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.
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………………….