Reciprocal Balance - the 'simple' approach

[THoR]

http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com

How was the Universe created? When did it begin?

Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The rules of cause and effect seem to govern everything - even the realm of thought, itself - so it's assumed by default that the physical presence of the cosmos must be the result of a process, an instance of creation.

The existence of nothing needs no justification, it is commonly considered essentially natural and intrinsically logical, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a dark and timeless primal void - a Universe completely empty. Presumably, this featureless vacuum reigned supreme until the dawn of time, when an extraordinary transformation brought forth the material manifestation we now call 'the cosmos'. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the earth in an act of divine inspiration. Many secularists espouse a version of Big Bang theory which envisions a Universe still spewing from the depths of a spontaneously spawned singularity. But any act of creation would logically require an impetus or creator - the presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor - which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. Any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence always results in the same endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy. No logical beginning is implied.

There are those who would claim that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. Beware the supernatural. There can be no rational discussion in the absence of logic. When the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded then so can others - without limit.

The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a product of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a product of cause and effect.

Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of creation is contrary to logic. It is a popular myth precipitated by man's tendency to personify nature. The cosmos didn't suddenly pop into being nor is it likely to vanish in a similar manner.

So how do you explain the physical presence of the Universe?

Although the phenomenon of existence is not explained by the rules of cause and effect, it is still very much subject to the laws of nature. It is based upon a principle so simple and so obvious that it has remained undiscovered since the advent of human consciousness. Sir Isaac Newton almost realized it in the third law (the law of reciprocal actions) of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), but unfortunately he didn't carry the scope of his theory far enough. The answer lies at the root of cause and effect. It is locked inside the structure of every equation. It is the very cornerstone of logic, itself. But to be understood, it must be approached from the proper perspective.

(Continued Next Post)

[THoR]

http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/entity.htm

Physicists spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars each year slaving over hot particle accelerators in their efforts to understand the basic nature of matter. Since the time of Democritus of Abdera (460-370 BC) it has been postulated that the Universe is comprised of elemental components or particles which - though they may be profoundly small in nature - are not infinitely divisible. Before the smallest non-empty set can be assembled, there must exist an individual element with which the set may be populated, a singular existence not composed of independent parts, a physical manifestation which consists only of itself, an elemental identity which I call an 'entity'.

The material objects with which we interact in our daily environment are composites. A chair, for example, is the label we use to conveniently describe a set of parts including a seat, legs, back and arms. If its construction is of wood, then those parts are made of sets labeled ‘cells’ which are comprised of sets called ‘molecules’ which are formed by sets of ‘atoms’, whose components have been theoretically superseded as elemental particles by quark and lepton groups populated by sub-sets of even smaller particles and anti-particles. The prevailing assumption of the Standard Model of Particle Physics is that fundamental particles must be structureless, the essence of simplicity. And as quantum 'mechanics' experiment with the microcosm, they tend to interpret their results accordingly.

But what is today commonly believed about fundamental particles is actually more conjecture than theory. Physicists grudgingly confess that many of their theoretical components are presumed to exist solely because they make the equations work. And if the basic assumptions are flawed, then their hypothetical particles may just be spurious phantoms of esoteric formulae and the Standard Model they describe may be little more than a sophisticated misinterpretation of empirical data. This may be the reason why the more widely accepted theories produce such contrived and convoluted models as "String Theory" and "M Theory" - abstract paradigms that depend upon exotic elements and imperceptible extra dimensions that rival the fertile fantasies of Lewis Carroll and Jules Verne.

If the fundamental elements of the Universe were structureless and homogeneous, they would also be indifferentiable, inert, incapable of change, and the cosmos would be a static and timeless environment. On the other hand, if elemental particles do, indeed, have sub-structure, then how could they possibly be things comprised only of themselves?

The explanation is really rather elementary. It is found within the architecture of existence.

The realm of cause and effect is universally governed by a simple basic principle called the 'Balance of Nature'. This obvious but often ignored element of equilibrium courses throughout the very fabric of the cosmos. For every left there exists a right. For every to there is a fro. For every up there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. For every conceivable vector or numeric value there exists an opposite equivalent. Newton captured the essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics which states every action precipitates a reciprocal event - an equal and opposite reaction. And it's not by mere coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. From simple addition to quantum mechanics, reciprocal balance is a prevailing dynamic which even the rules of cause and effect must obey. It is the very cornerstone of logic, the most fundamental of all natural laws.

The way things act and react reflects their nature, the inherent properties of their being. If the realm of cause and effect is universally governed by natural balance, then the source of that equilibrium must reside within the very architecture of existence - within the composition of the qualities, themselves. Reality is usually measured and described within the parameters of three basic criteria - quality, quantity and dimension (relative position and configuration). Quantitatively there is a negative equivalent for every positive value. Dimensionally there is an opposite for every vector. If reciprocal balance invisibly applies to qualitative values as it apparently does to the other intrinsic properties of existence, then for every qualitative value there should exist an opposite equivalent. And, indeed, contemporary physics does view the material world as particles of matter and anti-matter. Each type of particle has an opposite and when the two collide, their mass is converted into energy. But there seems to be a whole lot more matter than anti-matter floating around the cosmos and, in fact, particles and anti-particles aren't truly counter-valent beings, they are simply elements which react to each other by changing condition. If they were truly opposite existences they would 'annihilate' on contact. Their properties would totally disappear. They would cease to exist.

Just as you would expect every action to be offset by an equal and opposite reaction within the realm of an event, we would expect qualitative balance to reside within the physical boundary of an entity - not be disbursed between two or more separate existences as independent particles and anti-particles. We wouldn't normally be able to tell a quality from its anti-quality by just looking at it, but with the use of a little color coding I will try to illustrate the concept of reciprocal qualitative values :

Assume BLACK represents a null color value. Within the realm of subtractive colors, the opposite (negative) of the color quality MAGENTA is GREEN. Equivalent proportions of MAGENTA and GREEN produce BLACK. But GREEN is, itself, an equal mixture of the colors CYAN and YELLOW.


Just as the quantitative value of Ø is equivalent to two opposing numbers (+1) + (-1), the qualitative value of BLACK is equivalent to three opposing colors MAGENTA + CYAN + YELLOW. All of the opposing sub-elements must be present in precisely equal proportion in order to reciprocally balance each other and maintain a null value. Of course the number of opposing sub-elements within a fundamental particle may not be limited in scope to two - or three - or any other finite number.

The concept of reciprocal balance requires every instance of being within an entity to have an opposite equivalent - but instead of each point having a diametric opposite (two defined points offsetting each other), the opposing value of any given point in an element may be distributed among the sub-qualities of the entire set of remaining points. The very existence of each point within the element is co-dependent upon the existence of the remainder of the parcel. Every moment of physical presence in the element is an interdependent contributor to the perfection of its balance. And it is that natural balance - not structureless homogeneity - which defines it as a single existence, a unique instance of null value - something which is not whole unless all of it is encompassed, an element comprised only of itself.

Fundamental particles must be truly 'in-dividual'. They are not comprised of independent components, so no portion of an elemental entity could ever be separated from the remainder. When a composite is severed, as in slicing a loaf of bread or tearing a piece of paper, electromagnetic forces holding independent particles in proximity to each other are overcome by the force of the device used to separate the material. But the field of existence within an entity is continuous. To cleave a fundamental particle, something must be inserted between two of its continuous points. Two independent existences cannot occupy the same space, so the point you are attempting to cleave would simply move. To sever an entity at a point within its domain would require the point of separation to physically cease to exist, and if cause and effect is a function of existence, then before the most infinitesimal point of being could be annihilated, it would lose its ability to change or be changed.

There is a basic law of physics which states two things cannot simultaneously occupy the same space. But two points of existence within a fundamental particle are not 'two things', they are mutually co-dependent instances of the same element - two parts of the same identity. The rules of conduct within an entity may be very different from those which govern the interaction between two entities. Internally, an entity's sub-qualities have the ability to morph or blend like the illustration above to produce a vast range of different conditions or states of being.

I have little quarrel with the data and observations of the disciples of contemporary particle physics, but I do differ with their interpretation. Like blind men describing an elephant, each observer experimenting with the microcosm is led to believe his perspective is definitive. An unwary observer might not realize he is examining different facets within an entity. If the illustration above is accurate, every entity has a nucleus from which it 'projects' itself into the spatial dimensions. The nucleus is a true point - just a location with no relative size. If the nucleus were to change in condition - say, rotate 90 degrees - no distance would be traversed (it has NO size), only the angle of projection would change. Instantaneous movement and morphing of internal conditions may produce some of those weird and seemingly impossible effects which puzzle contemporary particle physicists. Mass is simply a condition - a property interchangeable with energy, according to Einstein. With the ability to change instantly, a portion of an entity's substructure which has the property of 'mass' may suddenly disappear and simultaneously reappear elsewhere without any motion taking place. This would give rise to the illusion that the 'mass' has no real location and can only be given a probability of existing at any given coordinate. The phenomenon of morphing could also give the illusion that some sub-structural facet can be in two different states or locations simultaneously - i.e. 30% in one location and 70% in another. Such phenomena have been observed in the microcosm and some particle physicists attribute them to the existence of extra dimensions. They consider the sub-structure they are observing to be an independent particle - not part of a larger entity. I would suspect many of the 'individual' particles touted in the standard model are probably just different facets of the same parcel. Keep in mind that there is much more to the composition of the Universe than just its conveniently measured and easily observed material attributes. Mass is simply one of a spectrum of properties inherent to an elemental particle. A single particle may contain both features which are material and features which are ethereal in nature. Unfortunately contemporary science is not sufficiently advanced to detect subtle differences in ethereal properties - everything without the property of mass is considered generic 'space'.

It is natural balance which defines an entity - not homogeneity. Unlike those facile examples of structureless simplicity touted by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, reciprocal symmetry suggests a limitless spectrum of dynamic elements both material and ethereal in nature, a wondrous cosmic fabric of infinite variety.

Theory of Reciprocity

For every value V( + ) there exists an equal and opposite value or set of values V( - ) such that the sum of all value in the Universe is equivalent to the 'null' set

The phenomenon of existence is explained by a principle - not a process. That necessary but indefinite primordial element we call "nothing" is simply an abstract interpretation of the symmetrical balance that pervades the structure of the Universe. The existence of nothing requires no justification - it is essentially natural and intrinsically logical. Nothing is, in fact, the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum and it is the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system.

[mkirkpatrick]

Many thanks Thor,I like this simple approach,bit like give and take?




regards michael.

[Profpat]

Hi THoR;

I'm glad you started your own thread on your theory. I'm hoping to have mine posted in a week. I hope you will check it out. I too use color, except I use the additive process, so while you come up with black, the null set, I come up with white, the universal set.

My idea, however, does require strings, quarks, and those pesky extra dimensions.

So do you have any proof that the universe is infinite? I have a philosophical difficult time imagining any real thing as infinite. No problems with conceptual things like numbers, points, curves, etc.

Best to you and Michael,

Profpat

[mkirkpatrick]

Hi THoR;

I'm glad you started your own thread on your theory. I'm hoping to have mine posted in a week. I hope you will check it out. I too use color, except I use the additive process, so while you come up with black, the null set, I come up with white, the universal set.

My idea, however, does require strings, quarks, and those pesky extra dimensions.

So do you have any proof that the universe is infinite? I have a philosophical difficult time imagining any real thing as infinite. No problems with conceptual things like numbers, points, curves, etc.

Best to you and Michael,

Profpat

Thanks my friend,look forward to reading your theory soon.


warm regards michael.

[THoR]

Hi THoR;

I'm glad you started your own thread on your theory. I'm hoping to have mine posted in a week. I hope you will check it out. I too use color, except I use the additive process, so while you come up with black, the null set, I come up with white, the universal set.

My idea, however, does require strings, quarks, and those pesky extra dimensions.

Thanks, looking forward to your post.

So do you have any proof that the universe is infinite? I have a philosophical difficult time imagining any real thing as infinite. No problems with conceptual things like numbers, points, curves, etc.

Best to you and Michael,

Profpat

Infinity is an attribute of nature which absolutely defies logical interpretation. It's not exempt from the laws of nature and it's not contrary to reason, but it lies beyond the domain of logic because it's not defined - and logic requires definition.

There is a finite distance between every two points in the Universe. Some mistakenly believe that if this is so then the furthest point in the cosmos must be a finite distance away. What they don't understand is that just the act of defining two points sways the realm of their consideration from the infinite back to the finite. When dealing with infinity, there is no 'furthest' and the fact that no defined point of infinity exists serves only to further validate the concept.

[THoR]

Many thanks Thor,I like this simple approach,bit like give and take?

regards michael.

A bit of Yin and Yang

THoR

[mkirkpatrick]

A bit of Yin and Yang

THoR

Absolutely spot on there Thor,these primal swirls of motion are tha harbingers of all
physical expression in this universe.



warm regards michael.

[Profpat]

THor, just when I think I'm getting a little confused, you post thoughts on infinity and remove all my doubts, I am confused.

Michael, has there ever been a poll on whether the universe is infinite or finite. Not that this question will be resolved on a democratic vote, I'd be interested in other thoughts on this matter.
And what is your thought Michael?

I'm looking forward to you reviewing my theory once its posted.

Best to all,

Profpat

[mkirkpatrick]

THor, just when I think I'm getting a little confused, you post thoughts on infinity and remove all my doubts, I am confused.

Michael, has there ever been a poll on whether the universe is infinite or finite. Not that this question will be resolved on a democratic vote, I'd be interested in other thoughts on this matter.
And what is your thought Michael?

I'm looking forward to you reviewing my theory once its posted.

Best to all,

Profpat

Thanks Profpat,as far as I recall there has not been a poll on infinity,do you think we should have one?

My thoughts on infinity are that there is no "real" beginning or end to life,I mean LIFE with
its fullest understood expression,which to me essentially means that the whole of the physical universe is alive,and within consciousness,infinity is a word like eternal,our minds
seem to find great difficulty in grasping this concept,which is hardly suprising,as we tend
to see and think in terms of beginnings and endings!

Reality as it is expressed within this universe is boundless,and eternal,infinity is part of this conscious concept.

regards michael.