How to Build a Universe from Wheeler’s Immaterial Source, in Nine Pages or Less. by Stephen James Anastasi

I am very keen to bring other people on board with this project. The next steps are even harder than working out the one dimensional model. For example, how does one spin a one dimensional solution into 3-space while maintaining equivalence (I have some ideas)? So any assistance would be welcome.

So thanks!

Hello Michel

I am working at the moment, so will read your paper and consider your thoughts in that light, tonight, then I will get back to you.

Hello Michel

I responded to you on your own page, as a start

The danger in aligning dessin with omnet is that one may easily forget the distinction between omnets as 'just anything' (what I call possible omnets because the thing we call an omnet, if based on empiricism is not well-founded) and omnets of the actual ontology, being omnets that are well-founded, meaning existing as a consequence of the action of the GPE noumenon upon the possible and actual ontology. Your dessin, if I read you correctly, are models of structures we believe to exist based on empirical studies. They may be a correct description, but would not be well-founded for the Endpoint Rationalist or Endpoint Skeptic.

I will need to think more on the concept of bijection.

Thanks for your interest.

Stephen Anastasi

Thank you Carlo

As is pretty obvious, the Harmony Set as shown is a one-space interpretation. Simply, because this model has to be a proper world model (for reasons shown) it remains for the investigator to find how the system gives us our world, as opposed to 'a' world.

After a long, long period of thought (which of course doesn't make me right) I tried to interpret the system by maintaining equivalence (under the GPE) and distributing the values into three dimensions, assuming that the formulas of mathematics applied to this distribution as much as it does in our present models (this is not strictly allowable for the endpoint rationalist because first one must show how Pi comes to be, but I have no really big concerns there for the moment).

Doing this redistribution is allowable because of Kant's argument about our never being able to say that a particular world model is reality, meaning 'the' world model (I know this seems to be the antithesis of Kant, but it has the opposite effect for an endpoint rationalist--I can explain in more detail if needed). All models that add up to the values of the Harmony Set are valid.

Doing this redistribution brings the number i into existence, as the square root of a negative pointing vector, which, combined with the exponential nature of the Harmony Set suggests a possible connection to Schrodinger's equation, and hence Feynman's Path Integral, but in a summation form (as in CDT). The redistribution however, provides an almost flat universe in all but the center, in a region that might be around the Planck scale (one would have to show equivalence between the scale of the Harmony Set and that of the real world, but there are ways to work with this). This flat system applied to the real part of the solution. The imaginary part could be doing anything -- I don't know how to work with this second part in this very different context. While the real part suggests that space is essentially flat except locally, I'm looking for an interpretation that implies more interesting structure.

One way to achieve this is to begin the development probabilistically. That is, consider the boundaries to be point like structures, and ask oneself where the next point must go, given the boundary condition of maintaining equivalence. In two dimensions, one gets into bothers quite early. In three dimensions placing the first four points is easy, and, with the digraph connections they produce first a line, then a triangle (implied 2-space, not embedded in higher spaces) then a tetragon, and all forms are equivalent under the GPE (e.g. any interaction can be swapped with any other and the same form results). The form of CDT has it that triangles are 'glued' together along their lines, but in the Harmony Set these lines are necessarily glued, because they are ontologically dependent, so if this is a valid world model one might expect CDT to be an expectation. The difference of course is that CDT, if I understand it correctly, assumes a much larger world model initially, where mine brings the world into existence a step at a time (literally).

To continue adding points and their interactions starts to get more challenging after this. Equivalence can be maintained by assuming extra spacelike dimensions, but doing so leads to another tetragon in 4-space, then another set of these in 5-space and so on. I don't know what to do with these, but this seems to be a bit like CDT's idea of 4-simplices. Another way is to simply add the point to the outside of the initial tetragon, which under equivalence might go in any of four places, but, in the absence of an oriented space, all four places are the same place (meaning the same form arises). The same applies as one adds the next three points. My concern here, as endpoint rationalist, is that I'm not completely convinced of this approach because the bi-vectors have to be 'stretched' to make it fit. But such stretching seems to be the same form as CDT's simplices, as best I can tell.

Lastly, one interesting thing for me is that CDT hits a wall when it aims to reduce its length scales to zero. They can't do it, and I don't think they should be able to do it, if the tenets of my armchair universe stand (which, under endpoint skepticism leading to endpoint rationalism, they ought, which is a stronger argument than that of empiricism).

Of course, there is a long way to go with this development. I need someone with a strong knowledge in philosophy (metaphysics), mathematics and physics to talk to about it, but, as this is so far away from present science, finding such a person is likely to be difficult.

Thank you for your question. Feel free to ask other questions.

Stephen Anastasi

Thank you Marcel

Thanks for your very valid questions. You said:

'This "ontology" does not even mention any substance?'

There is no need for the use of 'substance' in this development. You will see that the meaning of substance is dependent on one's idea of equivalence anyway.

You said:

'There is an infinite number of truth systems that may describe the universe from a specific point of view.'

I see your point, but there are not an infinite number of perspectives that conform to the general principle of equivalence, and initially all perspectives collapse to a minimally simple omnet, under the GPE. All well-founded models must 'add up to' the evolving one dimensional values in the Harmony Set in one way or another, and one cannot apply contemporary mathematics to the set without an understanding of the foundations of the mathematics being used (for it went down the tube with the world, at the first step). Truth systems must first be well-founded, if they are not actually just belief systems. That is perhaps the key point. This system is well-founded, being immune to Cartesian doubt.

The Law of Non-contradiction is obvious and true, but is founded upon the General Principle of Equivalence, and epistemologically dependent upon it, not the other way around, for the LNC is accepted as self-evident, while the GPE is accepted because it is immune to doubt. Let me derive the LNC from the GPE to make it clear. Simply, the LNC is necessarily true because to suppose that an omnet can both have, yet not have a particular asset, would violate the GPE. This remains true independent of the nature of an asset.

This 'rule of existence' is unnecessary, so can be dropped under Occam's razor, replaced by the recognition that what is implied to be by the GPE exists. It's purely nominal. Also, there is a problem in trying to have a universe that comes from more than one principle because more than one principle implies that there are differences between them, and this difference drops one back into the bundling problem.

You said:

'So, the universe needs this other rule, either of impossibility or one boundary rule on the possibilities of existence. This last one would give direction to the whole thing; evolution, time, future ...'

I wonder if you are describing the evolution of the Harmony Set here, which is good. My initial derivation was for a particular situation which I found was a form of Zeno's paradox. Then someone asked me what I meant by 'a boundary'. Ouch. It took me a while to realize that the 'boundary' is a word covering an omnet that exists due to an ontological condition, and from there I generalized the whole argument to find that it all reduces to one's idea of equivalence, as captured by the GPE.

You said:

'[12] is missing. ' My apologies: Lowe, EJ 2005, 'Ontological Dependence', in EN Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2005 edn, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/dependence-ontological/.

'I have Lowe's possibilities of metaphysics... I did not give him good reviews...'

I hope you can see my development toward providing me a good review, so we can together work out the very great challenge of interpreting the Harmony Set in higher dimensions. Please recognize that this is a work of foundation that starts from a single principle and produces a mathematical world model. This was thought not possible.

Feel free to ask more questions or provide ideas on how to work with the one-space Harmony Set.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Yay Bill!

Your encouragement made me feel great. My aim is just to get into the top 40 papers so that the experts read it. To get there I need some big numbers.

It's so abstract! What I love is that it implies that the world will be kind of non-linear, being sets of similar but not exactly the same sets.

Stephen