Hi Akinbo,

Thank you for your constructive comments. It is great to get some feedback.

I will try to answer your "dislikes" and maybe try to convince you otherwise.

1) I agree, I crammed too much in the essay, in fact I basically cut and pasted the beginning of my 3D Universe Theory as it seemed to fit nicely with the contest subject.

2) First, it is important that you really understand the difference between a UB and a CBU. (I can only ask you to re-read the paragraph slowly, sorry)

Second, space is made of "flicking" CBU's. Nothing separates them, they all "touch" each other, and where there is no matter, they form a perfect checkerboard like pattern of alternating states (existence/non-existence). A proton (basic constituent of matter) is not a CBU as such, it is a disruption in the alternating pattern of CBU's (this disruption is caused by the geometric properties of a growing sphere, see 8Pi-1).

If you are not convinced with my explanation, just take a look at the proton radius formula, I show that the diameter of the proton is just a scaled up version of the Planck Length. If you take the Planck Length and multiply it by 1020 (the scale factor) and divide it by 1-1/8Pi, you get the exact value of the proton's diameter measured with a muon. If you divide that SAME value again by the SAME 1-1/8Pi, you get the exact value of the proton's diameter measured with an electron. This 1-1/8Pi is explained in my theory (it is (8Pi-1)/8Pi).

If you are still not convinced, I also show that the proton's mass is a scaled down version of the Planck Mass. If you take the Planck Mass and multiply it by 10-20 (the scale down factor) and multiply it by 8-1/Pi, you get the exact value of the proton's mass. Again, 8-1/Pi is explained in my theory (it is (8Pi-1)/Pi).

3) I know it is boring but you must re-read the bit about the formation of CBU's, you will see that time and space are emergent just by the fact that the UB's are following the "coherent" world rule (if they were not, then the world would not be coherent and we would not exist).

The 2D/3D part takes a bit of time to get used to. It is not easy to explain, I have tried my best in my theory so, again, I can only ask you to re-read it slowly and try to picture the whole thing in your head. The 3D world is virtual (only the 2D part is real) but remember that each virtual 3D world is moving "forward" at the speed of light and expanding at the same time. Also, there are as many virtual 3D worlds as there are "present" layers. (here again, it is important to really understand the two ways to represent a "present" layer)

The units to measure space-time, depends if you are looking at it from an "internal" observer's point of view (living in a coherent world) or from an external observer's point of view (a "godlike" figure if you want). The internal observer sees space and the external observer sees time.

I hope you won't give up in trying to come to graps with my theory, it would be great to find someone that can understand what I am talking about !

Cheers,

Patrick

Hi Antony,

Thank you for your comments, I will look at your essay and leave a comment on your blog.

Cheers,

Patrick

Patrick,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

5 days later

Hi Patrick,

While I don't agree with everything you say, but some issues I see you are close to my system. But I am mainly contacting you because you know programming and you have plenty of time to explore the origin of reality. It might be interesting to you. I have rated your essay good.

Please if you have the time run The programs which are at my website

http://www.qsa.netne.net

please make sure you unzip the file properly, the code is in JavaScript, the programs are very simple. also see the posts in my thread for some more info.

you can find my essay at this link

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1877

see the amazing formulas in section 6, like this one

alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

BTW, our backgrounds are very similar. Thank you

Adel

    Hi Adel,

    Thank you for your comments and your rating.

    I definetely agree with your "Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally". Our approaches are different but we seem to come to similar results ie: we can produce fundamental constants with just simple maths.

    Good luck with the contest !

    Patrick

    Hi Adel,

    My answer is just below. I did not click on the right link !

    Patrick

    8 days later

    Dear Patrick -

    The UB as you present it is an interesting way to consider any given entity.

    The universe began from nothing, and I would add that this nothing is energy that had not yet formed itself into a positive-negative entity (a proton and an electron) at this location which was to eventually become a universe.

    I describe something similar in my essay - a Pulse, that continually enters and exits a dimensional system such as our Cosmos.

    I am interested by the way your system accounts for the observer in the configuration of perceived reality; I do the same, but my approach is less technical and considers the observer as an evolving creature - one who makes decisions at every moment, and over a very long period of time, during which his relation to the physical world - his own biological configuration, if you will - is continuously altered.

    I wonder if your system could be adapted to such a Species Cosmos?

    Hopefully, you'll look at my essay and let me know. I rated your essay, and wish you the best of luck in the competition.

    John

      Patrick,

      Great essay! completely fundamental and original, and also well structured, explained and illustrated.

      I completely agree the external observers viewpoint. (I've analogised this in my own work as very similar to the two views of our galaxy -my last two essays, end notes and links refer).

      The expanding spheres are analogous to Huygens construction. I like and agree the concept and have also used it, viewed it in a slightly different way, discussed in my essay.

      But I was most interested in your explanation that;

      "An internal observer on the present layer will always be at the centre of his own virtual 3D world. That world is constantly growing around him. ..., the successive virtual 3D worlds are like Russian dolls, they envelope one another."

      This hierarchical 'space within a space within a space' model is something I've explored in my last 3 essays, finding an ontological 'discrete field' model (DFM) which proves to contain high empirical truth value. I test some important implications in my essay which I hope you'll read and comment on. Many of your points have analogies.

      I also agree with most of your conclusions but not entirely with some. My own most bold proposition is that the 'Law of the excluded middle' applicable to maths needs modification to account for the uncertainty of nature! Perhaps best to discuss 'hidden likenesses' once you've also read mine.

      A very good essay, using very free thinking and making an enjoyable read. Thank you. Certainly worth a better score I think, which I'll apply now. I note you felt you "crammed too much in", you just wait till you read mine!! I hope I did it as well as you, ...but perhaps don't try to 'speed read' it!

      Very well done and best of luck in the impending melee

      Peter

        Mr. Patrick,

        Your ideas impressed Me. Really new and fresh elements.

        I ask now the permission for future exchanges.

        I visited Your site. I do not understand why people should laugh !

        My Best Regards.

          Dear Patrick,

          I've read (even studied) your proposal.

          I agree with you that the most fundamental level of reality is built up by opposites. By relating to opposites - as far as they are explicitly defined as limiting states - reality makes use of all possibilities that logic in general allows. In this view the logical contradiction created by the (two) opposites are excluded as unreachable physical states.

          Though this view looks very similiar to yours there is a fundamental difference: The logical values of 0 and 1 are not related in a logically classical way as being either 0 or 1, they are both valid, at least if they are considered as being limiting cases.

          By the philosophy of Nicholas Cusa (i.e. the doctrince of coincidence of the opposites) I could identify the Smallest (R = 0) and the Largest (R = oo) as spatial limiting cases of a metaphysical universe. From a logical point of view the Smallest and the Largest are logically contradictions: The Smallest is included in all things, whereas the Largest is included in nothing.

          In my 2009-FQXI-paper "Taming of the ONE" I've sketched this view.

          As you know by German philosophy, in particular by Immanuel Kant, existence was critized as being not a real predicate. Existence and non-Existence might be highly problematic categories.

          I think you are in touch with a specific feature of reality, but you are describing it in a way that does not fit to it.

          However, I wish you good luck for your interesting paper.

          Helmut

            Hi John,

            Thank you for your comments.

            I will look at your essay and comment on your blog.

            Patrick

            Hi Peter,

            Thank you for your nice comments, I am glad you enjoyed my essay. If you feel like reading more, you can visit my website and download the full theory. I would love to have your comments on it.

            I will read your essay and leave a comment on your blog.

            Patrick

            Ciao Giacomo,

            Nice comment ! thank you.

            Sometimes I feel that people are missing the point of my theory because I don't explain it very well and I don't use the proper scientific language. From the comments I am getting, I can see that some people have taken the time to try to understand it and this is great.

            I would love to share my ideas with others more qualified than me, I am sure there is a lot more that can be found from the basic principles of my theory but I am not qualified to do it on my own.

            You can contact me when you want for future exchanges, that would be a pleasure.

            (patrick@3d-universe-theory.com).

            Patrick

            Hi Helmut,

            Thank you for your comments.

            In my theory, there are two opposite "worlds", the existence world and the non-existence world. They both exist from their own point of view, so the O and the 1 are both valid.

            Patrick

            Hello Patrick,

            Saw your post on my blog. It seems we are few that want to explore this existence/non-existence topic. I even posted what's below to focus the discussion but a few were offended so I stop. Some said they don't know what 'elicit' means even though Wheeler used the term and another said there can be superposition of existence and non-existence. Even a friend answer that he will not go to work. Anyway here is it...

            "If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there...

            1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

            2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

            3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

            Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

            4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

            Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

            Best regards,

            Akinbo

              • [deleted]

              • Post #37

              Dear Patrick

              I am also suspect on variation of mass proton and electron

              http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0080

              Regards

              Yuri

              P.S. This contest my issue about different matter

                Hi Akinbo,

                Have you moved to the dark side of the force ?

                Patrick

                Hi Yuri,

                I will check your paper and comment on your blog.

                Cheers,

                Patrick

                Hi Patrick

                This is my opinion about Planck scale

                http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0191

                Cheers

                Yuri

                Your essay was interesting and fun to read, Patrick;

                I like your theory, though at this time it is still a toy model rather than a robust scientific theory. The layers of circles construction you describe is reminiscent of the ancient 'flower of life' figure construction, where the circles are half-overlapping (center to edge), and only when you get to the third layer are the outermost circles independent of the central one (touching edge to edge at a point). But I suspect you are treating this construction like the close packing of spheres using the 1-sphere or circle, where they are touching edge to edge. In any case; I also believe the universe is here because it computes. In fact, in imitation of Descartes; I once coined the phrase "It Computes, therefore It Is."

                I will be creating a page of links on this website:

                www.itcomputes.info

                ..to work like yours that uses a procedural model to reproduce natural law, and affirms the "It from Bit" concept of Wheeler. I hope we can stay in touch after the contest, so that your ideas can be included.

                Best of luck,

                Jonathan