An Idea

[Profpat]

This works perfectly in 2 dimensions. However, in higher dimensions, I use Hadamard matrices of squares of energy as spacetime continuum and quantum together with two principles of directional infinity and magnitudinal equality.

Maybe the points or spheres are 2 dimensional dots.

[AntonioLao]

profpat,

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/35/30/310 Is this what you have in mind?

[dipayankar]

Prof... you know, till the time we know what happened before the big bang, the big bang theory will always be challenged. Has the Big Bang created matter and energy or were they always there?

Hi Dipayankar;

I agree with you on your selection of a cyclic universe. Too me it makes the most sense. Perhaps ata later date there will be further evidence discovered to support this theory. Otherwise get set for the Big Chill.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

I take my imagination one step at a time. I'm up to 8, the octant or octave, not to mention gluons, which I believe to be 8 defined areas created by quark superposing and entangling.

I hope nature doesn't make me go beyond 8. An upright infinity symbol.

Good delivery, Pat, you are touching on the very essence of what the universe is built upon. However, if you don't mind my saying it with certainty in my written voice, you have come to a fork in the road that must be contemplated before moving on. The following question at this fork is essential:

Which one of the two is the greater, rule or freedom?

I hope you can see that your quest up to now has especially been one of finding rule. Discovering the structures in which 8 plays a paramount role has given you some certainty about being on the right track. And now with this in mind you want to take the next step up but you remain stuck in place.

So, the question needs to be asked again, which one of the two is greater: rule or freedom?


If we take rule as the greater of the two, then freedom must come from rule, and only rule can provide freedom.

If we take freedom as the greater of the two, then rule has the freedom to be put in place and give structure to the surrounding world and universe.


You probably can already read in my words what my opinion is about all of this, and I hope you can then see how I have been trying to show you that freedom is of a greater magnitude than rule. So, if you want to receive greater understanding, you must take the step up towards freedom.

As one side note, but this you know already too: of all mathematical numbers only zero can be proposed to represent that freedom. And as another side note, the Old Testament already proposed god as the provider of free will.

I was thinking that the fact that we have a problem with CPT symmetry may help us analyze important components within that starting point.

Two possible solutions to help restore symmetry would be the cyclic universe model or a parallel antimatter reverse time flow universe.

If that beginning starting point was a singularity you should have perfect symmetry at the beginning, should you not?

The cyclic Universe model does make a better sense. Otherwise all other models tend to a number of parallel universe which complicates the matter further.

Sorry guys, but I think you are all over the map here. For the way you propose to restore symmetry, we must not only assume that our universe is based on symmetry in the ordinary here and now (the only reality we do have knowledge about), but also in the then and there (the reality that may have existed, but does not exist today) and in between them. So you have, possibly unbeknownst to you, Pat, included the origin as a separate entity in with the result. Your quest is like finding symmetry between the past and the present, and those are assumptions no scientist can make.

If you focus solely on symmetry as if it is a rule, and rule is the greater magnitude, then you can make that assumption, Dipayan. I believe we all agree that freedom is the actual greater entity (though I cannot be certain if you indeed all agree). So, there is a model you are not contemplating, one that does not tend to a number of parallel universes.

To phrase this differently: it still sounds like you guys not only want to have the understanding that god has, but you want god inside that understanding as well.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Before our particular universal laws appeared there may have been a lawless "time" of freedom… from which the our physical laws emerged in the fashion of our working universe. Either that or there were not too many options for the "simple" beginnings, like, say, stream of energy passing and reveling into something and… whatever else the stuff was limited to do.

[timeparticle]

Thanks, Austie...

Sorry to be so one track, but a Microcosmic scenario with the singularity without structure?

Build a skyscraper with a ping-pong ball as it's base structure, you could not.

Ignoring time, as a particle, may put one into an infinity spiral without purpose. The mind boggles as it comprehends infinity without time as it's base.

No time, no Creation.

[timeparticle]

Sorry, I posted the last comment to the wrong thread...

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

The rule is freedom, limited freedom. This limit is confined to the structure. This is true for the quarks in the protons and you and I personally limited to our physical bodies.

Again best evidence is on your side Fredrick NO CYCLIC UNIVERSE but yet........



I was thinking about the original beginning point of our universe and the similarities it perhaps shares with the Symbol of the Tao.

1) posiitve /negative, yin/yang, in movement; opposites attracting; centripetal force creating a gravitational effect; balance and equilibrium.

All of these effects are present in todays universe and I'm suggesting perhaps the actual model of our beginning universe is the symbol of Tao.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Prof... you know, till the time we know what happened before the big bang, the big bang theory will always be challenged. Has the Big Bang created matter and energy or were they always there?

Hi Dipayankar;

Let's say, for sake of discussion, that it was always there, in that little tiny beginning point.

Again I think we can extract what was in that beginning point by observing what we have now. Not only in terms of matter and energy but also laws of nature. I'm beginning to view that beginning point as a duality rather than a singularity.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

ONE
.

TWO

THREE

INFINITY