[analog]

Hello Allen,

I’ve read your idea as you asked me to, and though it seems a little confusing to me, I do recognize the amount of pure thought you must have put within it. I see that there is a path of logic within it, but I’m having trouble walking that path, because I don’t allow myself to possibly reach as far within a framework as I feel that you are. I have my reasons for this, and I’ll try to explain.

It’s hard to perceive someone’s tone within written words, so let me be clear that, in no way, am I trying to argue or place my own intelligence above yours. I admire people who take the time to learn their world, because I am constantly surrounded by those who don’t, and I admire your desire to exchange ideas, because there are those who insist that only they are right. I am not one of those people. Your theories and ideas could very well be more plausible than mine, but my job here is to convey how I currently think, and that will be all that I’m trying to do.

That being said, let me explain why I find the need to shut off the thought process when formulating a fundamental framework, because a thought process here is merely a reduction process, whereby we are trying to reduce everything down to a fundamental level, thus the standard model insists that all things come from a singularity, which is a normal path of logic in a framework which admits to energy bound matter. I don’t agree with the standard model.

I choose to view our world as an eternal system, thus salvaging my mind from the seemingly endless paradoxes of, WHY. I feel the only way to stop an endless progression of WHY’s is an eternal framework, thus, no WHY’s needed. An eternal framework isn’t expected to give answers into infinity, it’s just expected to do that which it has always done and will always do, thus infinitely existing. The only question asked of an eternal system is HOW, and I believe, when faced with the two, HOW can more easily be explained then WHY.

Being as any framework must admit to fundamental entities, a finite framework with a beginning and an end will always be subjected to what caused existence of the fundamentals, which allows for the need of more fundamentals. This seems to be an endless intellectual downward spiral, which ultimately ends up with the never ending need for a fundamental of the fundamentals, at this stage we are admitting that something must have been here all the time anyway. Why not just bring universal existence down to the physical fundamentals that accurately describe our entire perceived world, and except those things as the eternal components?

If we must admit to the presence of matter, give it a fundamental existence. If we must admit to a void of space, give it a fundamental existence, and if we must admit to consciousness, allow it to have a fundamental existence also. There doesn’t have to be a need to bring all of these individual fundamentals down to a singularity, because no one said that only a singular form of existence could be eternal.

It is at this stage of fundamentals that all we need are matter as a particle, or aether, a way for it to interact (motion), and a place for these interactions to transpire (space). The only place for consciousness to hide within such a system of fundamentals must be within the interactions of these three. Thus, when matter interacts by way of motion through space, it must give rise to some sort of consciousness, which could merely be viewed as the law of interaction of matter in space by motion, thus allowing us to measure these events due to cause always producing the same effect. Perhaps, we can’t measure consciousness because it is that which allows for measurement and is the scale by which we go by.

Even if the above entities could be reduced down to a singular existence, unless the mechanism that allows for this reduction still influences their actions/existence after their separation from the singularity, then it is irrelevant anyway. The standard model shows us how hard it is to maintain such a mechanism from a singularity to an inflating universe, as it is constantly creating new entities to explain the old ones it just admitted to.

I say this because I get the impression from your work that you are trying to reduce to a singular entity. Would this be a fair statement?