IThnthsthoesntuhosntheusoatnheu

eusohuch gramegeh.gh

a. A length of time is a quantity.

b. No quantity is infinite.

1. Therefore, any length of time is finite.

2. Time is a measure of change.

a. Change is caused.

b. Change causes.

c. Matter-energy is conserved.

3. Therefore, there is no First 'time frame' and no Last 'time frame'.

Therefore, the causal chain (i.e., time) must be circular.

The simplest reconciliation of this fact with our view of the universe is that the universe will eventually retract into 'the big crunch' which will in turn be the big bang for the next iteration of the universe as we know it; only the next iteration is exactly the same as the previous--thus there is no logical differentiation between the two, and following that description is analogous to following a circle with your eyes through 460 degrees.

Therefore the moment of the big bang must be very simple. If the critical point of the big bang were complex, having many variables, then it's hard to imagine that the big bang would reproduce a similar time-line to the previous, becuase it would be merely another link in the causal chain. The massive amount of information present in the big bang would be affected by the previous iteration of the universe as we know it and would in turn affect the next universe.. just like any other event--the fact that it happens to be unified and compressed beyond physical understanding being circumstancial.

One might be prone to think that, because the crunching force is unified, this provides for the simplification necessary to annihilate all information from the previous universe and return to the exact state that preceded it. But what does it really mean that the force is unified? It's unified in the sense that one aspect of it is changing in sync across the entire universe (which, incidentally, is perhaps a few inches across then). But let us not make the mistake of mentally equating this coincidence of direction with an overall reduction of information--information which, by the cuntinuum of causality, will eventually be transformed and reexpressed in the next iteration. Why should we not assume that a reduction of information in the universe takes place? Because this would require that following the big bang is a massive increase in the total amount of information in the universe, i.e., somethings constantly arising from nothings, and that would violate causality.

So what does this all mean? It means that *SNEEZE* the total amount of unique information in the universe is minimal.

To recap:
1. Time is circular, with a period equal to the big-bang cycle (as intuition dictates).
2. If the amount of information at the moment of the big crunch/bang were not minimal, then this event could not sponsor the circularity of time.
3. The amount of information present in the universe at this moment or any other moment must be equal to that of the moment of the big bang/crunch.

Therefore, the quantity of unique information present in the universe is minimal, and complexity can be nothing but apparent--a result of perspective; i.e., we see the same information from countless perspectives at any given moment.

So everything is unified (in the strong sense; absolute simplicity), and the universe as we see it can only be analogous to a fractal with respect to the fundamental information and to a hologram with respect to interrelationship among apparently separate 'things'.

But there's still one thing missing.

Perhaps I should replace all instances of "universe" in the above with "physical universe", as the logic applies to known physics.

What's missing is the source of the possibility for even apparent complexity, which would seem to imply a truly complex observer. Even a fractal equation requires a machine much more complex than it to expand it into its complexified form. (see my refutation of mathematical platonism)

Consciousness, perspective's matrix, must therefore transcend physics as we know it
(acting as the machine that expands the equation behind physical reality into the complexity we know, by viewing it simultaneously from countless perspectives, or relationships between the observer and the observed, which is essentially the same thing that happens when you view a fractal on your monitor screen (and not to mention whenever you move)).

This suggests that the physical universe is essentially an equation, of sorts, that consciousness uses to interact.
The material aspect of the mind, the brain, could be seen as an interface to or node in the physical matrix that allows the metaphysical conscious to make strong use of it. The mind as we know it is the synergy of these two distinct facets. It is even possible that it is the same conscious entity in control of all neurological nodes and the neurological belief in separation is only a result of separation on the neurological level (i.e., multiplicity of relatively closed neurological systems (brains), or nodes, in the material/physical plane). In this case, the physical universe is an equation that allows consciousness to interact with itself. I believe, however, that there are many levels of separation of conscious nodes even beyond the physically known, and it's only on the highest level at which unification can be realized (i.e., nirvana, oneness, god, love). The various levels of consciousness may be seen as nested equations/matrices--i.e., one matrix that is an equation within a mother context which is an equation within an even superior context etc.

Note: I don't necessarily believe in the above logic (i just wrote it because it came to mind); it's holey, but i Might believe in the conclusion.

(it's holy)

(C)Copydown 1999 CrackPot (a.k.a. Inhahe), all wrongs reserved.