Basic Information Structuring by Paul N Butler

Dear Joe,

I am sorry that I did not provide more in the way of examples to support some things provided in my paper, but as you mentioned the short maximum size of the papers forced me to choose to provide very little breadth of the types of information with greater depth of detail about each type that was provided or to provide greater breadth of more types of information with each provided with less depth of detail. I chose the latter with the intent that it might spur a greater amount of basic understanding and generate more comments from those who desired more depth, which could then be accommodated through my comments section. I hope that this is acceptable to you and others who may read my paper.

In order to answer your comment I read your paper "Bitters". Your understanding that everything happens once and is unique is very true when looked at on the global scale. Every motion that has ever existed in the motion continuum has its own unique complete path traveled from its beginning until its end. This would include its original position, direction, and motion amplitude level and all changes to them due to its normal propagation through space and due to interactions with other motions. Since all sub-energy, energy, and matter particles are composed of motions they are a part of their constituent motions' paths and thus are parts of the overall unique patterns of those motions. Because of the large number of such motions, it is not that odd to see the large number of variations in snow flakes and other objects composed of them. I believe that you may have missed a very important point, however. In your comment you say "Unique is not structured", but at the same time you point out the variations in structures that are composed of basic motions combined or built up into matter particles which are in turn built up into atoms that are then built up into larger structures such as molecules, etc. which are then combined together to form larger structures such as snowflakes and toes, etc. The fact that structures like snowflakes and toes exist tells us something very important about the nature of the universe, which is that it is not completely random and without structure. If all motions that exist were completely random, no structures such as toes would ever be formed and science would truly be of no use. Such structures can only be formed because motions possess properties or rules of structure such as their continuous change in spatial position in some spatial direction at some amplitude or level or amount of motion. They can also interact with other motions according to certain specific built in or structured rules of interaction and through these interactions they can form continuous cyclical interaction bonds that allow them to be built up into more permanent and more complex structures such as energy photons and matter particles through the initiation of continuously balanced cyclical motion patterns. These matter particles can then be built up into atoms and the atoms can then be structured into molecules, etc., which can then be structured into large scale entities such as toes and snowflakes, etc. All of these levels of structure function according to programs of rules that are built into the structure of the universe that apply at each level of that structure.

All of these rules of behavior and interaction are basic structural information. Even the basic structure of the dimensional system and the motions that function within it are structural information. Information is not just abstract binary digits of ones and zeros stored in some binary based computer, In general, information is anything that is a part of the form or structure of an entity (literal information) or that tells us something about the form or structure of some other entity (abstract information). It is anything that can inform an observer about the structure or form of an entity. In this case an observer is anyone or anything that an entity interacts with directly or indirectly such that the observer receives something about the existence or structure of the entity as a result of the interaction with it. Information can be stored in many forms. Binary code is only one method to store abstract information. Analog computers have been developed that can store information in decimal form. As an example, a zero voltage output could represent a zero, a one volt output a one, and a two volt output a two, etc. Even such abstract information must be stored in some form that is a part of the structure of reality. It must be stored in assemblies of real energy and/or matter particles. Because it does not contain the information about the particles that make it up, but contains information about some other entity, it is abstract information. The actual energy photons and matter particles contain all of the information about themselves (their structure and interaction abilities, etc.) in the literal form of their existence. This is information that is literal and not abstract. When we observe an interaction between two such particles, we can determine that both of the two particles contain internal stored information that can allow them to interact in such a way as to produce the observed output result from the interaction. After looking at as many different types of interactions between the two particles as we possibly can and observing all of the different types of outputs that result, we can then begin to look at various types of possible construction of the particles to find any that would generate all of the observed outputs. If more than one type of construction would do so, we can then see if each of those different construction types would be expected to produce some type of output that the others would not and we can then focus on trying to cause the particles to interact in the way that it would be expected to produce those outputs to allow the isolation to the construction that generates all of its expected outputs and no other outputs. If this search is successful, it would not mean that the particle is actually constructed in that way, but that the way that it is constructed is equivalent to the model as far as interaction outputs are concerned. We would, however, know one way that it could be constructed and just learning about all of the different outputs that can be generated by their interactions and learning how to control the interactions so as to be able to generate the specific output desired can allow the development of new things that can make life better for us in this world.

Although an understanding of such things as how the universe came about and its detailed structure are important, much of the usefulness of science comes from observations of and learning how to control such things as cyclical motion structures like the frequency effect of photons (electromagnetism), the motion patterns of electrons in atoms (chemistry), and the motions of planets around the sun, etc. (astronomy). Understanding such things has greatly improved life for man over the years. These things and many others are examples of information based on that which exists that can be demonstrated through interaction relational information. The concept that elephants can fly by flapping their ears would be an example of unreal information because there is no interaction relational information to support such a concept and there is much observational interaction relational information that would lead one to the conclusion that the concept is unreal.

Although any man's toe may be unique in some way compared to all other men's toes, they all also have similarities to one another in their structures that far outweigh their dissimilarities. They all have similar structures of bones, muscles, blood vessels that contain and transport blood, skin, and toenail, etc. and they all perform the same basic functions in the body. After all it would not make any sense to even call them all toes if they were all completely different from each other in all respects. It is in the study of the part of the universe that allows and even generates these likenesses in the structure of entities that science is most successfully useful for the acquisition and understanding of their information. As an example, one hydrogen atom may in some way be different from all other hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom may differ in some way compared to all other oxygen atoms, but all hydrogen atoms are similar enough to one another and all oxygen atoms are similar enough to one another in their structures to allow any two hydrogen atoms to interact with any oxygen atom to produce a molecule of water. The knowledge of the structural information that a water molecule is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms can lead to many new valuable uses for water, especially when combined with other structural information such as that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms can be separated from the water molecules by passing an electric current through the water, etc.

Paul B.

Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for your comment that my paper is interesting and thought provoking. That is my intent in providing the information that is contained in all of the papers that I have provided in this world. It is never provided just to try to fit into the current scientific mold to win a prize, etc., but is intended to provoke others to expand their thinking beyond current understandings to allow the attainment of the next level of advancement. When you say "We wish" are you speaking not only for yourself, but also on behalf of others that have read the paper with you or is that just a language translation artifact. If others are involved, putting the name of each one before his comments or questions would make it easier for me to respond to each one more in line with his own understandings. You are right that I don't always make minimal size paragraphs. I tend to get caught up in the best way to present the information to make understanding of it easier and often don't consider man's current general short attention span. See my above comment to Joe as to why I didn't provide more examples. Hopefully I can provide them to you now.

The internal structural information of even a sub-energy particle is more complex than can be expressed by one letter of the alphabet. It contains at least the current position of the particle, its three dimensional composite direction of travel, and its motion amplitude (the level, amount, or quantity of motion that it possesses.) It also contains all of the information needed to support all of the types of interactions that it can take part in. You could, of course, have this information stored elsewhere and refer to it using a letter of the alphabet as is often too common in mathematical presentations. You are right that the external relational information can take the form of something as small as an interaction between two matter particles or could be on a much larger scale such as the composite interactions of a very large number of particles when two cars crash into each other. I am aware of man's current belief that the universe started as a point singularity that in some way expanded and in so doing created the universe that we see today. Because of man's current limited knowledge and understanding of the motions that are present within the universe it is not possible to logically say much about that conclusion except to say it could be possible within the framework of man's current understanding and experimental abilities.

The concept of dimension can be used both to describe absolute spatial directions of the spatial system separate from all entities that exist in it and relative spatial directions generated between local entities that exist in that system. You are right that an energy photon could be used as a source to generate a local directional system between it and other entities, but since it travels at the speed of light it might not be the best choice to use to compare the relative directions and locations of matter particles at rest or traveling very slowly. When I talk about direction as internal structural information I am not talking about the direction that it appears to be traveling in, to an external observer. I am talking about the direction of travel information contained within the particle's internal structural information that allows it to continue to change from its current position to the next proper position to maintain its current path in a straight line in that current direction of travel in the absence of an interaction. This information must be stored in some way somewhere in order for the particle to continue to use it to move to its next proper position. When you talk about needing an extra dimension in mathematical space, are you talking about a time dimension? I would be very surprised if man has not yet developed a mathematical means of describing a zero dimensional (dimensionless) world that contains only one point without having to use dimensions that are not present in it to describe it. Math is an abstract information form. There should be no need to consider a position of a one dimensional line on a two dimensional paper which could not exist in a one dimensional world. I am assuming that you are referring to my mention of the fourth and fifth dimensions used to describe the structure of energy photons and matter particles. The reason that they have not been found is that observations have not been interpreted in a way that would make it obvious that the observations are of motions in those dimensions. It should be obvious to anyone today that all things are composed of motions. I say this because observations have shown that matter particles can be changed into energy photons and energy photons can be changed into simple motions. Man does not currently know about the existence of the sub-energy particle, but it is composed of a single motion traveling in some direction at a velocity generally less than the speed of light. It has an important role to play and is mainly observable to man at this time in the structure of fields. The energy photon contains two motions. First there is its motion in some direction at the speed of light. Its second motion is a motion in the fourth dimension that generates the photon's frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. The fourth dimension is very small. It is three times the size of the width of the structural point of the photon. At this point I believe that man considers that to be a dimensionless point, but it does actually have a physical size, albeit a very small one. The fourth dimensional motion of the photon travels back and forth between the ends of this dimension and bounces off of the ends and then travels back in the other direction in a continuous back and forth cycle. Our three dimensional structure intersects this fourth dimension at the center of this fourth dimension. When a photon's fourth dimensional motion is at an extreme end of the fourth dimension, it is just outside of our three dimensional structure and, therefore, has no effect if an interaction occurs at that point. The photon behaves as though it is a sub-energy particle with extremely low mass effect that is currently not detectable by man. As it begins to travel back toward the center of the fourth dimension, it begins to be partially within our three dimensional structure. Its mass effect begins to increase and reaches a maximum effect when its fourth dimensional motion is completely within our three dimensional structure. Its mass effect then decreases until it reaches zero again just as it reaches the other end of the fourth dimension. It then bounces off of the end of the dimension and travels back toward the center of the fourth dimension, but this time it is traveling in the opposite direction. This creates the same increase followed by decrease in mass effect as before, but in the opposite direction. The fourth dimension interfaces with our three dimensional structure at ninety degrees in a similar way to the way that the lower three dimensions interface with each other except that all points in the three dimensional structure only interface with the center of this fourth dimension. The net effect is a cyclical motion effect at ninety degrees to the direction of motion of the photon that generates a variable mass effect that varies from zero to a maximum level then back to zero then back to the maximum, but in the opposite direction then back to zero. This cycle repeats indefinitely as long as the photon exists. The speed of light is the induction point at which any greater velocity is transferred into the particle's fourth dimensional motion. The greater the fourth dimensional motion amplitude, the faster it travels through its complete motion cycle back and forth in the fourth dimension and its frequency is, therefore, increased. Because the photon's motion in its direction of travel is locked at the speed of light, the quicker the fourth dimensional motion completes a cycle the less the distance that the photon travels in its direction of travel during one complete cycle of the fourth dimensional motion, so the wave length of one cycle in its direction of travel is decreased. Like in the case of all motions, an increase in the fourth dimensional velocity increases its mass effect in an interaction and, therefore, its dynamic mass effect is increased. The photon's mass effect during an interaction is mostly due to the angular motion of the photon's fourth dimensional velocity. The in line motion at the speed of light adds very little mass effect to the interaction due to the structure of the interaction interface (how the interaction occurs). Instead of recognizing these effects as the result of the fourth dimensional motion they are generally attributed to be properties of a mysterious field the nature of which no one really understands. A similar situation exists concerning the role of the fifth dimensional motion in the production and functioning of matter particles, but if I give details on that too, you will definitely think this paragraph is too long. I am trying to use one paragraph to respond to each of your paragraphs to make it easier for you to track what each response is to.

Now I have a new paragraph, so I can give some information about basic matter particles like the electron and the fifth dimensional motion that is involved in its production. Since a photon can be changed into a matter particle and a matter particle can be changed into a photon, it is evident that they each contain all the basic constituents of the other. If the photon is composed of motions, it is, therefore, likely that a matter particle is also composed of motions. There are two big differences in the behavior of energy photons and matter particles. The first is that the photon travels at the speed of light while the matter particle can exist in a rest or stopped state. The second is that the energy particle only has a dynamic mass effect that increases with an increase in frequency while a matter particle has a much greater continuous mass effect that is present even when it is at rest and increases when it is in motion. To convert a photon to a matter particle its linear motion must be able to be stopped and it must be given rest mass. An extra fifth dimensional motion can do both. Again there is an induction point which if a photon's fourth dimensional velocity exceeds; some of its fourth dimensional motion can be transferred to its fifth dimensional motion component. In addition to this though, the motion transfer can only take place if the proper angular motion component is present. This means that a photon could possess adequate fourth dimensional motion to allow it to be changed into a matter particle, but if the required angular motion component is not present it will continue to be a photon. Also, if a matter particle loses its required angular motion component such as in an interaction with an antimatter particle (they have fifth dimensional motions that travel in the opposite directions, so their opposite angular components cancel out in an interaction between them) its fifth dimensional motion will be transferred back into the fourth dimension and it will convert back into a photon. Here is a beginning idea of how it works. The interface between the fifth dimension and the lower three dimensions is such that as a particle's fifth dimensional motion travels in the fifth dimension it induces motion into the lower three dimensions. It does not induce equal amounts simultaneously into all three dimensions, but it induces motion into each dimension in turn that increases as it approaches that dimension and then decreases eventually to zero as it passes that dimension. The effects overlap in such a way that when one dimension is experiencing its maximum effect, the other two experience zero effect when the fifth dimensional motion is completely engaged with the dimension experiencing maximum motion transfer. As the fifth dimensional motion begins to leave the first dimension it also begins to enter into range to induce motion into the second dimension, so motion transfer to that dimension starts and increases to the maximum level when the fifth dimensional motion is fully engaged with it. At the same time, motion transfer to the first dimension has been decreasing as the fifth dimensional motion travels toward the limits of the motion transfer range. Transfer reaches the zero level just as the maximum transfer level to the second dimension is reached. This pattern continues as the fifth dimensional motion travels from the second dimension to the third dimension and again to complete the cycle as it travels from the third dimension back to the first dimension. The net effect is to cause the photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself to create a continuous cyclical motion path structure, which we know as a matter particle. That is about as much as I have so far given to anyone in this world, but you are the lucky one to receive the next bit (not binary) of information about it. The obvious apparent flaw is that all of the fifth dimensional motion would thus be expected to be drained into the lower three dimensions and then the matter particle would turn back into a photon. As this motion is added to the lower three dimensions it would tend to increase the photon's linear motion to be greater than the speed of light, but excess motion would be transferred from the lower three dimensions into the fourth dimension in an attempt to restore its linear motion to the speed of light. If the photon is of a proper wavelength to properly fit within the matter particle's enclosed motion path and that wavelength is properly phased within the matter particle it creates the proper angular motion component to allow the motion to be transferred back into the fifth dimension and the particle's continuous cyclical interdimensional motion transfer cycle is complete. If one or both of the above conditions is not met all of the fifth dimensional motion is first transferred to the lower three dimensions and then transferred into the fourth dimension and the matter particle changes back into a photon. This is part of the mechanism that determines what particles are stable and what ones aren't. That is about as much detail as I can give out at this time in this world. The reason that the electron's position can't be completely determined is that it is not a point dimensionless particle as it is usually considered. It is a dynamic continuous motion structure composed of a linear motion at the speed of light that is modified by its fifth dimensional motion into a three dimensional curved enclosed path and as it travels, this path is continuously changing in dynamic mass effect from zero to a maximum mass and then back to zero and then back to maximum dynamic mass in the opposite direction at ninety degrees to its continuously changing direction of motion within its enclosed path. You would need to figure out a few more things to completely understand why the various probabilities exist and what they are telling you about the structure of an electron, but I have given you enough to get you started. Of course, even if you get a complete understanding of these things it will still not allow you to find the position of a single electron because man has not yet attained the ability to work effectively on the size scale of individual matter particles such as the electron let alone on the scale of its internal motion components. It can be done, however, but man will need to figure out many details in order to be able to make the necessary fifth vector transfers to allow things to be worked on accurately at this size scale. The rest mass effect is mostly due to the angular motion component generated by the matter particle's fifth vector motion. The three dimensional aspect of this motion assures that the particle's mass effect is the same in any interaction regardless of the direction from which another particle approaches it.

An absolute structure is an entity that has the same structure throughout, in such a way that any interaction between it and another similar absolute structure always yields the same result. A point object would generally be an example of an absolute structure.

The book of pictures could include pictures from all necessary angles to give a complete view of all of the car's parts. You are right that you cannot read a book and fully understand it unless you know the abstract language it is written in and how to read and understand what you read in that language, etc. Not all words convey a concept that matches a physical object. As an example, a science fiction book may convey many concepts that have no matching physical objects in reality. The abstraction actually comes from using symbols such as letters and numbers, etc. to represent something else. In the case of actual physical objects, abstraction is replacing the actual object with something else that acts as a place holder in place of the actual physical object. Anything can be used as a replacement. Abstraction can have several layers of structure, so that several objects may be used to represent a single physical object. This is common in man's written languages. As an example, to represent a specific car you might write "George Fern's 2009 Toyota Camry" which takes about 30 symbols to represent the actual specific car object that is being referred to. These symbols are divided into five words or concepts that represent different aspects of that object adequate to allow someone to determine which actual object is being referred to. If the language contained a different single symbol for each possible physical object, there would be only a single level of abstraction. In the example above, though, there are only a few symbols used to represent all possible objects. An individual object is represented by a series of these symbols in the form of words with extra space between words used to separate one word from the next. This adds another layer of abstraction. Each layer of abstraction requires additional knowledge to know how to use it to determine the meaning that is being expressed by it. Each layer, therefore, adds more opportunities for errors to enter into the interpretation of the structure. It is true that if the abstraction does not compare accurately with the concept being represented by it, it can add more opportunities for errors in interpretation to enter in. As an example, if the mathematical space was closer to a direct image of the physical space many opportunities for error would be removed. Yes, a concept that is designed to represent an actual perception should be as close in detail of structure as possible to the perception in form.

I have studied man's concept of evolution and have come to the conclusion that it is for the most part a false philosophy. Virtual particles do not pop out and vanish again. Sub-energy particles are motion entities that possess a single motion that is for the most part less than the speed of light. They tend to be entrained and channeled by the cyclical motion structures of matter particles. This causes their density to be increased in the vicinity of such particles. Objects can increase this density in some circumstances, such as when they approach each other at great speed, etc. to the point that an interaction can take place between a matter particle, such as an electron and a sub-energy particle. This interaction can transfer enough motion to the sub-energy particle to increase its speed to greater than the speed of light. This extra motion is then induced into the fourth dimension and the sub-energy particle becomes an energy photon. If the amount of motion transferred is great enough and the proper angular motion component is also present the sub-energy particle can not only transfer motion into its fourth dimensional motion, it can also transfer some motion into its fifth dimensional motion and become a matter particle. Because man has not yet discovered the sub-energy particle, it appears that the photon or matter particle has just come into existence from empty space, but for those who know about sub-energy, it is just another example of a motion transfer system. The persistence of information transfer structures, such as speech is a whole other subject, but I will not go into that here because this comment is getting very long already. My point about the video games was that they start out as abstract computer code that is transferred into a literal environment of beings and other things on the video screen as a similarity to how the world starts out as abstract symbols of sub-energy, photon, and matter particles, which are built up in several layers of assembly into our environment of literal beings and other things in this world. You are right, though, that the programmer can choose whether to make his game model his reality or make it be different from our reality. The programmer is in this way the games god. He makes the laws and the beings within the game must obey the laws that he made in order to succeed in the game environment. This could be a likeness to the real world in that God made the laws of our world and we must obey them in order to succeed in this world.

Very well written. You hedged your bets in all the right places. The mirage comment is also pretty good. There are cases, however, in which an image of an actual place where there is water bounces off of layers of air at different temperatures in such a way that you are actually being given information about a direction in which water can be found. It may just be much farther than it appears to be. If you are ever in that situation look for other things also in the mirage image, such as palm trees, etc.

My position here is to transfer information to man that will prepare him for future needs. As a very important man once said, "I am not come to destroy men's lives, but that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly." I do not mind criticism as long as it is intended for good to increase my knowledge and not for evil just to try to discredit the information that is being provided even if it is true in order to protect one's own pet or even currently established theory even if it is not true. I like constructive suggestions and seeking clarifications. That is how people work together in a way that can allow all involved to grow in knowledge and understanding. My position is to work with all to the degree that I can and they allow. I don't take offence to anyone who is seeking to understand the truth.

Peace be unto you,

Paul B.

Dear Basudeba,

There are indeed many conscious beings in the universe and each varies in ability according to its purpose. Unity of information does not come within their plurality, however, but rather division comes because of the lack of complete information placed within all of them to limit them that they might come to the only true source of unity. The consciousness that I share includes what man perceives as this universe and all within it and much more, but is not limited to it. The one who creates knows the creation, but is much more than the creation. This one is the only one who contains the unity of all information. This one offers to all that we may share in this information if we receive it, believe it, understand it, accept it and allow ourselves to be changed by it, so we can be complete in understanding, so we do according to it and we all come into the true unity in this one and this one in us. In this unity there is only one, so I is appropriate to use.

Although the theory of an expansion from a singularity to form the present universe, could be possible when you limit your understanding to the framework of man's current understanding and experimental abilities, I did not say that the formation of the universe actually occurred in that way. This universe had a beginning and will have an end at the proper time when all things of its purpose are fulfilled; these things are not as most believe. A point must only be described with reference to some background if such a background exists and the point is joined to it in some relationship. If the universe only contained one point and that was all that existed, the point would have no need to be described with reference to some background that did not exist. You are right that space existed before the introduction of motion into it. In men's concepts it is usually said that the surface of the balloon is a representation of a two dimensional world curved into the third dimension. This is used because man cannot make an image of a three dimensional world curved into a fourth dimension, which is what they usually believe it to be. You are right that such a curved world would not explain what the state is of the parts of the fourth dimension that are not part of that three dimensional world because they are either inside the four sphere or outside of it. There are many problems with this concept some of which you have pointed out. Another major problem is that this concept calls for a curved space, but all of man's measurements made so far have indicated a flat linear space as actually existing in reality.

This universe has a beginning and an end. It won't begin again. It was made to be temporary. There will be a new, better, and larger permanent universe to replace it.

The word dimension has more than one meaning. One meaning has to do with the measurement of something. As an example you might say that if you are facing a four inch cube, the dimensions of the side of it that is facing you are four inches high by four inches wide to show its internal size, etc. I was not using that meaning. I was using the word to mean a physical spatial dimension. As an example, a three dimensional world contains three such dimensions as I was referring to. The point was that if you had a global perspective of a three dimensional world, so you could identify the absolute orientation of each of the three physical dimensions that made up the physical space, you could use this known dimensional orientation to establish absolute directions in space even if the space was empty. At the same time from a local perspective the same concept of dimension can be used to describe relative dimensional directions in the comparison of entities that exist in the spatial system without regard to what any absolute dimensional orientation might be.

It is true that the fourth and fifth dimensions are not things that you can just look out into the world and see, but neither are matter particles. You can know that they exist only from the indirect evidence of their interactions the results of which can be seen. You can observe a matter particle in motion by the condensation trail it makes in a cloud chamber or the effects it has when it interacts with a particle detector, etc., but you are not actually seeing the particle itself. In a like manner you can detect the fourth dimension by the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effect that it causes in an energy photon and the fifth dimension can be detected by the curved path structure that it generates in matter particles. Direct observation of these dimensions by man will not occur very soon because the fourth dimension's size is very small (three times the size of the width of the structural point of a photon and only the center third or a size of the width of the photon's structural point exists within our three dimensional structure. The fifth dimension does not connect directly to the lower three dimensions, but mainly communicates with them through a motion transfer induction interface, so you cannot interact with it other than through this interface.

It has been done by man mainly by using the electron fields of an atom to provide the angular motion component that is required. It has also been done with higher frequency photons by using the fields of the nucleus of the atom to provide the angular motion component. For the most part, a matter and antimatter particle pair is usually produced.

In a zero dimensional world you would be right. When the point object exists within a larger dimensional structure, such as our three dimensional structure, it could move and that motion would generate mass effect that could conceivably allow interactions to take place if they both tried to occupy the same point in space simultaneously. Of course, real matter particles are not point objects anyway, so it is not worth worrying about it. Matter particles are believed to have spin also, but point objects can't spin either. They possess a central point about which to spin, but have nothing to spin about that point because if they had any such extension beyond the central point that could spin about it they would not be point objects. Spin actually is a two dimensional structure. It cannot exist in a zero or one dimensional world. A one dimensional object (a line) could spin, however, in a two or greater dimensional world. Spin also creates a mass effect that is directional. This means that the particle's mass would vary in an interaction depending on whether or not the interaction would change the axis of the particle's spin. Its mass effect would be greater if its spin axis is changed by the interaction.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your support of some of the concepts in my paper. Of course more important than just support is that we agree on them. I hope we will also come to agreement on other things, such as the structure of the photon and matter particles, etc., although most such things were not covered in great detail in this paper. You could look at my papers in previous contests to get more details on such things if you wish.

I read your paper and I can see that your findings are on the right track. You do seem to understand that whenever you see multiple possible outcomes to an interaction and each has its own probability of occurrence; such outcomes are always the result of some structure that generates them and their particular occurrence probabilities. You seem to consider the photon as composed of two motions. The first being its linear motion in its direction of travel at the speed of light and the second seems to be a rotational motion at ninety degrees to its linear motion that rides on the linear motion. The combination of the two motions creates a helical path structure for the photon's structural point to travel. Or do you consider the photon's structural point to be traveling in the straight line linear path and the rotational motion to be a separate motion with its own structural point for interaction at ninety degrees to the direction of the linear motion of the photon?

One of the problems that I found that needed to be addressed is that since a matter particle can be changed into a photon and a photon can be changed into simple motions, it is necessary that the structure of both photons and matter particles be composed of simple motions. Simple motions always travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction. The photon's linear motion at the speed of light is a good example of a simple motion. The frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects that operate at ninety degrees to the photon's linear motion do not at least appear on the surface to be the result of a simple motion. As an example, a circular rotational motion can be generated by a combination of two motions that are ninety degrees to each other and are ninety degrees out of phase with each other. Each of these motions starts at a zero level of motion then linearly increases to some maximum motion level and then decreases linearly in motion level back to zero level. It then increases linearly back to the maximum motion level, but this time in the opposite direction and then decreases linearly back to the zero motion level. This cycle continually repeats and the two motions are connected such that when one reaches its maximum level in one direction the other one is just starting its motion in one direction. As you can see, each of these motions would not be a simple motion and would thus at least need to be composed of several simple motions continuously interacting with each other. You could use some attractive field structure similar to gravity to cause a simple motion to travel in a curved line path, but then you would need to describe how this field functions in terms of simple motions, etc. How do you describe the circular or helical motion of the photon in your theory in terms of simple motions?

I believe that we have many understandings in common. You recognize the hierarchical structure of the universe, that to consider a concept to be real or conforming to reality there needs to be interaction relational information to support it, you seem to have a good understanding of the nature of literal and abstract information, and you seem to understand that matter particles are not point objects, etc. Starting from these and probably other common understandings, I believe that we could work together to the benefit of both of us.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for your general agreement.

The answers of how and why the universe started cannot be discerned from the universe itself unless its creator purposely encoded that information in it in some way for us, so that we can observe it and understand it. The only other way it could be discerned would be through direct communication with the creator or with someone who had such direct communication. Both of these things have occurred. Actually the spreading out and averaging out of motions in the universe, which is one of the two main aspects that are attributed to entropy is supported by much direct evidence, such as the fact that chemical reactions always occur in the direction that will create greatest motion flow from higher motion levels (kinetic and/or potential) to lower motion levels with increase in motion diffusion. Given man's current understanding of the universe, the end of the universe could be expected to happen in this manner.

1. The stars will ultimately consume all of the lighter elements up to iron through fusion reactions that will transform them to heavier elements at which point they will burn out.

2. The more dense stars will collapse into black holes.

3. The black holes will attract all other matter into them.

4. The black holes will radiate all of this trapped motion back out into space in the form of energy photons and slowly dissipate and cease to exist.

5. The energy photons would dissipate until evenly dispersed throughout space.

6. At this point the universe would for all practical purposes be dead.

I am not sure what you mean by a different scale, please elaborate.

I was talking about someone who had a global view of the complete universe and all of its structure. As an example, if you lived as a being on a two dimensional television screen that was so large that you could not travel to or even see to one of its edges, you could generate directions between other objects on the screen, but you could not discern the absolute directions of the screen. If on the other hand you could look down on the screen from the third dimension, so that you could see all of it and could even understand the structure behind the screen, so that you would understand that the objects on the screen were generated by a beam that came from behind the screen and traveled from left to right on the screen from one end of it to the other end and was then turned off and started again at the left of the screen, but just a little lower on it in a continuing pattern of lines from top to bottom, you could generate directions on the screen that you might call left and right for one dimension in line with the paths of the beam lines and up and down for the other dimension in line with the direction that one line is to another line on the screen even if it was turned off at that time, so that there were no objects on it. These directions would be obvious to you in relation to the structure of the screen universe and its pattern of operation. The screen universe would be empty of all objects, but you could see and understand the structure behind it that generates objects on it. This would give you a global perspective, so you could generate directions based on that structure that would be hidden from any beings that were part of the two dimensional screen universe. Your description of the man in the box is a pretty good description of the limitations of the two dimensional screen beings on the two dimensional screen universe or of us in this universe as we also cannot get outside of it to get a global perspective of it.

I already explained that one in my last comment to you. You gave a concept of three dimensional aspects that are commonly associated with energy photons to justify three dimensions. You cannot actually watch a photon go by you at the speed of light or see its supposed e.m. field structure at ninety degrees to its direction of travel. These things are only inferred indirectly by the effects that the photon has on matter during interactions. Can you explain how the electromagnetic field structure works in terms of the simple motions that make it up? Or if it is not made of simple motions, how is it changed into simple motions when the photon interacts with a matter particle resulting in an increase in the matter particle's level or rate of motion in its direction of travel during the interaction which in the process of the interaction causes the photon to cease to exist? It is evident that the photon has been changed somehow into the simple motion that has been added to the electron's rate of travel. How do you explain how that works? I justify the fourth dimension because a motion in that dimension can explain how these things work. I justify the fifth dimension because it explains how an energy photon can be changed into a matter particle and how a matter particle can be changed into an energy photon. Motion transferred into the fifth dimension can explain how the photon can appear to be stopped by causing it to travel in a very small curved enclosed path to make a matter particle and the matter particle's rest mass can be explained as caused by the angular motion of the photon as it travels that enclosed path within the matter particle. Since the matter particle contains a photon within it, it is also easy to explain the matter particle's frequency and wavelength effects. The supposed dual wave and particle aspects are easily explained in terms of the simple motions that make up the photon and matter particle. If you can start with simple motions and explain in a better way how to end up with energy photons and matter particles and can then explain how you change matter particles into photons and then change the photons into simple motions please feel free to explain it all to me in a way that it can be easily understood. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that all things actually work exactly in the way that I have given using fourth and fifth dimensional motions. What I am saying is, that model works and unless another model is given that works better, it is the best (actually the only) model that I have seen in this world that can explain all these things in a way that can be fully and easily understood and avoids vague descriptions of fields that cannot be understood fully as to how they work. It is not just a way of determining the interaction outcomes and probabilities. It includes the mechanisms that cause them, starting with basic motions. It shows how these motions are combined to generate the photons and matter particles of which all things in this world are composed. Of course you may know a better simpler way without using fourth or fifth dimensional motions. If so, please explain it to me. If you do you will greatly impress me and raise my present perceptions of man's abilities. Many people believed in atoms hundreds of years before they were actually discovered. When you can look at a single photon's structural point and see it travel out of our three dimensional structure into the fourth dimension and then travel back into it in the opposite direction then travel out again in that direction and then travel back into it again, you will then have observational evidence for the fourth dimension. Because you can't do that yet is the reason that it has not yet been discovered. As to whether you believe it (or not) is up to you. I am merely offering the concept to man as a free gift. I have not asked for nor do I expect anything in return. Make of it what you will. I desire that man succeed in mastering such needed understandings within the time available. It will not be forced on man, however. There are other possible relationships available other than equal sharing. Man has often chosen paths that have led to great suffering when other paths were available to achieve needed results with great rewards.

I am glad you enjoyed the analysis.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Peter,

A basic motion contains three structural information generation/containment structures that generate and contain structural information. The first is its current position information, the second is its motion amplitude information, and the third is its directional information. All of these information structures interact with the external spatial dimensional system structures. All three of these stored information structures feed interaction outputs to the dimensional system structures to determine the motion's current position within the dimensional structure, the amount of change that will occur in that position from its current position, and the direction within the dimensional structure in which the change in position will take place. The motion's current position information is continually updated due to this continual interaction with the dimensional system, by an input from the dimensional system which feeds the updated position information from the interaction to the motion to update its internal stored current position value. The motion's stored motion amplitude information and direction of motion information can only be changed by an interaction. This information could be changed by an interaction with the dimensional system such as if the motion reaches the end of a spatial dimension and bounces off of it, thus changing its stored directional information or it would more likely occur due to an interaction with another motion. The net effect of all of this is that in the absence of an interaction a motion will always continually change position with the same continual amount of change and in the same direction of travel. When a photon interacts with an electron in such a way that it only increases the electron's linear motion amplitude in its direction of travel (increases its velocity) and in the process the photon ceases to exist, all that made up the photon's existence has been changed into that linear motion. This means that either the photon is in some way composed of basic linear motions that are transferred to the electron through the interaction or whatever it is composed of is changed into a linear motion through the interaction. The simplest most straight forward concept is that the photon is actually composed of linear motions. What I am asking is can you explain how this notional frame of mass works in terms of the basic linear motions that compose it. How many basic straight line motions are required to make it work and how do they interact to make it all work? If you believe that the photon is composed of some other basic substance other than motion what do you believe it is and how is it changed into the linear motion through the interaction? I ask these things because notional center of mass sounds like one of those concepts in which one considers that the thing seems to work like it would if it actually had a center of mass that somehow caused it to work that way, but actually it either does not have one or if it does, how it actually works is not known. Since we can observe that photons and matter particles can be changed into each other, they both must contain and be composed of the same more basic substance, so a good model should start with a most basic substance of which everything is composed and from which everything is built up to get all of the complexity that we observe in the universe. This should be accomplished via simple strait forward rules of interaction to build higher hierarchical structure from combinations of lower levels according to what we observe in reality, etc. The one thing that we observe in the universe that fits the requirements of the most basic substance is simple motion.

How many such photons would an electron contain?

My understanding is that in all the interactions that man has observed so far, matter particles of the same type generally demonstrate the same mass effect (mass value) regardless of the direction from which it experiences an interaction, but a simple 2 dimensional rotation like the earth's rotation on its axis generates a directional mass effect such that it is felt in an interaction only if the interaction attempts to change its axis of rotation. A 3 dimensional motion pattern is necessary to provide a non-directional 3 dimensional mass effect. A galactic nucleus has a large gravitational field to provide the angular motion that creates the curved motion that results in the rotation around it. A photon or even a matter particle would not have such a gravitational field anywhere near strong enough to do the same for it.

I would need to know more about the details of how you believe the things that you mentioned above actually work, as I have asked above, before I could answer that question. I have given some of my thoughts above. We are saying some things differently, but sometimes similar things can be said in different ways. You may not be used to thinking about the structure at the most basic level that produces what most consider to be the basic entities of photons and energy particles. If that is the case, you may just need to think more about these things for us to be on the same page, so to speak, in the discussion. I haven't seen enough of your thoughts to reach a solid conclusion yet.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Valdimir,

Thank you for your agreement. I read your paper, so I can talk with you more intelligently. You have a good concept that understanding basic forms and that of which they are composed are very important steps to being able to understand them and the larger scale objects or forms of which they are members. I propose that you consider that the output of the dimensional structure, which is motion, is the true Delta-Logit or the base form from which all other entities are composed. If we start from the structure of a basic motion, the first thing that is obvious is that it is the generator of the basic increment. This can be observed in its continual incremental change in position. This change in position generates the concept of distance as the variation from one position to another position. Since all motions do not contain the same capability to change position, but one motion can change position faster than another motion which can be observed as one motion creating a larger distance while another simultaneous motion creates a smaller distance variation, the concept of variability of size is created. In order to compare motions that produce different simultaneous sizes of distance to each other the concept of time is created as a comparison of a given generated distance size to a standard distance size that is generated in some continuous cyclical fashion, such as the earth rotating on its axis or the vibrational frequency of some atom, etc. Because a motion travels in a straight line it generates the concept of past, present, and future. Where the motion is currently positioned is its present, where it was is its past, and the position to which it is headed is its future. Since all motions do not travel in the same path the concepts of direction and dimension are generated. Since all motions seem to have absolute limits of zero motion amplitude on one end and the speed of light on the other end, the concept of limit is generated. Since matter particles can be changed into energy photons and energy photons can be changed into simple linear motions, it is evident that everything that exists in the universe that is composed of energy or matter or any combinations of them is ultimately composed of motions. This means that motion is the basic form from which all other forms are created. In addition, motion is the mediator of all interaction between entities that exist in the universe. I hope this will be of help to you.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Hoang,

Thank you for your comment. If my goal was to just bring man's technological abilities up to some desired level or to make a big name and lots of money for myself, you are right that self expanding would be the best and fastest approach to accomplishing that goal. My goal, however, is to give man the basic conceptual tools to develop the technology himself, so that in the end not only will the technology level be attained, but man will be positioned to work on an equal basis with others to attain further goals. This requires that man use the tools provided to actively work out further advancements for himself. It is for you and others like you to find and develop the certainty that you seek. You can see things that are shown to you and you can hear things that are said to you, but true complete understanding only comes from doing the things yourself. When you learn to think of and understand things for yourself you are not dependent on the knowledge of others. You can then excel beyond the others. That is what I encourage in you and all others. As the famous saying goes, give a man a concept today and tomorrow he will be back for another one, but give a man the ability to develop concepts and some day he may give you one when you need it or at least he won't be continually bothering you for new concepts every day. That last part was meant as a joke in case you didn't figure that out. I read your paper and I do agree with you that the answer or answers that absolute reality provides to any question about it is or are the only correct answer or answers. The problem is that we cannot access absolute reality to get the answers directly from it. We can only see the results of interactions between parts of that absolute reality. Things could exist as parts of absolute reality that either don't interact with other things or only interact in a way that we cannot detect, so we could not learn about such things through our observations. The only way we could learn about such things is if the creator of our absolute reality either encodes information about such things into the parts of absolute reality that we can observe or if the creator appears and directly communicates about such things to us or to others, who can tell us about those things.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear Hoang,

You are right, we cannot directly access reality. We can only observe the results of interactions between parts of reality that create effects that we are capable of observing. From our observations we try to extrapolate an understanding of the nature of those parts of reality that create the observed effects. If we come up with a model of how we think the universe works that agrees with all of our observations we still cannot say in the absolute sense that reality actually works that way. We can only say that it could work that way. This is because there could be more than one way that the universe could work and still demonstrate the same observed effects. There could also be parts of reality that either don't interact with each other or interact in some way that we are not capable of detecting. This could mean that even if reality works in the way that we believe it does in the parts of it that yield the observational results that we can detect, those detectable parts may be only a small part of the complete universe. We might not be able to ever observe and come to know of the existence of most of the universe from the observations that we can make. Our ability to make observations and to use those observations to get a better understanding of reality also changes over time. As we learn from our observations, we learn to make devices that allow us to make new observations that we could not make before we discovered new and more in depth understandings that then are put to use to make such devices. Right now you would not know anything about the nice guy that lives on that beautiful planet in that small galaxy in your desk drawer, but if you learn about and learn how to apply fifth vector structuring technology, you might go there and visit him. To look at it the other way, much of what you know now about the structure of the universe would have been considered to be just unsubstantiated conjecture and would certainly not be considered to have any scientific basis a couple of hundred years ago. Reality works in accordance with the absolute accuracy of its structure, but we can only approach a little closer to that accuracy with each new piece of observational information that we discover and will never be able to say that we have the complete understanding of that absolute accuracy. The only way that we could ever get that absolute accuracy would be if it was given to us by the one who made it, either directly or through some way that it was encoded into this world by that one for us to find.

Sincerely,

Paul B.

Dear James,

I read your paper and you give a good introduction into an area of thought that although it is not truly scientifically based, it is often treated and presented by some in the scientific community as though it is based on scientific principles. Basically the problem is trying to take the understanding of the nature of reality beyond what man can scientifically determine and then presenting the conceptual results as though they are scientifically based when they cannot be so because the conceptual structure cannot be observed and measured scientifically. Much of what are today considered to be scientifically established concepts and/or facts fall into this category.

You point out many of the problems with the concept that our consciousness somehow created the universe. I find it interesting that most of those who would like to believe this concept would at the same time vehemently deny any scientific possibility that the universe was created by another much more intelligent consciousness than man (God) who preexisted the universe. After all, if the universe was created by God it would logically explain how the consciousness could create the universe because he would have been there before the universe where on the other hand, as you explain, man was not there until much later and is an output product of the universe. This kind of selection and belief in the obviously logically less plausible concept demonstrates that the intent is not to know the truth, but just to think of oneself as more important than actual evidence implies.

It is true that you cannot scientifically prove that the material world that we experience with our senses actually exists. You could just be a computer sitting on God's desk and all that you sense as reality could just be data that has been inputted to you by God that is interpreted by the programming that he placed into you when he made you in such a way as to convince you that it is real. When you attempt to interact with the world that you perceive to exist, the things that you do could just be outputs from your program that are sent to the device that generates the information that you see as reality and modifies its content so as to change what you sense in such a way that you think that you actually caused the changes that you observe. This concept again requires the existence of a more intelligent being to make you and to program you, etc. Of course, what you see as reality could also exist just as it appears to be from our observations.

The point is that science cannot determine such things. Science is only truly of any use in analyzing repetitive patterns in the things that you see happening in the world or that you sense and perceive to exist in some way. You can just assume that it is all real or you can withhold judgment and decide that whether it is real or not, what you sense to exist is all that you have to go on in an attempt to understand the meaning of your existence and the world around you that you sense and to make your life easier and better. The second choice is the more scientific choice because you decide to look for evidence of these things, but do not jump to a conclusion without evidence to substantiate it. Since it is obviously possible that a more intelligent being created you and the world that you sense, it would be important to look for any information that such a being exists by looking for any information that may have been purposely encoded into the sensual data that you receive by that being for you to find that would give you information about him. You could also try to communicate directly with him and also look for any indication that he has already communicated with others and analyze any information that is found. You should also look at the sensual data to see if the world that it portrays shows signs of being intelligently made. You could look at the things that you and others make and look for similarities in structure that would indicate similar purposeful and logical assembly techniques. You would have to keep in mind that anyone who could make this world would have to be much more intelligent and powerful than man, so the structure of the world would include methods and concepts of structure that would be greater than man's abilities. As a rough example, if you went to another planet and found no living beings present, but you found what looked like large cities, but there were no streets, airports, or train stations, etc., You could attribute the lack of such things as evidence that the builders didn't know how to make such things and were, therefore, lower in intelligence than man, but if you did so, you would be neglecting the possibility that they were much more advanced than man and had found a better way to travel from one place to another. In a similar way when one looks at the structures on this planet many things look very chaotic. On the surface one can get the idea that things are governed mostly by chance, but when one looks closer one sees structures that are made to sustain the life of living beings that exist on the planet by continually cleaning and restoring the oxygen content, etc. of the air and water, maintaining temperature control within necessary limits, recycling waste materials, and providing water via rain to living structures such as plants that cannot readily move to where water is located, etc. It is evident that the structure of these systems goes well beyond man's ability to construct and even fully comprehend, especially on that scale and complexity of interaction between the structural elements to compensate for variations in system loads, etc. Of course, the most complex structures on this planet are the living creatures. The most intelligent of these creatures (man) has not been able to understand much about how his own brain works. As an example, man currently has very little understanding of such concepts as path flow structuring that are used extensively by the brain. These kinds of structural complexities and the use of hierarchical subassembly levels in the construction of this world that are indicative of an intelligent source have been completely ignored. It is apparent from observation of these things that either the universe was designed and built by an intelligent source or intelligence is of little or no value because if the world was constructed by an unintelligent source, it has produced the same results that would have been generated by an intelligent source, so since man has not been able to fully comprehend the complexity of this world produced by an unintelligent source his intelligence cannot even be as effective as the pure chance happening of occurrences that produced the world. Instead of looking at intelligence as an advancement it would rightly be looked at as a backward step or error that could hinder the natural advancement being produced by the chance occurrence system. There would then be no need for man to worry about destroying himself or even all life because the chance system might just create better living creatures based completely on chance that would produce a better world than we could ever make with our inferior intelligence structure.

Some realize that such a chance system could not create our universe even over billions of years. They, therefore, try to push the idea that their (man's) intelligence or some natural intelligence of the universe, etc. created it. The problem with this is that as you have pointed out man or even the universe itself was not present at the beginning of the creation of the universe and, therefore, could not have done so. In order to propagate these beliefs as scientific, concepts such as evolution were developed and elevated to the position of a division of science even though it is mainly just a philosophy that has several major flaws. Data is creatively interpreted in such a way as to promote evolution while ignoring other possible interpretations that could explain the same data in a way that would not indicate that evolution was involved. At the same time the flaws are ignored. A scientific system has thus been developed and propagated that is based more on maintaining belief in a specific philosophy than it is in gaining understanding of the true nature and source of the universe. It is no wonder then that science has drifted more toward imaginations based only on abstract math models that do not conform to observed reality, such as the many flavors of string theory, or models that can explain the various particle physics interaction results and their probabilities, but cannot explain the mechanisms behind it all that produce those results and probabilities, etc., so that man could work toward development of the necessary devices to allow the actual outcome of any interaction to be predicted and controlled. Instead math structures have been developed to promote the belief that it is impossible to do so. All that is really happening is that man is presently working on the smallest level of structure that he is currently aware of and does not have access to anything smaller to use to analyze that level, but there are still other lower levels of structure that man is not currently aware of that can allow such investigation. It is sort of like looking at an add many years ago for a very high quality vacuum tube stereo amplifier and seeing that it showed that its signal to noise ratio was very close to the theoretical limit. Later after transistors came into use, another add showed a signal to noise ratio that was better than the theoretical limit mentioned in the first add. Still later integrated circuit amplifiers did even better. Always be very suspicious about anything that says something is impossible because advancements have a way of making the previously impossible things possible. Once you start on the path of following imaginations that have no basis in observed reality it is not surprising to see that anything goes in the long run no matter how far removed from observed reality it is, as people live more and more only in their imaginary world that they have constructed in their minds.