Last updated: 2nd March 2006

Last updated: 22nd March 2007

(First draft begun 12Sept00)

revised and/or updated since: 14sept00, 21sept00, 23sep00, 25sep00, 30sep00, 02oct00, 05oct00, 10oct00, 13oct00, 14oct00, 19oct00, 22oct00, 23oct00, 26oct00, 27oct00, 28oct00, 29oct00, 01nov00, 04nov00, 06nov00, 08nov00, 09nov00, 10nov00,15nov00, 19nov00, 22nov00, 24nov00, 04dec00, 12jan01, 13jan01, 24jan01, 27jan01, 07feb01, 21feb01, 22feb01, 05mar01, 19mar01, 23may01, 08jun01, 21oct01, 23oct01, 12nov01, 02dec01, 30dec01,25jul03, 23aug03, 29aug03, 12oct03, 14oct03, 15oct03, 17oct03, 18oct03, 19oct03, 20oct03, 21oct03, 23oct03, 05nov03, 13nov03, 25dec03, 14jan04, 04feb04, 03mar04, 12may04, 20may04, 28may04, 03jun04, 07jun04, 10jun04, 11jun04, 16jun04, 17jun04, 18jun04, 19jun04, 24jun04, 25jun04, 26jun04, 27jun04, 29jun04, 07jul04, 10jul04, 14jul04, 16jul04, 20jul04, 22jul04, 26jul04, 03aug04, 22oct04, 27oct04, 14dec04, 16dec04, 21dec04, 24dec04, 30dec04, 13jan05, 16jan05, 10feb05, 02mar05, 09apr05, 14apr05, 16jun05, 02mar06,09mar06,12nov06,23nov06,22mar07

The Structure of Reality

by Gary T. Forbat

Introduction to the Theory

                                                                       

DIALOGUE ON SPACE, TIME AND MATTER

Copyright (C) Gary Forbat 2000 - 2005 all rights reserved,                                                                         

                                                                                                                                 

Part 1

Will we ever be able to understand the reality ? – is that your question?

Yes, that’s about it. What we are daily experiencing. Can we ever come to know what it really is?  We perceive images of a world of matter. These images seem to be dependent on a physical brain, which itself is a part of a physical reality. What I am asking is whether you think it possible that we may fully understanding it one day?

We are getting some sort of understanding aren’t we? .   

Some sort of understanding, as you say. But can we ever hope to fully understand it?  

I must admit it is not the subject I most often think about. My first impression is that would be highly unlikely. Everything is going out of focus at the peripheries.

That’s just the point. All would be well if everything was straight forward. But we know there is something wrong, since quantum theory cannot describe large scale matter behaviour. It should be able to. Nor can the theory of relativity break down to predict the behaviour of matter on the quantum scale.

Everyone knows this old debate, but it hasn’t got anywhere in a long time. The fact is each theory works amazingly well in its field of competence.   

That may be, but it does not make it the correct theory. While the two theories cannot be reconciled, there will be a question mark above them. On the evidence there is something wrong with both of them.

We have come a long way on what we have

That’s true. Each theory gives remarkable results. There is no question that in those areas there is a close relationship to reality. But only in some specific fields. In the residue it skews away quite considerably, with no sense to be made of it.  A close parallel does not make it right. Newton’s theory is thought to be that. Representative to a certain level of exactnesss, but not beyond.  

I believe there is still hope of discovering that bridging principle. In any event, at this stage we have nothing else to go on.   

Just a short time ago I would probably have thought much the same, but recently something has intervened to disturb my peace. That’s why I’m here to ask for your advice.

Advice? By all means, I am happy to help in any way.  

Just recently I heard about a theory which purports to explain everything. And on the face of it, it does.  

Explain everything?

Yes, just like I said, everything to do with the physical world of matter, fully and comprehensively. .

That is a big claim. Is this a new idea in physics?

Yes, but it has broader application. It is more like a framework of basic principles within which everything makes sense.   

Everything?

Yes everything, and it makes perfect sense.  

And the mathematics? Has anyone judged that?

It is not done with mathematics., but rather with intuitive concepts and ideas with complex logical implications. I myself was shocked at first. It is all done with language, but outlines a picture of reality that brings everything into rather than out of perspective.  .

I can’t quite see how this can work without the maths.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be mathematical formulations of it. When we get down to the finer details it will no doubt be required. Let me explain it. Perhaps a time when it’s convenient for you to expend a few hours. .

It’s ok, you have got me curious and I have the power over my time . Tell me firstly, does this mean that quantum physics and relativity are to be discarded?

Not by any means. They just need to be reconciled to the framework, rather than to each other.  

I don’t know how long I can follow this without hearing something more specific. Where can I find this theory, in which journal, or what book, and of course, who is the author?.....and,…come to think of it, why don’t I already know about it?

You may think it strange but I heard about it at a dinner party.

A dinner party? Heh,..some interesting dinner party that must have been.  

I know it’s not exactly dinner party conversation, but it started quite innocently as an amusement. Then, the entire company became so intrigued that we ended up going into it at length.

I suppose it is only at a dinner you could come across something so different. Concepts and logical images indeed. A full explanation did you say, or that you were full on the night?

We had a lovely wine that evening, and I was as sceptical as you when I first heard about it. I arrived that night and the kind hosts informed me that the author of a theory of reality had been invited, and asked if I could partake in encouraging discussion on it. It sounded like a bit of fun, and as a good guest I obliged. As it happened I was seated  alongside our author, so I opened with a light mention that someone must be impressed with his ideas, as they had mentioned it to me. “Impressed indeed or perhaps amused?” was our author’s jovial reply. ‘Perhaps you could tell me about it’ I said. The author laughed and said perhaps another time. The moment had passed and we resumed a light sociable air over dinner. Later that night, over coffee, the opportunity arose again when the hosts, by this time aware of the author’s reluctance, blatantly announced him as the visiting “thinker, scientist, philosopher” and asked he would briefly explain his theory. He thanked them for their interest , but said he did not want to be tedious, the topic was too complex for an easy night’s discussion. Things did not look promising, but we entreated and he finally agreed, with the reservation that he had been for a time devising a method of easy explanation, which may not  be perfected yet. However, he was prepared to try it on us, if we had the patience. I must admit the wine over dinner made us a little more agreeable that we may have been under different circumstances. We all agreed he should try his method and get the immediate feed-back on our receptivity. Then we all fell silent in anticipation, expecting him to begin with something spectacular. But he simply began by asking whether we all agreed that the atomic structure was a composite system of interactive particles? How could we not agree? It was like a Socratic dialogue. From those easy beginnings we went on a journey of thought until a couple of hours later we all dispersed with heavy minds. I was a little disoriented from the shock of what had been discussed, and the new vision revealed.. By the next morning the haziness brought about by the alcohol had totally lifted and I could think of  the discussion the night before. The ideas became vivid and clear.  I kept going over and over it to get a better perspective. Then my view of many things began to re-align. At the least I could not ignore the possibility. It stuck in my mind and matured, fermented, and here I am asking you to consider it for yourself.

Tell me more about this theory. I want to see how you have fallen into this obvious error in your thinking. I don’t for a moment entertain that these ideas could ever impress me as it has you and your friends over dinner.

Perhaps you are right. I’m leaving the question open and I ask for no favours or sympathy in judging them. If I had fallen into error I would certainly want to be the first to know about it. On the other hand, you may get a surprise as well.

It would be refreshing but I don’t contemplate it. Now tell me more.

I’d like to give you a description in a sentence or two, but I could never do it justice. In my enthusiasm the morning after hearing it, I tried to find the words to explain it to a friendly neighbour. It went awfully wrong and we got bogged down in an unending series of minor issues. I realise now that while it is a clear and simple conceptual idea once it is understood, it is more difficult to explain it those hearing it the first time. After that experience, I saw that the author’s method had a meaning. I could only now appreciate his comments about the time it took and the difficulties encountered to devise a general introduction. The best way I can see to explain it to you is to retrace the steps of author’s dialogue

Can you still remember it well enough?

I should be able to, I have thought enough about it lately. As I said, the first step is about the composite nature of the atom. That night we all agreed. How about you now?

Ok, and then where does it lead?

Does the region of space occupied by these parts of an atom equal the region occupied by the atom itself? Of course not. The sum of volumes for the individual particles is much less than the volume of the atom. Why? Because there is some very rapid interaction which creates a wider exclusion zone.  Then comes a key question: what kind of movement between parts can create an enduring and stable formation like an atom?

I am not sure what you are getting at. I know there is some sort of a wider electron cloud formed around the nucleus

Would it not need to be repetitive or cyclical in some way to maintain this degree of stability?

How do those undulating electron clouds around the nuclei fit in with anything cyclical ?

There are good observable examples of cyclical activity in everyday nature that demonstrate the point. In astronomy, take the cyclical orbit of the planets around the Sun to form a stable solar system. The agent of interaction is the force of attractive gravitation, but speed and direction interacting with it can produce a finely balanced cyclical orbits. Of course, an atom is quite a different entity with tiny distances and very high speed movements, yet the cyclicality must be present to keep up a stable formation and have constancy in chemical interaction.  

It makes some sense, but I would need to think on it longer. I’ll reserve judgement.

Ok, if the principle stands, the next step is to look at the individual components themselves, whether they are composite of smaller parts in interaction? Science already knows about quarks at a next level of reduction.  If quarks interact to form protons, then how can they interact other than cyclically to be able to maintain the stability of the proton over time?

It makes sense in those terms, yet we cannot yet read that level well enough.

The next step, to identify the quark as a product of interaction or not. We haven’t the decisive evidence either way, but it can be affirmed that then the quark either is or is not a fundamental unit. At least that much must be true. We need to examine each of the two residual possibilities. Take the first, the fundamental particle aspect. What would it need to be like to call a particle fundamental.

I have come across the term elementary particle, but I’m not sure if it is the same.

Lets call a fundamental particle one that cannot be divided, not does it have particles in interaction within it. It is an absolute particle, indivisible and impenetrable, even by rays. It is solid, cannot be denser. Absolutely dense? Does that not lead to gravitational problems, with little black holes as comprising the basis of matter?

That is just one way of looking at it. How about the multi-dimensionalists who propose spatial curvatures that can transform or dissipate the focus on root causes?

Any kind of transformation to another level whether multi dimensional or not would count as reduction. Then there is the problem of what is the root of the transformation?Another transformation? It really all points to continuing transformations. After all a causal system must have roots in infinity, for however far back we choose to go, there will always be root causes for that position, therefore breaking down to infinity. In other words, there is never a stage where one can justifiably declare that there are no causes for that position. As you see, a fundamental particle will be very difficult to maintain, and adding extra dimensions sets of another sequence of deconstruction. Anywhere there is causality, there must be infinity. And where is there no causality?

Then the question of infinite reduction becomes much more tenable. But we have been talking only about matter, leaving out the complete picture of it being embedded in a spatial environment. The spatial environment is a pure emptiness, three dimensionally structured with the continuity of time as the fourth.  

Ok, so far I follow your meaning, but could it not be that space may be more than three dimensional and still be empty. Otherwise how else can we explain the behaviour of light and of objects in a strong gravitational field? Their behaviour suggests a warped space, and that could not occur with just three dimensions.

There is evidence that objects behave as though space was warped. But then, it may also be that it is not space, but the objects that are warped by gravitation. After all, forces always emanate from matter, and forces facilitate interaction between different configurations of matter. It is all self contained within the scope of matter. Space has no interactive powers, being no more than a domain of infinite emptiness. Matter simply warps in the presence of gravitation. Light itself is a function of matter, and therefore warps in its path, like matter does. The warping itself results in a red-shift in the wavelength, though the wavelength is an abstraction, the reality is frequency. The red-shift distance formula reveals an exponential function. That indicates a percentage shift rather than absolute. The longer the wave, the larger the absolute shift. Over longer distances, gravitational red-shifting translates to the red-shift distance effect, which is nowadays confused with a Doppler movement effect.

That would get rid of the big-bang idea. Is that what you meant to do?

That is definitely part of it. ……………………………. 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………………this section being re-written

 

 

 

 

Then there is nothing else left but to opt for infinite reduction. …………………….rewriting……..

 

 

 

 

Doesn't intuition tell us that there must be a beginning and an end to everything? That seems so natural to me. There is nothing I have ever seen or known of that couldn't be reduced to that.

You are right. This looks like a paradox doesn't it? On the one hand you cannot imagine space not being there once, on the other, you cannot accept that it was always there.

But that may be proof of the unreliability of intuitive thinking.

We tried to nail the author on this very same point, but he suggested that it is not a paradox at all, but a problem with our intuitive faculties itself The intuitive, or 'common sense' way of thinking is developed from the operation of inductive logical processes through which we learn just about everything in our interaction with the world of matter. Now, all our direct experiences are based on discovering finite and limited proportions. Our intuitive faculties never learn to deal with aspects of reality which involve infinity, since that is outside the range of our experiential or observational range. This leads to the uncertainty and confusion when confronting problems involving infinty. It feigns a paradox, when in fact it isn't. We can critically overcome this problem and develop intuitive understanding of infinity

There may be some sense in what you say but I am still confused.

For instance imagine an infinite spatial region existing all around us. It is a room of emptiness, extending outward forever. We need not ever see it all to understand that do we, just as we need not count all the numbers in an infinite sequence to believe it is infinite?

…………………………This passage being re-written…………………………………………………

………………………..

 

 

 

I can see what you are getting at, but there may be other states than just being and not being there. As far as I know, the current thinking on space is that it is expanding from within itself, starting originally from a very small region at the big bang.

Does that not have to mean that in the past much of the emptiness within our observational region would not have existed?

Yes, what else could it mean?

And you understand just how this presently existing region of emptiness was once not there? Can emptiness be displaced? Here is where we go into the region of paradoxes.

Ok, we have come around in a circle. You may have me on this intuitive thing, but I believe there is a perfectly good mathematics to describe this space expansion.

 

 

 

is not the only configuration to be able to cause that type of behaviour. He maintains there is an invisible micro infrastructure of matter within the emptiness that is affected to cause that behaviour. Discussion of the infrastructure is far premature. Let's deal with it in is turn and stay on track of our current enquiry.

Ok then, let's keep going I'd like to see how long it is before you come to the wall, as the intuitive mode did a century ago?

We will surely come to it. At this pojnt, it should not be too difficult to think of a vast emptiness of space, an environment continuously extended to infinity. Think about it, would not reality offer the maximum rather than minimum possibilities? In fact the idea is clear that there can be no discontinuities at any level of magnification. Nor can there be discontinuities in its enduring existence. Now, if it is here, now all around us, this vast emptiness hosting all this, then how can it once not be there? Where could it disappear to? It must be here eternally. Realty is all exhausting, no finite solution could ever satisfy its necessary parameters. But there is more than space to reality. Within space exist a great variety of matter existing within spatially defined parameters but quite different from space in many ways. For a start, matter is always discontinuous in extension and is always a product of the interactive function of a range of smaller scale parts. The sequence of reduction is infinite

What you just proposed goes a lot further than quarks breaking down to the function of smaller parts. You did say an infinite series of reduction, didn't you?

I did. But haven’t we already concluded that matter can have no ultimate foundation, needing to break down further and further to infinity, with no final resolution?

That sounds like a very fleeting world.

I wouldn't say that. On the contrary, no matter how far down this infinite chain of reduction we consider, each of the particles has as its roots an infinity of further reduction to base its existence on. What counts is that the chain never ends. Would you not consider that good enough foundations for our world of matter?

Part 2

Is this what the theory is about - the infinite reduction and deconstruction of matter, always to the cyclical function of smaller elements?

That is a large part of it, but the most important part is yet to come. The process emanates from the micro, undergoing an infinity of transformations until the attainment of the atomic structure, which forms the building blocks of our world of matter. A structure like the atom could just as well have occurred in many places downscale along the chain and still have continued upscale further. The question is whether it terminates with our world of matter or it keeps transforming to produce larger slowly evolving configurations? There seems to be no obvious reason why the atom should be the final structure of the sequence. And the evidence supports that view. Look at how the massive conglomeration of atoms form into planetary and solar structures, then partake in the solar system configuration, which in turn becomes part of the galactic structure, which then cluster in different formations, and so on upscale. Doesn’t that look like a system within a system, just like the micro world?

But that would require another infinite chain of transformations into the large scales  

And why not? In infinite space scale can only be relative. Make it is big as you like. And infinite time makes it possible to play it out on very slow rates of cyclicality.

There may be a system of some sort in astronomy, but I do not see what that has to do with the micro world of atomic and sub atomic matter. They are worlds apart in their looks and behaviour

Contrary to what you may think, what we find out there in the macro universe has a lot of similarities to the micro system.

I cannot see it.

Take the solar system we are part of. Is it not just one of innumerable stellar groupings out there?

Yes

Have a look at how our own solar system holds together as an enduring entity through cyclical interaction. We have talked about this before haven’t we?.

That was just to demonstrate how cyclical balance can occur. I had no idea you were about to suggest that this is actually part of the same process we find on micro scales.

Doesn't our solar system also belong to a galaxy?

It does, but I still don't see the connection with micro-matter.

There is a cyclical process within the galaxy as well isn't there? We are orbiting around on one of the spiral arms amid millions of other solar systems and rolling around in a huge orbit of the galactic centre. During the course of a single cycle of our solar system around the galaxy, our Earth cycles the Sun some 200 million times. As I said, a system within a system clearly defined. You can see the smaller scale structure has a much more rapid internal cycle than a larger one, and it stands to reason that all structures partaking on a higher scale of magnitude in the structuring process must have a relatively slower internal cyclical frequency than its smaller scale composing counterparts. For all structures in a relatively larger magnitude level of the structuring process, there is a considerable increase in the distance of the cyclical paths components forming the structure have to traverse. The limit “c” on the speeds it can traverse the distance ensure a slower cyclical frequency.

I still don’t see how this applies to micro matter?

Lets apply this principle of scale to cyclical rapidity to the micro world of atomic and sub-atomic particles. If it was part of the same structuring process the atoms would reflect their incredibly smaller size with some very rapid internal cycle? The shell electron cycle is very rapid indeed. There is your connection

Ok, you have made some good logical connections but I'm still not convinced that it is the same system. IThere is certainly no comparison with the atom and its electrons creating zones of exclusion. How do you see the solar systems or galaxies in those terms?

There are huge size differences between the two parts of the system, with us as it were in the middle. Compared to the individual atoms we are huge beings composed of many trillions of them, and our perception of them in integrated form. We see very large numbers of them together in clumps, and we see them in terms of billions of electron cycles per second. On the large scale macro end, we are a tiny conglomeration compared to the smallest planetary or solar unit, not to mention their larger groupings. Rather than discern these structures in terms of billions of cycles per second, we see their cyclical motion as almost static and very slowly evolving. The Earth cycle is yearly, the galaxy 200 millionb yearly, and so on for larger structures. We are a product of micro matter, which appears to us in highly integrated form, while large scale structures do not reveal integration. It could only be considered on very large scales and very long time-spans otherwise it is static and hollow. I can give you an imaginary perspective if you can think yourself a giant being overlooking our solar system which is no bigger than a few cubic meters. What would you then see?

I would see the Sun in the centre, burning hot, with the planets suspended in a plane at different stages of their orbit.

Not much movement?

No, hardly any noticeable.  

Even the daily spin of Earth is hard to detect, isn't it.

Slower than the hour hand on a clock.

But now imagine that you find a discarded video camera that has been set up in space at a fixed distance Say, it has continuously taken images for many billions of years. If you replay it all at high speed over just a few minutes, what would you see? .

I see the planets whirling around at phenomenal speeds forming seemingly impenetrable rings.

Ok, now we can increase the scope to the galactic level, much larger and much more time. We speed up the video considerably and take in a much wider scope. Now you see thousands of billions of years of footage and see the galaxy turning rapidly at say a hundreds of times per second.

It would look like a rapidly turning saw blade slicing through space

Now lets focus on our solar system, fix our cameras to hold it in view. What do you see when you consider the tumbling effect added to the formula?

It is no longer a set of rings, it is now an elliptic ball shape with shell like exclusion zones created by the planetary orbit and the galactic tumbling combined.

On very large scales, if that was the actual discerned frequency of the orbital cycles, it would be just how it is. Precession and other influences on the average orbit would show up as a wobbles or vibrations at the edges of the exclusion zone. Doesn't all this remind you of micro world type events? With an infinity of time to consider and no limit on size, the larger structures could make good these possibilities. Just imagine going up into the magnitudes of universal scales, tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of levels the building process to view the huge structural combinations that may exist on that size level. The cyclical interactivity is extremely slow, but changing the time parameters to match the wider scope reveals a new perspective of dynamic interaction. Just like our imaginary video footage, we now need to compress thousands of billions of years into a sequence of moments and view this series of compressions see the structures in highly dynamic form. Keeping in mind there is an infinity of different structure types to consider, there must occur levels where matter style environments produce a ‘horizontal’ evolution of events. These huge worlds are virtually frozen in time and hollow by our way of looking at it. We can simulate a more dynamic view with our video analogy, but the creatures that actually evolve in these mega environments are made out of this mega matter, and therefore discern the environment in an integrated form to discern its dynamics. To these huge creatures their time discernment is a function of the interactive dynamics of the mega matter they are made of. All of their instruments of time measurement, like clocks would also reflect the slower cycles of the mega world.

Does that mean that our own time perception is also a function of the cyclical rates governing the atomic parts we are made of? There may be worlds in the micro also in which events evolve extremely rapidly by our way of looking at it.

I am beginning to think you are seeing this in the right perspective.

……………..This section being rewritten…………………….

Here we come upon a complexity. In fact not all structures continue structuring infinitely to large scales. From one level of materiality to another only a small percentage of structures survive to keep building to macro scales. The largest percentage melts into the invisible microstructure of the next level and appears as relative empty space. It is a relative emptiness, not an absolute one. It is clear that the hidden (dark) matter we are looking for is right here and all around us as tiny dynamic and invisible layers of micro matter. Just think of the beauty of the system, its coherency its logic. Here we are inside this environment of ours. Nothing can be more exhaustive in offering maximum possibitilies without a single reference to outside itself. It is all self contained and self generating. It is also all explaining, leaving out no major issue. In one step we have found what reality is and what it does, and more importantly, how we humans are placed within it. It is not the completion of our knowledge, merely a turning point. There are huge benefits in every direction. The wonders of intellect and self reflection has allowed us to achieve an understanding of our identity and the identity of every other thing in this universe. How can this vision not influence us? Are we nothing more than what we make ourselves to be?

…………….Continuing…

Part 3

Updated: 10th June 2004, 11jun04, 25jun04, 27jun04, 29jun04, 07jul04, 16jul04, 20jul04, 22oct04, 270ct04,14dec04

So you are the author of this work? I’m so pleased to meet you. Our mutual colleague provided a brief introduction to your ideas.

My ideas, you say? I suppose in one sense, but the way I see it, I am merely an explorer, a chance discoverer of uncharted territory. I simply describe the state of existence of the world of matter. I cannot take credit for a creation as an artist, a poet, a musician or a writer, since I only describe what there actually is without the unique creative input. I am aware that I have chanced upon a very important discovery about nature. Someone was bound conclude in the same direction sooner or later .

Perhaps you are being overly modest. If your ideas about reality are accepted, it would revolutionise the world of ideas, not only in sciece but in many other areas.

Right now, with less than general acceptance, it is difficult to speculate about what may happen.

How will the world be able to discover this theory?

The signs of future problems with current thought are slowly emerging, and with time these ideas will come under challenge by unfavourable observations. But I did hear that you may be beginning to consider the possibilities offered by my theory. As you can see, the problem of reality can be solved at the very highest level as well as on the very lowest. We have observational access to a very small range in an infinite series. From this limited sequence we are able to define the general parameters of the entire infinite sequence.

That would have sounded totally ambiguous previously, but today I am better tuned into what you are saying. I am not sure about my final word, I would like to have more time to think on it. Just to verify that I have understood the meaning of your theory correctly, it would be good if I could explain to you how I see it.

Go ahead, I think it may be useful to see your first impression.

The primary domain of physical reality is an infinitely extended, ever enduring emptiness.

So it may be, but what is the physical structure of a pure emptiness?

I know that by your theory it is three dimensional.

Why complicate it? Three physical dimensions plus time.

The infinite emptiness hosts a process of matter creation and interaction. This matter creation is a process ranging from infinitely small scales to infinitely large. Somewhere along this unending chain of inclusive structures occurs the atomic configuration with its many variations and chemistry giving rise to the world of matter as we perceive it.

You seem to have a clear view so far, but an important consideration which cannot be left out is the general nature of the cyclical interaction involved. I mean the inverse relationship between relative volume a structure occupies and the frequency of the internal cyclical interaction that creates it.

I guess you mean that larger scale structures are created by slower internal cyclical frequencies than smaller scale structures. By the same reason relatively smaller scale structures will be created by more rapid internal frequencies than their upscale counterparts. For instance, the internal cycles of parts that create quark particles operate at much higher frequencies than the cycles between quarks in creating the nucleons. Then at the next level upscale the cyclical frequencies of the electrons to form the atomic structure are considerably slower again.

One more level up and we have the solar system in which cyclical rates are considerably slower again and no integration occurs. The next level up are galaxies,with even slower internal cycles of its member parts. The same applies to every level all the way upscale to infinity. Since the spatial environment is infinitely extended in every directio and an infinity of future time available, there can be no limit to largeness of structure or period of time through which relative integration occurs.

Whether real or not, it is a wonderful idea. Perhaps this matter structuring process may be considered the fifth dimension?

Yes it occurred to me as well. To tell you the truth, I just haven’t yet had the time to work through every aspect.

There are so many aspects that I don’t think you could ever work through them all. The one that puzzles me a little is this micro infrastructure.

A micro-infrastuctural underlay must exist not only for our world of matter, but for all other materialities that occur upscale or downscale.

Here is an issue I would like to clarify a little further. What exactly is this micro infrastructure and how can it be proved?

In that case let’s set up a similar thought experiment to the one about an environment of matter upscale. As we think upscale, perhaps tens, hundreds, maybe thousands of levels of cyclical transformation levels into the macro until we again come to the first formation type that mimics the versatility of our atom and creates a matter style environment. The ‘horizontal’ evolution of material events that results make possible the emergence of life forms and subsequently of perceiving intelligent beings. Remember, the huge universal structures that give rise to this mega world interact at some incredibly slow frequency rate by our way of considering it. After adjusting for the long periods of time needed for the compressed integrated form to be seen as dynamic and interactive like our atoms, it is possible to conceive a world not entirely unlike ours. Are you following so far?

I think I’ve got it so far.

To bring things into their correct perspective, we need to grow the scale or scope even more to make the perspective of our imaginary giant creature the same ratio as we ourselves have over the atoms. We do not see atoms, only their massive conglomerates, so our giant needs to be big enough to do much the same, and have the same degree of integration to see solid objects. This newly discovered world of matter may appear somewhat different from ours, since the particles are different and the chemistry is different, though the idea of room and emptiness and the infinite space housing the universe is common. Time measurement and perception of events is quite different, with the shortest moments of a mega world perceiver spanning billions of trillions of our years.

Yes I see it, and the same applies to the micro worlds only in inverse form, with miniscule scales and very rapid evolution of events, in which case a blink of our eye involves long eons of time by the micro world creature’s rate of perception.

Our world look to them static and hollow as the mega-world appear to us. These worlds occur probably at or below the scale of our micro infrastructure, with a micro infrastructure of their own further downscale.

Then how do you prove the existence of our micro infrastructure and of all the other infrastructures that may exist up and downscale?

To do this lets again turn our attention to the next level of materiality upscale. Does it not become obvious that the entire spatial environment must be sprayed full of large astral objects like stars, planets, galaxies and so on?. In a mega matter environment these (to us) large objects would appear as an invisible micro-mist to a giant perceiver. At that level and rate of seeing it, this micro-mist would be so fine and so dynamic that it would be considered empty space, as our micro mist is considered by us.

Indeed very simple and very effective. But does that mean that there is no actual empty space anywhere?

It does mean that though an underlaying domain of emptiness does exists to house it all. The appearance of emptiness is in fact a relativity between highly dynamic unstructured or under-structured micro matter. .

But you said all matter is structured upward infinitely. What about these micro particles where we see emptiness? They do not participate in any form of structuring into the macro universe.

You are quite right, it may seem as though I mean that. In fact not all particles need to structure infinitely upward, only some of them to make it all viable. .

Which ones are they?

As much as 90% of matter of the micro scales do not structure to the stage we identify as substance.

Would that not diminish the matter quantity in the next level of materiality upscale?

In fact not, since integration and the huge increase of scope required to understand events on that level of magnitude, would result in a relatively similar quantity of matter. Don’t forget that some huge tracts of empty space would end up enclosed in the integrated view of the mega view, presenting relatively solid objects in that world. Similar relations and broad ratios would apply to every matter style environment upscale.

You mean these matter-like environments of huge proportions would also have events in time as in ours, just a lot slower.

A lot.

Would then life occur and creatures evolve in these up-scale environments?

Perhaps not every environment can support life structures, but with an infinity of levels up-scale to consider, and among them interspersed an infinite number of environment possibilities, and among them some with the ability to generate self reproducing structures, and possibly life with all the variety including intelligence and self consciousness. They are all sub-sets of the next, but infinity yields a less frequently occurring infinite sequence, but nevertheless just as infinite.

Is it then inevitable that other worlds exist both in the macro as well as the micro, all here now simultaneously?

Inevitable and simultaneously, as you say. The mega worlds of larger scales are just a hollow set of points, even if we could encompass the broadness of view required to comprehend that world. Once we integrated it we could see it, over enormous passage of time. We would not even figure in the accessible micro field of the creatures of mega worlds. Our relatively rapid event development would limit individual events and even long term trends out of their relatively slow scope of enquiry.

You mean, billions of years and a lot more would be seen by these creatures as their shortest moments.

Think about the micro field where there are worlds of tiny proportions with event development at some incredibly rapid rate compared to ours. One blink of our eye and thousands trillions of micro events occur. We are their mega world.

Continuing………………….