A New Model of Universe

universe

References:

The Sixth Sense

The Fundamental Dimension

.

This universe includes all that exists. It doesn’t exclude anything. Our senses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body perceive the concrete reality of matter, energy, space and time. But, beyond this concrete reality, the universe also includes the underlying abstract patterns, which are grasped by the mind.

The concept of abstraction is nothing new. We perceive it through our mind as we gain more experience. As a child we saw three cups, three plates and three spoons through our physical senses. As we grew up we could then also perceive the underlying abstraction of three.

Abstraction is the awareness of the patterns underlying concrete reality.

Mathematics deals in abstraction, and so does the subject of Logic. Scientific principles are also abstractions. When we are thinking deeply, we are looking into the abstraction of concrete reality.

Space may be abstracted as awareness of some sort. Energy may be abstracted as consciousness of some sort. Matter may be abstracted as identity of some sort. So we can have mental space as the deepest sense in which ripples of consciousness exist as beliefs. When we perceive something, ripples are generated in consciousness. Recognition comes about as these ripples go into resonance with some existing consciousness in mental space. This may represent mental energy. As we settle on meaningful conclusions in terms of relationship among identities, we have mental matter.

Mental space, energy and matter are patterns underlying concrete space, energy and matter.

Thus, the universe not only includes the concrete reality, but it also includes the abstract relationships that define the reality for us. And, in addition, it includes thoughts, assumptions, and speculations that come about when direct perception is missing. Such assumptions and preconceived notions tend to color the reality, and further distort it into unreality. It then takes resolving of inconsistencies to straighten out the unreality.

If we have to model this universe, let’s start with a spherical shape that is symmetrical from all directions (we can always modify this shape as this model evolves). The surface of this “sphere” of the model universe would represent the concrete reality of matter, energy, space and time as perceived by the five physical senses. The inside of the “sphere” would represent the abstract patterns underlying the concrete reality as perceived by the mind.

There would be increasing abstraction as one traverses from the surface to the center of this model of the universe.

This model represents a 5-dimensional universe. The four concrete dimensions of the material universe shall apply to the surface of the sphere. The fifth dimension of abstraction shall apply in the radial direction. Please note that this model is a metaphor that attempts to relate the various elements of this universe.

The center of this Disturbance theory model of the universe shall represent the ultimate abstraction that could be reached. The spherical layers around the center would represent increasing definition as they move away from the center. Each spherical layer may represent some abstract form of matter, energy, space and time. For example, some spherical layer may define thought as “matter”, computation as “energy”, the matrix of previous layer as “space”, and a different sense of ‘time”.

If this sphere represents all existence, then the center may represent God.

Just as the center anchors the sphere, God grounds this universe of all that exists.The deeper into this sphere one goes, the rarer abstraction one encounters.

God at the center is then the abstraction of all abstractions.

Many of the conclusions derived from this model may run counter-intuitive to traditional beliefs. For example, this model indicates that all cause and effect must lie within this spherical model of the universe, because it represents all existence. Any and all potential would then also lie within this model.

If there is no universe, then there is no God or potential either.

Yes, this is counter-intuitive; but that is what mindfulness seems to be leading toward.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • 2ndxmr  On August 2, 2013 at 12:10 AM

    The idea of a spherical universe is probably incorrect. If it were true then expansion would form a shell-like structure and as it expanded there would be a consistent decrease in stars at the “horizon” of the curvature of the sphere.

    The model I would expect would be more of a pancake. There would be two pancakes, actually, moving in opposite directions from the bang point. Such a model is evidenced throughout the universe in various cosmological manifestations such as supernovas and black holes.

    The effect is due to an intense magnetic field that focuses the projection of matter and energy along the axis of the magnetic field.

    • vinaire  On August 2, 2013 at 6:08 AM

      In KHTK model, the whole physical universe is simply at the surface!

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On August 2, 2013 at 2:51 AM

    It is really interesting to consider and attempt to form up shapes for models of the universe. Some of the counterintuitive trickiness that I encounter is to release current models of the behavior of matter and to let go of current models like explosions which explode into something. There are more than a few layers of thinking to get down to this. One example is in a big bang model, the counterintuitive sense of what did or what does the bang expand into? If space-time is to begin at the big bang, then what we think of as space-time was and seems to be continuing to be “created.” Then another example is to consider what is meant by “created” in this context.

    • vinaire  On August 2, 2013 at 6:16 AM

      The physical part of the universe sensed by our physical senses resides completely on the surface of this model. From center to the surface are layers of abstraction that are gradiently becoming concrete. The physical surface is the upper limit of concreteness.

      If there were a big bang it must have started at an exreme abstract level, and not at a concrete level.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On August 2, 2013 at 8:26 AM

        My universe also exists at the surface somewhat like urethane exists at the surface of the cells of foam rubber.

        • vinaire  On August 2, 2013 at 9:14 AM

          Your universe? Is that your filters?

          .

    • 2ndxmr  On August 2, 2013 at 12:30 PM

      Chris: ” One example is in a big bang model, the counterintuitive sense of what did or what does the bang expand into? If space-time is to begin at the big bang, then what we think of as space-time was and seems to be continuing to be “created.” ”

      Now you are close to duplicating the model I proposed back at New Years.

      I do expect the Higgs field had to be created first – that it was not a consequence of the bang. The reasoning behind this is the uniformity of the field. Any field that emanates from a point source will undergo a decrease in intensity with distance. On the other hand, a complex field that is “created” as a standing-wave volume (like an ocean) would be fairly continuous and uniform throughout. Emphasis on “fairly” uniform. There could certainly be some anomalous density differences, but not like the density variation (gradation) of air between sea level and beyond-earth vacuum.

      If the Higgs field was created as a standing-wave volume (say a spherical volume), and an immensely strong magnetic torus was created within that volume (say near the center), and if a further quantum instability was introduced within that magnetically-confined flux zone, then it would be possible for a bang to precipitate within that zone.

      That bang would take the form of the condensation of the Higgs field into Higgs bosons which would then break into the various elementary particles, creating the hot soup which cooled and reformed into the structures we know as protons, neutrons, etc.

      Because of the intense magnetic field – like wall of an open ended cylinder – the soup would be ejected from both ends of the cylinder, forming expanding clouds that moved outward from the bang point. A very interesting possibility of a bang following this model would be that the masses ejected from each end of the cylinder would have an opposite polarity of some form. This could account for the matter / anti-matter discrepancy in our part of the universe: the anti-matter portion created at the bang could have been ejected out the opposite end to form a mirror universe. Hence the two pancakes (fluffy, thick pancakes – maybe more like English muffins).

      • Chris Thompson  On August 5, 2013 at 10:44 AM

        These are interesting and fun conjectures. I can see how your models work.

  • Chris Thompson  On August 2, 2013 at 2:53 AM

    What could be more counterintuitive than to get the sense that space-time used to not exist?

    • vinaire  On August 2, 2013 at 6:41 AM

      I wonder how we define the abstraction of space-time all the way down to the center.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On August 2, 2013 at 2:57 AM

    I like the direction of thinking in terms of layers or densities with reality at the surface and abstraction underlying this. But I have to be careful when enjoying a momentary leveling of inconsistency for my tendency is to then try to bring that pleasant abstraction forth and condense it as reality. This is important for me to try and remember as I try to make sense of things.

  • Chris Thompson  On August 2, 2013 at 3:14 AM

    2X, I can see how you would say that about two pancakes. Especially at a macro level. I can also see how Vinay sees a sphere. I see both — at both the micro and macro levels. Plus, I see lots of them.

    • 2ndxmr  On August 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM

      Chris: “…I see both — at both the micro and macro levels. Plus, I see lots of them.”

      I can see lots of them, too. Any number. Like balloons floating in the air. Except that these universe-balloons would be bounded volumes floating in the true void. If these universe-balloons (UB’s) were “created” then it is likely that they were created with different formulas and as different events (it would be easy to say “at different times”, but time is only meaningful within this UB as far as we know).

      I expect there could have been a lot of trial and error in creating UB’s, meaning there would be a likelihood of vastly different physical laws between them.

      • Chris Thompson  On August 5, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        Love it. In all the vast universe we could be a single infinite bubble within the true void — elegant. Man is a complicated yet tiny distillation in the grand scheme… We can work on what’s right here in front of us and make monumental discoveries for a very long time without actually banging up against a reason why we need to understand God.

  • Chris Thompson  On August 2, 2013 at 3:15 AM

    We just have to be careful to remember not to cling too much to the satisfaction of momentarily satisfying models so that we continue to look. When considering models, I try to be mindful of ideas like Kurt Godel’s when he said that, “There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.” What this means to me or how I apply it is not only have we not discovered all of the knowledge, but also that we have not discovered most of even what there is to wonder about! Not only this, but what there is to be wondered about continues to be created!

    An example of this is the internet. Imagine “surfing the internet” until we finish it! It cannot be done as the internet is being created every moment and the more it is being created, the faster it is being created! It seems to me there is in this internet model, something deeper and more profound to be noticed that might apply to the greater universe.

  • Chris Thompson  On August 2, 2013 at 3:21 AM

    On the other hand, I believe that I disagree with Kurt Godel’s first statement of belief when he says that “The world is rational.”

    I am thinking that possibly the world is irrational at its heart, especially in the mathematical sense of not corresponding to exact ratios.. This seems more helpful to me when trying to consider the infinities.

    • vinaire  On August 2, 2013 at 7:18 AM

      The universe is everything. It seems to be both rational and irrational. Can we make it all rational? Well, this model is trying to make some sense of the universe.

      .

      • 2ndxmr  On August 2, 2013 at 12:52 PM

        Vin: ” It seems to be both rational and irrational.”

        Not to mention complex and yet integer, real and yet imaginary. 🙂

  • vinaire  On August 2, 2013 at 7:42 AM

    Light travels as a ripple in the fabric of space. An object traveling in space is not comparable to it. The two phenomena cannot be compared in terms of speed. It is apples to oranges. All inconsistencies arise from our attempts to compare two unlike phenomena.

    Just as a plane not bound by the medium of air, can break the barrier of the speed of sound. Similarly, an object, such as thought, not bound by the “medium of space” can break the barrier of the speed of light.

    .

  • AH Jessup  On August 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM

    Lovely discussion. There’s one thing about it that troubles me, namely that in both physical and spiritual terms there is something like a boundary zone where existence and unexistence meet. The quantum foam metaphor describes this physically. In spiritual terms the question of being as a decision (some sort of act of will) would imply that existence can be elected, although it’s a hard question as to what would elect existence. It seems intuitively that to make such a decision, being would be a prerequisite.

    This is entirely distinct from the question of being completely in, partially in, or completely outside of the space-time continuum we perceive as a physical universe.

  • vinaire  On August 4, 2013 at 6:40 PM

    “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha

    “Absolutes are unobtainable.” ~ L. Ron Hubbard

    In anything known, there must be an element that is not known. That would be the boundary zone where existence and unexistence meet.

    All existence is being. Existence is both cause and effect.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM

    The concept of abstraction is nothing new. We do that as we gain more and more experience. As a child we saw see three cups, three plates and three spoons, but it took some time before we could grasp the underlying pattern of three.

    Abstraction is the awareness of the patterns underlying concrete reality. Mathematics deals in abstraction, and so does the subject of Logic. Scientific principles are also abstractions. When we are thinking deeply, we are into abstraction of concrete reality.

    Space may be abstracted as a matrix of some sort. Energy may be abstracted as activity of some sort. Matter may be abstracted as substance of some sort. So we can have mental space as a matrix of our deepest beliefs. When we perceive something, ripples of thought come about in the mental space. This may represent mental energy. As we then settle on conclusions of substance, we may then have mental matter.

    This is all abstraction in terms of the recognition of patterns underlying concrete reality.

    As I wrote in my essay on The Fifth Dimension:

    “This dimension of abstraction has been there all this time. The progress of mankind is measured in this dimension. It has long been recognized as such in the eastern philosophy of the Vedas. Now it is time to look at this dimension scientifically.”

    Essentially, in the KHTK model of the universe, as we think more deeply we move toward the center of this model. That is where we shall find the abstraction of all abstractions.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM

      Vinaire: “That is where we shall find the abstraction of all abstractions.”

      Chris: This is a wonderful post. It sums up so many things we have been working on and distills them into this short work. Congratulations on this fine piece of work. I even like this last bit of poetry at the end where you use an assumption!

  • vinaire  On August 17, 2013 at 3:48 PM

    I have now rewritten the Opening Post to make it more clear.

    .

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: