I love the reply, Andy, except that my name is really Fredrick, and the dash in between the name makes it my pseudonym.
The word you used and that I appreciate the most is mechanical; I use that word as well.
I am a structural philosopher, which means that I see how all that exists can be placed in a structural format. For instance, I do not (no longer) say Theory of Everything, but Structure of Everything. That is more accurate. It’s actually quite the fun structure, but I’ll keep that for another time.
-
To end up with matter, there are three structural options available, yet two are false:
A: 0 -> 1
We both agree that this is a nonsense structure, an outcome from nothing, at best available in religion.
B: 1 -> 1
This appears to be very logical, an old reality becoming the new reality, but there is something that makes it impossible.
We cannot start out with 100% of an original state and then have it become 100% of the subsequent state while making this last. In as far as possible to get to a secondary 100% outcome, we must accept that it will not last very long (seconds, not days) before returning to its original 100% state.
C: 1 -> 0 + 1
I can tell from your writing that you have not thought of this option. Basically, it is B, but then with a fundamental 0 added to it.
Many physicists do not see it. They go crazy when I mention Gödel, who showed the importance already 100 years ago, and they ignore my evidence about the mathematical building blocks.
Many people think that 0 is a singular number. In reality, it is already complicated to have 1 be singular at all times because we have a variety of 1s (the whole can be represented by 1, but each unit can also be represented by 1). Still, 1 is the only number of all numbers that can represent singularity. None of the other numbers are singular.
The number 010 shows real quick that there are two different kinds of zero. The first zero is totally unimportant. We can leave it out and the total does not change.
The second zero cannot be left out without changing the total.
One zero is therefore nothing, and one zero is therefore functional, while adding nothing.
If your brain ignores the fact that zero portrays two different characters, then you will always end up with 1 in top and nothing else.
C: 1 -> 0 + 1
That is the overall view I adhere to because it is the only structural option available. The other options are not available in reality, though they are structurally understandable. That means that our brains have to do some good workout. Recognizing how zero can at times be functional is part of that workout.
Here is the simplistic version for understanding how C works.
If we see an omelet, then we know two things:
1. There was an egg
2. It broke
If we see a broken toy, then we know two things:
1. All the pieces are still there
2. The special trick of the toy is gone for good
So, that is how I view the universe we live in, Andy.
I do not hold on to concepts that hang in the air. I work with my feet on the ground.
-
The Big Bang structure is incorrect.
The Big Whisper structure has not been undermined other than by people walking away saying it is nonsense. The model is named after Penzias and Wilson who discovered the whisper of the materialization process (CMBR).
There is no need for a super-hot start because matter did not originate from the center (zone 1). Rather, it started from Zone 2, which is located far away from the center of extreme high pressure. Zone 1 was involved of course, yet it did not materialize. In light of matter, we have Zone 2 (1), Zone 1 (0), Zone 3 (0). I will have to show the mechanics of it to you later.
Also, there is no need for cosmic inflation because that is already not even possible.
The Big Bang model is incorrect in specifics, and it is incorrect in specifics because many physicists' brains are not working properly in the structural department. They see all the trees real well, but they deny that we should acknowledge a forest as well. That means that they also do not see that the forest comes with large open areas in that forest. They simply do not zoom out to the forest-perspective level; their brains are stuck on the trees and they hang on to concepts that can hang in the air by themselves.
-
I'd love to communicate more, Andy. You and I are using very similar words, and you are expressing very similar ideas I have.
Lastly therefore, Infinity is a concept; the only reality that can be infinite is space, depending on how we define space. Nothing else is ever infinite, not even God is infinite (if we use that word to point at something with some kind of meaning that is otherwise not clearly defined).
I saw this engineering joke. Basically about figuring out how to get to a cookie at the other side of the room while taking steps that are half the space remaining.
Physicists declare that you never get to the cookie, while the engineers have a little girl walk to the cookie and when her arm is within reach of the cookie, she picks up the cookie and eats it. Her legs brought her there without violating the setup.
Reality is not based on concepts. Reality is based on reality.
