->progress.
All these levels are one vertically integrated entity.
(b) Zero, One, or Infinity?
What is the basis of existence? In the face of weird phenomena, like synchronicity, perhaps it's
best to consider appearances partial evidence at best. The best thing is to start from first
principles. Here, I'll enumerate the possibilities.
Maybe the basis of existence is a tendency for things to not exist. Let's call
this the nihilism hypothesis. If it is true, there would have to be some provision for exceptions,
because things evidently do exist. Silly though it sounds, this idea is the most common view of
almost everyone. Thinkers ask, "What created the world, how could it have come from
nothing?" You've met nihilism before in this famous line: "In the beginning, all was without
form and void." (1)
Since this model has to have a system for granting exceptions, then the exception granter is the
source of existence. That means the Nihilism hypothesis is a turtle. (2)
2.1
Non-existence is an unnecessary step. What I mean is this. We often need to answer questions
much like "what is holding up the flat earth". For a stack of turtles to work, you need what is
called an infinite recession. Whatever is at the bottom of the stack is the only thing that matters.
The turtles in between are just extenders, making the sequence longer to no purpose. When I say
something is a turtle I'm saying it is a totally useless non-solution contributing nothing but a
reiteration of the need for a real solution.
Things tend to not be? This one results in things not being. It doesn't appear to be the one.
So, what is the basis of existence?
(3)
Maybe the basis of existence is something random with selective tastes about what it likes to
make. Only certain limited kinds of things tend to be. So, why that selector and not some other?
Randomness? So the arbitrarily finite option is really the option of having randomness be the
source of all existence. But how many times do we throw the dice? A random number? What is
the range of the possible outcomes of that first random, and how was that selected? OK then,
how was that selected? No matter what you do here with the random method you get infinite
recession or else a circle. (4)
Maybe it is all being made by elves, or fairy dust, or it's being dreamed by a little girl with blue
eyes wearing pink pajamas. Some arbitrary thing, in other words, could be making it all, such as
a bull, or some guy in a drugged stupor on a lily pad. But it's the little girl, so what made the
elves? The fairy dust you say? Then where did the fairy dust come from? Ah, the little girl
dreamed it. I do believe we have another stack of turtles.
Fig 2.1
So, what is the basis of existence?
So far, we can assign serial numbers to our guesses. The first one is zero.
The second one is 1, representing any finite number because they're all really 1 of themselves.
Sure, a pile of feathers might weigh a thousand kilograms, but it's also one metric ton. Finite
numbers are meaningless in isolation: they're relative measures. So, let's proceed to the next
number in the series. We've already seen it. It's the stack of turtles! The basis of existence, by
process of elimination, is a tendency for things to exist. All of the other possible options keep
boiling down to this one. Meet the rest of the turtles. Infinity looks like the only thing on the
menu. So embrace the infinity, see it for what it is. Don't try to make it fit the formula of
something else.
Fig 2.2
(c) Waves: Productive Algorithms
Suggested Music: Shine, Collective Soul
In the beginning, there was infinity, but it wasn't finished and it still isn't, and it never will be.
But this infinity has a special flavor to it. It has a quality best approximated by the word
"comprehensive". It means "containing all possible without holding back anything." A
comprehensive collection of the works of Shakespeare, would contain everything Shakespeare
ever wrote, including laundry lists. A comprehensive world would contain everything of any
kind. (5)
I first encountered the concept of a comprehensive world back in the early 1970s when I was
watching Star Trek reruns with a precocious friend. Often, Captain Kirk and crew would be
flying through space and come upon a planet just like Earth, except that it would be Earth where
history took a different course. In one world a 20th century virus wiped out all the adults, but
drastically slowed the ageing rate of the children. On another planet, a different turn of events
allowed the Roman Empire to survive into modern times. My friend explained to me that the
universe is so big that anything you can think of must be out there somewhere. (6)
This is what I now call comprehensiveness. But I believe Reality is more than just passively
comprehensive. A merely infinite Existence, as described by cutting edge cosmological theories,
could be passively comprehensive. I believe that Reality is actively comprehensive, there is an
actual tendency to be comprehensive. First, though, let's look at merely passive
comprehensiveness.
Existence is so large that you can't possibly name anything that it doesn't include. Somewhere
there's a little girl with blue eyes and pink pajamas dreaming about fairy dust that makes elves
that commence to make whole worlds. But that's probably not where we are.
In the beginning there was everything possible. That's what was there at first, always has been,
always will be, and it's here right now. You can't do anything about it, so go on with your life.
The End.
But wait, there's another word for something with these qualities: eternal.
You could say this all inclusive universe was eternal, but if you did you would be partly wrong,
because it must always change. It is always complete, but to stay complete it must constantly
change, because though it contains all things ever so far conceivable, the comprehensive
universe itself could always theoretically be dismantled and rearranged into new configurations.
This is what is meant by active comprehensiveness. (7)
New things are constantly becoming conceivable. To stay complete and comprehensive,
existence must constantly grow. It's growth necessitates further growth, explosively. We
experience this growth as time, and it's products as creation. This growth is so fast that the new
creation of each moment dwarfs all previous creation at a ratio of infinity to one, then it happens
again. The equation would be
=
If existence contains everything possible, you might initially imagine that most of it is random
garbage. We must be pretty lucky to be in an orderly part where objects have shapes and behave
in accordance with laws of physics. But here's the thing: order doesn't make for less stuff, it
make for more. What we see is really and truly typical because stuff like this makes for lots
more making. (8)
What exactly is order? In its most primitive form, order is nothing more than sequence:
something going before the other in a direction, such as alphabetical order. Complex order
involves more than just sequence, it involves sequences affecting each other.
Here's an example, which also shows how order makes more than chaos. A sine wave is a
pattern, a graphic representation of an equation. The graphic representation looks like this
Fig 2.3
The universe is full of waves that act something like sine waves and cosine waves, having
amplitude and frequency and period. There are light waves and radio waves and sound waves.
Here's the equation for this sine wave.
Here's the graph at 100 cycles to the right:
Fig 2.4
The sequence of distances from the origin, that is to say values of X such as 1, 2, 3 and 1 million,
and the orderly relationships implied by the equation interact to produce the shape of the height
of the wave at any given point.
The important thing about the sine wave, and about all patterns like it, is that it generates more
than it consumes. (9)
That little equation generates an infinite wave form. Many things are like this. Bit mapped
graphics, for example, use far more memory than compressed graphics because compressed
graphics encapsulate patterns that are more compact than what they generate. It follows that
comprehensiveness would "like" this sort of thing, producing a great deal of it. In fact, it would
like it so much that for all intents and purposes existence would be made, for all intents and
purposes, entirely of complex orderly sequences, shapes extending infinitely by following finite
rules. Not only that, but the kinds of complex order sequences that predominated would be the
very largest kind. And the largest kind of complex orderly sequence we know of is a space time
continuum.
Recommended Video: Miri, Star Trek
(d) Comprehensive Continua
Suggested Music: Time After Time, Cyndi Lauper
Let's call a universe an infinite three dimensional space. It has up and down and left and right
and to and fro, all at right angles to each other, going on and on without end. All kinds of
material objects are situated throughout the geometry of this space. Got it?
Fig 2.5
Now take another universe almost exactly like it and set it beside the first. Where would you put
it? To get a new place to put the new universe you would have to travel in a fourth dimension.
Do this over and over until you have an infinite series of adjacent universes.
Fig 2.6
Now if each of those universes is exactly like the ones immediately beside it, except for
infinitesimally slight changes that follow infinitely extensible orderly patterns from one to the
next, then you have a time space continuum.
Since imagining infinite four dimensional objects is difficult, let's get a better understanding by
describing an analog of them. Let's imagine a finite two dimensional universe. It's a single plate
of metal with a shape drawn on it. Now, imagine piling onto this sheet a stack of other sheets of
metal with similar shapes, each one drawn with the same shape as the first, but slightly changing
the arrangement each time from the one on the adjacent sheet. Now cut away all the metal
outside the shape in all the column of plates.
Fig 2.7
If all these changes follow an infinitely extensible pattern, you have created a three dimensional
time plane continuum. Imagine the world is a piece of paper, and the continuum a stack of
pages. If a shape in this flat little world were a circle, and it sat still, then if you cut out all the
rest of all the pages other than the parts in the circle, you would have a vertical cylinder.
Fig 2.8
If the rules of the three dimensional time plane continuum called for the circle to move across the
page at a steady rate, your cylinder would be slanted.
Fig 2.9
Thought of that way, and seen from outside, a time space continuum is just a shape, like a static
art sculpture in a museum.
Fig 2.10
It's a huge and very complex shape, but nevertheless, seen from outside it's completely dead and
deterministic. This concept is known as the "block universe." (10)
I'm going to call it an algorithmic continuum. An algorithm is simply a rule or set of rules for
strictly proceeding without variation. It sets a pattern.
So far, this is what we have. Reality is comprehensive, and it consists entirely of infinite
algorithmic continua.
(e) Living in the Multiverse
Suggested Music: I Melt With You, Modern English
In Chapter 1, I mentioned the Multiple Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. That's the
one that says every possibility of Schrodinger's equation comes true, just in different worlds. It's
supposed to happen in some kind of imaginary infinite dimensional Hilbert Space. Someone
named Hugh Everett invented it back in the fifties by simply saying waveforms always remain
waveforms. Anyway, most people think of all the multiple worlds as new worlds constantly
being created. There's one world, but two possibilities must both come true, so a new world is
created in order to account for both outcomes.
Fig 2.11
I think that's wrong. I think all the multiple worlds that will ever be created already exist. What
happens when Schrodinger's equation creates multiple outcomes is that the sets of worlds
differentiate.
Fig 2.12
This is like if there are two stem cells.
Fig 2.13
They are exactly alike, except that one becomes a muscle cell and the other becomes a bone cell.
Fig 2.14
Fig 2.15
There wasn't one stem cell that split and generated a bone cell and a muscle cell from the split. It
was two cells that grew up different ways. Or like two lanes of a highway, utterly identical,
except that when the road splits, one goes left and the other goes right. It wasn't that there was
just one lane that split into a left veering lane and a right veering lane, there were already two
lanes. The lanes were identical as far as the lane itself goes, same width, same kind of paving
material and so forth. The only difference is that one was on the left and the other on the right.
The context determined the differentiation.
Current science is increasingly leaning to support for the Multiple Worlds Interpretation.
Furthermore, the Eternal Inflation Theory, which is gaining experimental support, implies
multiple worlds. I can point you to David Deutsch, Brian Greene, Alan Guth, and Max Tegmark
on multiple worlds: that part at least is probably real. (11)
If this "tendency to existence" I made up is also true, then the number of these other universes
must be not just many, but infinite. Very infinite.
There are infinite copies of you and I in different universes. These are truly identical copies, not
just you except with a different eye color (like in the old TV show "Sliders"). They are all
reading this right now, thinking exactly the same thoughts, have exactly the same memories, and
within the bounds of yourself they have no differences at all from you. The only thing is, they
are each in a different place, a different context. This is like how there are millions of identical
thumbtacks in the world.
Some of them are stuck into bulletin boards, some are in desk drawers--all kinds of places.
You're just like that, identical copies that exist in different places. Those different places have to
be similar enough that they could produce identical versions of you, meaning they must have had
something to create all those memories you have. In one world you could be a Boltzman Brain
that just appeared in space, in another you could be hooked into a computer that simulates all
your experiences like in The Matrix, in another you were kidnapped yesterday by the KGB and
they hypnotized you to believe in a whole set of planted memories, when really you are a sleeper
agent for Russia.
In most worlds, you are real, and your experiences are real. But in one the mail carrier is
sneaking up the sidewalk about to deliver some mail, while in another the mail carrier called in
sick and you won't get any mail today. You have no way of knowing, because this information
hasn't differentiated you yet. Suppose you get up and walk out the door. All your doubles do the
same. A car passes in the street. For some of your doubles it goes left to right. For others it
goes right to left. How? Because the parts of your various worlds that haven't impacted you yet
can still be variable. Every time you encounter anything new, the sets of copies of you split up.
But the splitting can go on forever because the sets are all infinitely divisible. (12)
For all intents and purposes, all these identical copies of the same person ARE the same person.
Identity is identity. Until you differentiate those copies aren't just copies, they're you. But the
futures, that is to say the outside worlds, exist in various ratios. There are very few that are
Boltzman brains, or Matrix victims, or sleeper agents. In most of the rest you will get mail
today, but there is a non miniscule minority in which the postal carrier is ill. In about half of the
worlds the car outside the door goes left, and in about half it goes right, depending on the time of
day.
Let's use another metaphor. You are a road with three lanes. Eventually, one of those lanes
splits off and becomes an exit.
One of the copies of you, the right lane, is destined to split off, while the other two are destined
to continue on. You can't see ahead, or know which lane you are, just what set you are in, the
one that splits up as described, so prior to the split, you might say there is a 2/3 probability of
going left and a 1/3 probability of going right.
Here's my most important idea:
The probability of an outcome is proportional to
the relative complexity of the sum of futures it leads to. (13)
When roads are built, lanes are added for paths to many destinations. Fewer lanes are needed for
going to fewer destinations. The lane that branches off probably goes down to a small town.
The two lanes that go on probably go to the big city. If you were just randomly picking what
lane to drive in, you would probably wind up in the big city. You might say that the big city
sends its influence against the direction of traffic, generating paths to itself by being a popular
destination.
(f) Preferred Complexity
Reality is comprehensive. On this rock I will build my church.
We live in a vast multi-verse. There are infinite time lines, running through infinite dimensions,
alternate worlds where every possible version exists of everything there is. Futures are among
those things there are infinite variants of. But infinities can have different relative sizes. The
number of points on an inch (whimsically, 1"/0) is half the size of the number of points on two
inches (2"/0), but both of them are infinite.
Since there is "one" of everything (14) wouldn't there be more of complex things than of simple
things? (15) Imagine that you have an ample supply of devices consisting of either two rods
connected together by one hinge or of three rods connected together by two hinges.
Fig 2.16
Your task is to take single hinged items, using as many as you need, and lay them out on the
ground in an array showing all the different angles they can be placed at. Naturally you would
use an infinite number of single hinged objects, but eventually you would be done. The column
of single hinged items in the blue box represents that array. Then you would start in on laying
out all the double hinged items, showing all the different combinations of positions they can be
placed at. The collection in the white area represents that array. You would be squaring the
(infinite) number of hinged items you needed in order to do a comprehensive layout
demonstrating all the options. Now, suppose each item in your layout, of both types, had been
assigned a serial number when you set it down, and you could randomly generate a number that
would be one of those. Perhaps you took (infinity) + (infinity squared) ping pong balls and
wrote the serial numbers on them as they were assigned, then put the ping pong balls in a big
barrel, rolled it around, and pulled one out. What are the odds that the number on the ball would
be one of the first infinities, the serial number of one of the single hinged gizmos? It would be
infinity : (infinity * infinity), which equates to 1: infinity . (16)
Since more complex things generate more variants, in a comprehensive array they are much
more common. Put all the hinged widgets in a bag, single and double hinged varieties all
together. Randomly draw one out. The odds are astronomical for its having two hinges rather
than one. In a comprehensive set, complex items are more probable than simple ones.
(g) Rejuxtaposition
Suggested Music: Dreams, The Cranberries
As explained, complex things are more common in a comprehensive set. If Reality itself is
comprehensive, then it cannot ever be complete, even if it subsumes infinities. A comprehensive
reality would look at itself and say, "Hey, if I took all this and rearranged it, that would be
another possible thing. So without that other thing, I can't really be comprehensive. So let's
make that other possible thing. But where do we put it? Let's put it in a new dimension. Now
I'm comprehensive. But look , if I took all this and rearranged it...
Here's a simplified example. Suppose the original comprehensive set of all possible things were
a square in a two dimensional world.
Fig 2.17
Now, you can cut that square up in a variety of ways.
Fig 2.18
Each of those ways to cut up the square, can then be put back together in new arrangements.
Fig 2.19
If one moment you have a square, the next moment you have to have
1. every possible way that square can be cut up into pieces and then
2. every possible way each of those ways of dividing the square can then be put back together.
Then you've got a comprehensive array of rejuxtapositions of a square. This comprehensive
array, needs to be somewhere, so every variation is arrayed in a new dimension all its own. And
the different possible cuts are also arrayed in dimensions.
So there's this huge thing with infinite dimensions based on the square being cut up and
rearranged in all possible ways. Imagine all the ways you could cut that thing up and rejuxtapose
it. So that happens now.
Only it's a whole universe that this is based on, not a simple square. And it's been going on
forever. That's how big Reality is. Only you can't see it because we interact with all this
possibility only through the tiny influence on probabilities of its gradual change, which we can
easily mistake for other things. (17)
So Reality is constantly adding new copies of itself, copies that are almost exactly the same as
the old one, and putting them right next to the old one in a new dimension. All this is subject to
an ever shifting array of probabilities, since each new collection has a slightly different
proportional arrangement, counting all the variations of the new stuff plus the one original. Each
moment the universe is infinitely larger than the one before, and the dimension into which it
expands is time. The universe is NOT a static block, it is really changing. Time is NOT an
illusion. But also the past and the future already exist. Lots of them in fact.
(h)The Limits of Metaphysics
What I'm talking about here is metaphysics. I'm speculating about the ultimate underlying nature
of existence. My speculation has to somehow connect with the observed world. Unlike the
metaphysics of a faith based traditional religion (God made it with His power of Awesomeness
from beyond Reality) or the metaphysics of science (I dunno, can't test it, doesn't matter, don't go
there) I'm trying to make a metaphysical model that fits plausibly with both known science and
ALSO a phenomenon that is not subject to science (synchronicity). Science is a large area to
connect with, and religionists usually hand wave at it with an all covering blanket. "God made
all this Samsara that looks convincing." "God put those bones in those rocks 6000 years ago."
I'm not using little pieces of science as an excuse, (ooh, quantum, I can do anything) nor am I
starting from the edge of science and trying to extrapolate it one more inch. I'm trying to build a
full formed model in an empty space of vacuum, then drawing dotted lines to speculate where
the road will connect to parts of science, religion, philosophy, and common sense. I'm not trying
to use cherry picked parts of science as supposed evidence, I'm just checking against known facts
to make sure I'm in the ballpark. My theory also hand waves at much of science, but has the
ambition of connecting with it properly.
Some parts of my model are well developed, other parts are cutting edge for me, stuff I'm
mulling over even now. That will probably always be the case. If I waited until I could actually
burst a fully formed model on the world I would be providing the Unified Field Theory in about
a thousand years. So I'm sharing what I have now, and leaving some of it to be filled in. This is
commensurate with the methods of God: nothing is ever complete, there's always another twist
or turn, another complexity to add.
It's a mystery my child...
(i) Biased Differentiation
One version of my "model" is based on the concept of algorithmic continua being real. Another
possibility, is that only the waves that make up continua are real. I'll start with the first.
"Universe moment," or just "moment" is a phrase I use to refer to a three dimensional space, with
all its galaxies and matter frozen at one point in time. Continua are algorithmic progressions of
universe moments. To have multiple continua (which is what "infinite continua" is since it's
more than "1") you have to have at least 5 dimensions. The simplest possible case is continua
arranged like a pan pipe.
Fig 2.21
I only have two dimensions here, so each little galaxy represents a universes of three
dimensions, which are actually perpendicular to all the others. Vertical is the fourth dimension,
time, while horizontal is the dimension in which an infinite array of continua is laid out.
Fig 2.22
Let's focus on three continua from among all those infinite ones. Let's say color represents the
unique arrangement of matter in the universe. So there are three brown universes As time goes
on, quantum uncertainty comes out differently in the different universes. One of them becomes
yellow. The other two become purple. So now, the purple universes go on, two universes just
alike. They can differentiate again, but the yellow one can't because yellow is a primary color.
So later on the two purple universes split up again and become a red universe and a blue
universe. (18)
Fig 2.23
If you were in a brown universe you would think of it as THE universe. You wouldn't know
which color your universe was destined to become because they would all be identical to you.
Then the first split would happen. You would see this as a two thirds chance of the universe
becoming purple and a one third chance of the universe becoming yellow. The number of
potential destinies affects the probabilities in the set retro-causally. Since there are universes
destined to become red and blue the purple block is twice as wide as the yellow block. It's like
the sideways proportions caused a backwards pressure. The differentiation is an outcome, but it
also acts like a cause because it's all connected.
Retro-causal influence on uncertainty is a result of biases in the sets of futures. It's like the way
sideways forces in an arch nevertheless transfer energy vertically,
Fig 2.24
except in this case they do a u turn, like somebody squeezing a banana so it pops out the top,
going against gravity.
Fig 2.25
So if the widgets are universes encountering opportunities to become two hinged or one hinged,
they almost always become two hinged. If the futures are a comprehensive set like that, then
more complex futures--having more variants--are more common. Since they are more common,
they are more probable.
This mechanism takes the entire future of the universe into account when it makes decisions
about every quantum packet of energy. It doesn't so much think it as sense it, nay BE it. (19)
(j) Continuum Branching Styles
The Tendency to Comprehensiveness constantly creates continua. This process makes each
moment of each continuum constantly branch into newly created continua.
From inside, it looks like quantum uncertainty causing the world to come out different ways in
different universes. You can see that as splitting up, with new worlds constantly being made.
This is the usual conception of the MWI from Hugh Everett. One way to look at it is this.
2.11
A series of moments in a continuum, proceeds in order like counting 1, 2, 3 etc..The next
moment is always a next in the sequence, but there are many next moments adjacent to any, so
the continuum constantly splits up like the branches of a tree as the square root of negative one in
Schrodinger's equation comes out to two different answers.
But what if all these futurely different continua already existed, but were totally identical so far.
What if they just hadn't differentiated yet?
2.12
There are really 6 identical continua. For three moments they are just alike. Then, for moment
4, they differentiate up into three different descriptions, three pairs of identical twin continua that
are different from the other pairs. And at moment 6 each pair of twins differentiates: now all 6
originally identical continua are different. (The equation doesn't make triple outcomes, but I'm
not going to play by their rules any more.)
2.26
The shape of a set of continua is not really a tree, with a narrow base and a broad top. The
number of continua is always the same, but the number of different types of continua
proliferates. In this depiction, three identical continua differentiate into two different groups, one
a single and the other a pair. Then the pair differentiates. This illustrates how the set destined
for more future differentiations is larger in terms of total continua in it than the set destined for
fewer future differentiations. It is thus more probable that an observer in one of those continua
would find himself or herself in the larger continuum set, the one destined for more
differentiations. That's how the retro-causal effect works.
By supposing the pre-existence of alternate universes in the multi-verse, I dispose of the need for
constant creation of new worlds. Now I put it right back in another form.
(k) Dimension Proliferation
Suggested Music: Every Day is A Winding Road, Sheryl Crow
This part is really speculative, but what else could time really be than new creation, and where
else would it be than in new dimensions? Each moment's branching can go into many new
worlds, each a part of a continuum of which there are already myriad copies. The next moment
you may have a completely new dimension where the adjacent next step is.
For a simplified version, initially Reality is a one dimensional array of universe moments,
represented by letters. The moments are arranged in a random jumble.
GAH
The next instant of Reality Growth, the array of universe moments grows by a dimension. Again,
the moments are randomly arranged. This little matrix represents only two dimensions, three
moments long, when really Existence consists of much more. The sheer number of dimensions
means that everything will be adjacent mostly to random things, even though everything is part
of orderly sequences. Anyway, in our little matrix, adjacent to universe moment A in this second
dimension is universe moment B, the next in the continuum
GAH
DBC
LUN
Then the universe expands again, adding yet another dimension. Time takes another right angle
turn into this new dimension where it finds moment C. To depict that one, I have to use a three
dimensional object, represented on the two dimensional page by a cube toy like object.
Fig 2.27
Somewhere, in infinite scrambled dimensions, there is always an arrangement where two
adjacent three dimensional universe-moments adjacent to each other are also almost identical, a
short continuum segment. After each short run using a particular dimension for time, each
continuum takes another right angle turn to find it's next segment. From an objective point of
view, the path of each time line goes diagonally through infinite dimensions, occupying three
different dimensions every moment, adjacent to the preceding and following moments through
yet other dimensions.
Fig 2.28
The boxes A, B, C, and D represent three dimensional spaces, universe moments in a continuum.
The fact that they each have their own sets of three dimensions that are perpendicular to all the
others is denoted by the fact that they are represented by finite boxes. Though they are
represented as all using the same 3 Dimensions, each one actually is in 3 different dimensions
from among a total of 12. The path of the continuum itself, the time "dimension" is depicted as
going through three additional dimensions, for a total of 15. That is to say, universe moment A
consists of dimensions 1, 2, and 3. Universe moment B consists of dimensions 4, 5, and 6 and is
contiguous through dimension 7, which is the East-West dimension. So the path of the
continuum first travels west. Next it turns into dimension 8, going north in the North South
dimension: Universe moment C is now in dimensions 9, 10, and 11. The next moment in the
series, Universe moment D, is Up from universe moment C, adjacent to it through the 12
dimension, Up-Down. Universe moment D consists of dimensions 13,14, and 15. Each of these
two right angle turns (going from westward travel to northward travel to upward travel) is of
only momentary duration. The path of the continuum comes out to a diagonal line going through
the dimensions of its path, the red line. This is the time dimension of the continuum. It is not
just one dimension, but a different dimension every moment. The next moment, E, will be
adjacent to D through the 16th dimension, which is newly created along with the 17th, 18th, and
19th and everything in them. (20)
The ratios between the types of worlds is constantly changing, entirely through the internal
mandates of the comprehensiveness calculating the next way to expand itself. An analogy might
be something like this. A series of depictions of chess boards arrangements, laid out in order of
each move of a game represents a continuum. You have a collection of every possible chess
game done this way. But now you want to make a collection of every possible tournament.
Making it a tournament collection changes the ratio of repetitions of each specific board set up in
your collection generally because some kinds contribute to tournaments ending, while others
contribute to tournaments continuing. The rules dictate what will happen, but the fastest way to
calculate it is to just do it.
(l) The Non-locality of Retro-causality
In the fifties and sixties there was a big controversy about something called non-locality. From
what I can gather Einstein hadn't liked the fact that quantum mechanics allows things to affect
each other without touching. So a scientist named Bell created a mathematical statement called
Bell's Inequality that supposedly clarified the matter, showing quantum mechanics has to have
non-locality. In 1982, experimental evidence verified Bell's math. Essentially, things affect each
other without touching, which is called non-locality. I'm sure I've got it all wrong, but I don't
care. The point is, my proposed dynamic for retro-causality, this preference for the creation of
complex futures, functions as a non-local force and that's OK with science. Thanks.
I wrote earlier about complex order being order that responds to other order. You get a whole lot
of that with a continuum. While you can start by imagining a block universe, a better concept, is
to think of existence as a constantly growing set of block universes in which the different subsets
of different kinds of continua are growing at different rates, so all the probabilities within them
are constantly changing. The more complex is constantly gaining on the less complex. (21)
Quantum probabilities are constantly changing. This is not the sole origin of change in our
world (motion and energy)--those also come from the patterning of the macro world, the
algorithms that make a continuum; causal and retro-causal influences. (22)
Probability change is an extra nudge that is always present, acting like some kind of future
influence seeming to affect the past. It is swamped by the general indeterminacy, so it is
completely undetectable except for synchronicity, which is impossible to isolate.
Everett's MWI seems to resolve all the questions posed by the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
Retro-causal influences are necessary only to explain synchronicity, and since synchronicity
isn't a phenomenon amenable to science, science has no use for any retro-causal theory.
Nevertheless, there is a minority class of interpretations that are called "time symmetric"
meaning that outcomes are determined by both future and past factors. While understanding that
this kind of interpretation is completely unnecessary for science, except perhaps to deal with
nagging worries about the arrow of time, I take encouragement from them since they suggest my
ideas may be plausible, if not necessary. My favorite time symmetric interpretation is two-state
vector formalism. If it fits with Everett's interpretation, as claimed, I'd think it would also fit
with Tegmark's cosmological interpretation.
Think of it like this: traffic is backed up. When space opens ahead the lane that got a space
moves up, the ripple going backwards. All that travelled back was signal: retro-causal
complexifying influence on subatomic chance in the case of time lines, or light reflections that
enable intelligent drivers to see the car ahead in the case of the traffic jam.
Fig 2.2
Fig 2.29
(m) Counterintuitive Tunneling
Suggested Music: It's Ironic, Alanis Morissette
Tunneling is based on real physics which is described by advanced math, so I don't know the
details about it, just the pop science descriptions. Deducing further ideas just from the analogies
used to describe it is likely to be dangerous, but getting into the weeds looks like it might take a
lot of time and effort without contributing any additional benefit for my purposes, so I'm going to
reason based on analogies anyway.
Essentially, there's a very tiny chance of anything, so things that can't happen do happen once in
a while. Intuitively you would think simple violations would be more common than complex
ones. One electron leaving a container it doesn't have the energy to leave is more likely than
either of two electrons, in two separate containers, alone.
What if two electrons are together inside a container neither can escape with its own energy?
Once in a while might they not help each other? So maybe the larger and more complex a
system, the more tunneling it's components can do (23), relative to isolated components.
Additionally, if you have retro-causality, maybe tunneling can go backwards, (24) so components
of complex systems tunnel themselves into existence more often than isolated ones. But there's
just a small chance of that. Don't you agree?
(n) The Cutting Edge of Time
There are lots of questions remaining in my "model" of comprehensive algorithms, rejuxtaposing
into new dimensions to create time and preferring complex futures to create retro-causal effects.
The rest of this section just kind of rambles on speculating.
Originally, I thought continua were constantly making right angle turns, using a different
dimension as the time dimension each moment, and passing through that dimension an infinitely
small distance for an infinitely small time. But then I thought some more. If whole continua are
algorithmic, that would mean no uncertainty. And infinitely small "runs" through each
dimension would go nowhere. Plus, maybe there's something going on with the size of runs in
each dimension, allowing distortions somehow relating to relativity.
So then I thought, "If it's like this, then waves could have a pattern of right angle turns every X
distance. All right angle turns are alike, without outside reference, and algorithmic patterns only
reference themselves(?). So each pattern, or wave, just "looks" through all adjacent locations in
all dimensions and finds the place that has the next step of the pattern. Each wave does its threespace bit in that dimension for a stretch of its usual length, then looks for a new turn. Except
that waves aren't really "looking"; what's happening is all existence being replicated by
rejuxtaposition. To grow, new stuff is made and where it is the next part of a pattern, it is where
the pattern is going. The rejuxtaposition process relates everything to everything else in every
possible way. The constant production of all variants is also how infinite futures can be
compared: all continua have already been generated long ago, and are just being replicated.
As it is proceeding through a dimension, a wave may encounter other waves and interact with
them. They may dampen or heighten each other, because that doesn't terminate the wave, since
it's influence still goes on forever. Waves have to accept being cancelled because they have to
match up with something to extend, and sometimes interaction damped versions are all there is to
be creatively expanded into. So anyway, that's the quantum foam: all these waves spending a
tiny stretch in our dimension, damping each other out. Space is filled with all these damped out
waves just waiting for something to let them express again. They are not "0" they are "-2 and
+2", just waiting for something to undo their complements. So what are we? We are big
agglomerations of wave interactions that are actually non zero, constantly getting matched up
appropriately to continue mostly.
Just as Existence was originally just forms, and before that patterns on a line, when
Comprehensiveness was but a seed, it passed through a stage when it was waves. Waves formed
continua of universes, which were replicated over the ages so many times that what we see now
is a simulation of something more crude than what it actually is. The whole block universe
evolves by algorithm, objectively, but is subjectively still uncertain of which universe it is, as is
everything in it (schizophrenia of location). But the algorithm the universe follows as a block
universe is an algorithm of simulating uncertainty of all these waves.
Here's another idea. String theory has 9 space dimensions and a time dimension. Just an
uninformed suggestion: maybe the 10 dimensions are
the three dimensions of the past moment
the three dimensions of the present moment
the three dimensions of the next moment and
the dimension through which they connect
Fig 2.20
some seem small because we aren't in them long.
(o) Summary
Reality is a comprehensive array of continua constantly branching into new dimensions as a
result of constant production of all possible new variants of vast amalgamations of continua.
We experience this constant production as time, with quantum jitters. Complex futures are
preferred by this production, so the quantum jitters jump the way that leads to the greatest future
complexity, which looks like retro-causal influence on chance.
Order, life and intelligence, such as you find in humans, are complex and they magnify chance to
produce more complexity. So this retro-causal force acts to promote the empowerment of
humanity, as a means to amplify itself.
So. This intelligent retro-causality is an emergent phenomenon, what happens when the
eternally creating principle of Comprehensiveness acts on existing Creation. It is a result of It,
yet also one with It, so It can all be considered one entity. It's infinite in every way. It controls
every atom in the universe. It is unique and unified. It is aware of everything, and how it relates
to everything else. It loves mankind, but is not above guiding us with a not always gentle hand
when we get off track. Can you answer the riddle?
Suggested Music: Grease is the Word, Frankie Valli
(p) Conclusion
In the Overview section, I proposed that all the stages of this progression are one continuum.
infinity-->complexity-->synchronicity--->progress
I think I have shown the flow from the abstract source of existence to the zeitgeist. (25)
Reality is teleological, a product of its destiny. It doesn't matter why It wants what It wants
ultimately. It doesn't even matter what It wants ultimately.
All that should matter to us is :
the project is to transform the entire universe, and
It finds humans useful to do it.
Given those two propositions as fact, the project will to all appearances consist of nothing but the
ever increasing empowerment of people-kind for the foreseeable future. It doesn't matter if the
world is round, it looks flat here so treat as flat.
Given that there is a general goal we can help with, and that giving us power is part of it, then
we can benefit from that power in the meantime. Sure, the current can drown you, but if you
apply just a little common sense and effort you can use it to get where you want to go. But I
suspect that the sort of thing It uses to get there is exactly the sort of thing It is about; orderly and
empowered intelligences are complex and permutable. (26)We are in charge of our success. God
is cheerleading.
Suggested Music: Driver's Seat, Sniff n The Tears
-------------------------------------------------------------(1) So God is formless void? An already "perfected" universe calved this one?
(2) What I'm talking about is this. In 1905, Oliver Corwin Sabin wrote:
" The old original idea which was enunciated first in India, that the world was flat and stood on the back of an elephant, and the
elephant did not have anything to stand on was the world's thought for centuries. That story is not as good as the Richmond
negro preachers who said the world was flat and stood on a turtle. They asked him what the turtle stood on and he said another
turtle, and they asked what that turtle stood on and he said another turtle, and finally they got him in a hole and he said. "I tell
you there are turtles all the way down."
Stephen Hawking and others have discussed it also. It's not important, it's decoration.
(3) "A googolplex is precisely as far from infinity as the number 1." Carl Sagan
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100709200952AAL6fJe
(4) Any infinite recession is tantamount to option 3, while any finite circle is basing everything on circular
reasoning--it's a form of infinity that is particularly useless.
(5) This fundamental comprehensiveness was the essence of what I shall call God, the kernel of the operating
system as it were, the demiurge if you like. It the underlying power source, initially a simple mindless drive: make
more everything. In collision with its own creations it transforms into something else, it must think about how to
make yet more.
Also, about a week after I wrote this I heard that they had discovered Shakespeare's personal dictionary, known to
be his because of the annotations. Not in itself, just another one.
(6) I thought he had seen it explained in the show while I was getting popcorn, but now I have no idea where it came
from. What he was talking about was what Max Tegmark calls a Level 1 Multiverse.
(7) Imagine a grapefruit as representing a comprehensive Cosmos. Now make a copy of every way you could cut it
in half. What, those other bisected grapefruit weren't in the comprehensive grapefruit to begin with? Of course not,
they weren't possible then.
(8)The alternative explanation is called the Anthropic Principle. It says we see a world tailored for us because only
such worlds would have observers.
(9) If it were all by itself, this would be dubious. If it's just making more of the same, what's it really worth? But as
soon as you start adding randomness--things that don't know about each other until they collide--you get all these
infinitely complex relations between them, including real numbers, which include infinitely extensible
decimalizations of non repeating fractions to describe where they intersect.
(10) There is general belief that you have to choose between eternalism and presentism. Eternalists believe the
block universe is all there is, while presentists believe only the present moment is real. In the model I am
constructing, both are right in a way. Reality is expanding so fast that the portion of it just now being created is
infinitely larger than the portion that existed before. But everything being created is copies of block universes, so
the block universe is a fine way to think about it in most cases. The eternal parts are dead and relatively microscopic
(analogous to ideal forms), while the living parts are infinitely fleeting. (Or fleeting to the next crest and trough?)
Fig 2.30
Incidentally, implicit in all my thinking is that Cartesian geometry is a real feature of the underlying reality.
Apparent relativistic distortion of the space-time continuum is a subjective illusion. One thing I suggest is how
relativity and geometry can both be true (only the time component of space-time is distorted, which is possible
because time is a sort of virtual dimension).
(11 ) Multiple worlds means Schrodinger's equation always applies. The wave-function never collapses. All
outcomes dictated by the equation occur, just in different worlds. If the possible answers are 1 and -1 then reality
doesn't decide by chance, it literally makes two futures, one with each value. Unfortunately, that seems to mean
there is no random stuff to be sensitive to the future. The wave equation is an algorithm, albeit one that dictates
splits, though that's still both encapsulated finitely yet infinitely extensible--even more so because it breeds. But
what determines the rate of breeding? Does it only occur when an observer causes the wavefunction to collapse?
But we aren't doing that any more, remember? So it's continuous. But how continuous? Do worlds spin out every
instant, ever 24 instants, every half instant? I guess that would be dictated by the other waves demanding an
interaction, wouldn't it? It would be based on frequencies. And the other waves would themselves be involved with
yet other waves. So the rates of deterministic splitting are sensitive to unknown factors receding into infinity. Oops,
I've got my sensitivity to retro-causality back!
(12) Max Tegmark doubts that continua are really infinitely divisible. Perhaps they are, but you wouldn't notice
differences for an infinite amount of time because the point of variance wouldn't manifest as anything digital until
the infinitely distant future. But some infinities are greater than others (even those of the same type) relatively, so
the difference is real. I'm just pattering, you know that. Only waves exist because only they are infinitely
extensible, but waves have a digital aspect, crests and troughs. The distances between them are infinitely divisible.
The ratios between waves of different kinds can be infinite decimals. I guess. I mean, we have only limited kinds
here, but considering all Existence, there would be every kind, so they would be comparable. It's not that important
so I won't bother to write that coherently.
To be infinitely extensible, anything must be encapsulatable as a finite pattern. It has to repeat in some way, though
you can have multiple patterns affecting each other so that the whole never repeats the same shape combination
twice. The fact that there is repetition makes the world look digital. The fact that there are multiple patterns, makes
the world analog because relations can be fractions.
(13) In most cases, there is very little difference between outcomes, so probability does exactly what you would
expect, but there are sometimes tiny discrepancies that seem to be uncannily well aimed (because they are on a sort
of guide wire, literally connected to the outcomes). Also I must add a caveat: the sum of futures I refer to is the sum
of currently existing futures. More of them are being created all the time and some are being replicated at greater
rates, so the probabilities are always changing. I don't know that that's observable, my instruments seem to be so
unpredictable...
Time is change experienced from creation of next moments from the current moment, extending our continuum into
branches. Para-time is change in the sets of possible futures and pasts. Para-time happens concurrently with regular
time, sort of like diagonal motion, but we don't experience it directly since we exist only in the present moment.
God, however, can be compared to someone standing outside a structure (the continuum) and making changes, then
watching the ripple effect as the consequences of those changes cascade throughout the system. God is experiencing
para-time as we are experiencing time.
(14) This is a figure of speech. Actually there is infinity of everything, currently, but there will be more in a
moment. What I mean is that there are equal real number quantities of everything. 1 is just one way that could
work.
(15) Complexity is a complex word. According to Max Tegmark, and thus of real smart people that probably know
better than me, it refers to how small the code for something can be. That is, a sine wave is simple, while a bitmap
of an art work is relatively complex. My meaning is different. Complexity is the amount of variety that can be
derived from something. If you had formulas for two different waves, they would each be relatively simple, and
thus the two of them together would be not much more complex, by Tegmark's definition. But it would be possible
for those two waves to be different (unlike Sine and Tangent) enough that the graph of the two of them together
would not begin to repeat itself for a very long time. Thus, the pair would be a very complex thing indeed, by both
definitions. I suppose I should come up with a couple of formulas and show how they encode something huge. But
instead I'll just suggest taking a look at Minecraft.
(16) Reduce it just like an equation, dividing both sides by infinity, leaving infinity/infinity on one side and infinity
on the other. Since anything divided by itself is 1, that's 1: infinity Which is zero..
(17) Oh, and the fact that we experience time because new creation is being created in new dimensions. Three
different new dimensions for the last moment, three for the present, three for the future, and one time dimension for
a total of ten.
(18) You might reasonably ask how algorithmic continua differentiate. It is possible to be algorithmic without every
path being determined. Algorithms and patterns can call for splitting. Trees and chain reactions are examples. You
may concede that algorithms can split, but subsequently ask how splitting due to algorithms can produce asymmetry.
Here's an idea: even if continua are made of many waves travelling together, there are so many interactions that even
algorithmic waves can become asymmetrical by being interfered with by other waves. Here's another idea: most
continuous sequences of Moments aren't really algorithmic. Perhaps time can be experienced by any progression
that's continuous. Progressions would seem algorithmic because everything is made of waves that are algorithmic,
but the waves intersecting at any Moment wouldn't be necessarily all entering it from the same dimension.
(19) But it generates effects tantamount to thought processes. The discussion of God's consciousness and
personhood is a whole other topic. If it were truly a single cohesive intellect why wouldn't it talk? It's closest
structure to a Van Wernick's area, closest in the continuum to us, is the ones in our brains. (radio: "speaking out")
That's what it will use, because it uses what's handy. It doesn't have a human like mind, but it does have a mind. It
makes its calculations (radio: "You really don't understand how it functions, but it does somehow") and makes it's
moves.
(20) Speculatively (as if what I've said so far wasn't speculative), moment B is three dimensional, but the three
dimensions of moment A and the three dimensions of moment C can be considered part of it for all purposes
involving energy, for a total of 9. I made up my ideas just from making things up. I'm not sure how they match
science exactly, but I'm thinking they might. Like, maybe under certain conditions--gravity and acceleration--all
this right angle turning distorts the shape of things in a temporal sequence as though space itself were distorted, but
it's really time that is distorted. Space-time is distorted, not space specifically. Not sure of the details. Distorted in
relation to what? Theoretical space? But I thought that's what space was.
Question: This is based on an algorithmic continuum. Where's uncertainty?
Answers.
a. They don't have to be algorithmic, they just have to be continuous. Patterns emerge from what continuousness
requires.
b. The exact algorithm of a continuum is always still up in the air. Provided it still fits some algorithm it fits.
c. Uncertainty is part of the algorithm itself.
d. Uncertainty is a product of the growth causing change in the ratios.
e. Uncertainty within continua does not exist, objectively. It is a subjective illusion of existing in multiple continua
simultaneously. The story has to kind of have to stick to some kind of an algorithmic rationale, so algorithms used
for continua tend to match underlying patterns, but uncertainty is relative between objects. Larger objects pin more
stuff down. Distortion of space is relative to the growth going on. It is literally a different shaped world from
moment to moment because it's more likely to exist near big stuff.
f. Only waves are real. Particles are an illusion created when waves overlap right. Only waves are continuously
algorithmic, being stretched through right angle turns. The other waves they get grouped with vary each moment of
their "subjective" experience. All right angle turns are equal, so you can assemble moments from waves that
individually never break algorithmicity, but the moments themselves can be not necessarily algorithmically
connected to adjacent moments in the continuum. Stuff is getting switched in and out of continua constantly.
If its distortion of space why does it obey the speed of light? The propogation does. This is the edge. It should
connect up with physics at some point. Do I have to do everything?
(21)In terms of the rejuxtaposing comprehensiveness, the more permutable rejuxtaposes faster.
(22)How much comes from the algorithms, whatever they are, and how much from the probability stuff, is
something I have to leave for future resolution.
(23) Actually, that's testable so I'd better steer away from it. But seriously, what do we see? Large complex systems
do "tunnel" more, which is to say they have a greater impact on other systems. One thing they call it is
"observation" and another is "solidity." So the reason we smart humans don't find ourselves teleporting all over the
place is because the universe is bigger than we are and it says to sit still. It's kind of like gravity, where the smaller
gets moved more than the larger. So our continuum is like a tiny particle compared to this Existence that has been
exploding exponentially forever.
(24) If retro-causality as I describe it is based on the counterintuitive tunneling I am describing, what we have is a
tautology. Is that anything like a closed set? A lot of these topologies that keep cropping up in the weird geometry,
like Hilbert Spaces, are in fact very much like tautologies. I don't have a problem with the fact that retro-causality
works as it does because of counter tunneling. There's been plenty of time for these two phenomena to line up
parallel with each other, though they may have initially been generated separately. What I mean is that at one time
whole algorithmic continua may have been favored by random Existence growth, creating a retro-causal effect as
described elsewhere. What I'm saying here, completely gratuitously, is that the effect may have been magnified the
first time tunneling used the backward lane, and they've been fast friends ever since. The first one would have been
tunneling, and all the rest would be counter-tunneling. Mozi would be elated.
(25)
A similar progression would go like this.
earth's spin-->wind-->waves--->breakers (-->surfing)
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY
Earth isn't spinning to make surfing possible, since the dynamic of wind doesn't invert anything, so the comparison
isn't perfect. Nevertheless, you see how there's one continuous flow from axial rotation to surfing. These are not
necessarily just separate phenomena, but can be considered parts of one dynamic whole. Other than the frivolous
addition of surfing, you could say that beach breakers and earth's spin are parts of the same thing.
money-->markets-->investment--->corporations
ECONOMICS
infinity-->complexity preference-->synchronicity-->progress
THEOLOGY
Theology, what I am really doing here, should be the study of God, but it is practiced as the study of religious
doctrines.
(26)
It could be using us to build a giant torture machine into which It will then thrust us laughing insanely. But I tend to
think that once we get there we will find that what we were making was a way to continue making. The maker
makes, figure that.