Cosmology Essays
Cosmology Essays
This system of ideas includes the following elements: the simulation hypothesis, coincidences, the multiverse, the mind, spacetime, the speed of light, dimensions, and love.
Now let us see how these may be connected.
Our universe may or may not be a simulated one, but either way, there’s a chance that there are other universes as well, for example „parallel” ones, or another on „the other side of the Big Bang”.
By definition (or presumption), we do not have any accessible ways to communicate with beings in those other universes. But if our universe is a simulation in some way of theirs, they can send us messages.
Here’s a quote from the book Hating Perfection:
„If the structure of randomness relaxes its vigilance against unintended patterns even in tiny ways, even in just one facet of a complex structure, someone somewhere will find that flaw and tell the rest of us.”
So I believe that the „others”, i.e. God(s), and/or past and future souls, and/or „aliens”, from the other universes, would communicate with us through external intended patterns, which we would perceive as coincidences. (Tip: Create a coincidence counter to observe them.) Still, those coincidences, the messages, would have to be encoded in some kind of medium.
Here’s a quote from the movie Interstellar:
„Love is the one thing that we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space.”
So that medium could be love. I can’t imagine any other way of this medium coming into our universe than „slipping” through the singularities, either the past or a future one.
Now let us approach the concept of spacetime. By standard (or say, on the current level of knowledge and technology) humans cannot travel in time. This holds true in our physical „reality”, but not in our minds. The mind can travel in time, and what happens then, qualifies as a simulation. Thinking in reverse, our universe may exist in some kind of mind too. But this was only stated to emphasize the likelihood of the simulation hypothesis, and how it should never be disregarded (until it were to be falsified), when thinking on such scales.
As for the connection of spacetime with other universes, those „otherworlds” may be „just around the corner”. By „corner” I mean a hypothetical junction, in a 5 dimensional environment, where the „ways” of space (3D) and time (1D) cross each other in the present moment. If humans could consciously perceive this 5th dimension, and access it for modification, they could tilt or shift the dimensions in the junction, thereby potentially arriving in other universes.
Now, how do we find that 5th dimension? There must be something, which indicates more relativity than we are familiar with. Something, that is to this 5th dimension, as is the speed of light in our 4D spacetime. And, again:
„Love is the one thing that we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space.”
So that thing may be love.
If infinite speed exists/existed, we would perceive the thing, that has this speed, as something that *is already there*. If love can "slip" through singularities, and "travel" through time and space at an infinite speed, then through love, we’re communicating "real-time" with the *otherverses*.
Collective intelligence must be way ahead of individual intelligence, in understanding natural mechanisms and creation. This can be stated without knowing what collective intelligence actually is, because it works so well.
So there's a possibility that in the process of establishing contact to otherverses (other worlds / universes) we would have to give up parts of our individual integrity in entirely unexpected, proactive ways.
Imaginary time could be some kind of a 5th dimension, suiting the theory above. Intriguingly, “in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries” (as per Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time – illustrated edition, p. 179), so love would have better chances or a platform to “slip through” the singularities of the “real” time there.
We’ve named time’s direction arbitrarily “forwards”. In the contraction phase of an oscillating universe, when time starts “flowing” “backwards”, the cosmological arrow of time ceases to align with the biological arrow of time of life forms known to us, including ourselves.
With a “switch” in the direction of the arrow of time, other arrows may follow though. That is, when “our time” ends, or “flips”, a new life form can develop in the reverse “direction”. They will inhabit the same space, and mathematically speaking, the same time.
Now, the question is: Would our senses or technologies allow us to perceive and communicate with them somehow? If yes, and if their perceptual arrow of time coincides with their biological arrow of time, they could tell us their past, which is our future. If not, then we live in a chronologically and perceptually flat and two-sided world. This latter scenario seems to be the more “realistic” one, but a bit too complex as well. We could trust that nature/God would not overcomplicate things.
Establishing contact to our reverse-time fellow life forms could be a bit like discovering a world on the other hemisphere of Earth was. To obtain this kind of proof took a leap of faith though. So, the question now is: What would we need to believe in, in order to arrive at discoveries proving the existence of our reverse-time fellow life forms?
And just a tip: The universe, viewed from our time direction, looks young (about 13.8 billion years out of 200 billion). So from “their” direction, it is old. Just imagine their civilizations’ level of technology! One would actually expect them to make contact to us first… Anyway, once we’ve met, we should be respectful towards our Benjamin Buttonian Twin-World.
As for now, maybe, we can connect with our Benjamin Buttonian Twin-World "over the top of the pyramid" (where love, arts and science “came from”).
In this essay, I rely on the following stories and theories:
• Plato’s Theory of Forms.
• Leibniz’s “Best of all possible worlds” concept.
• Alan Watts’ Dream of Life thought-experiment.
• A quote from John Williams’ book “Hating Perfection”.
• Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” movie structure.
• My own Exocosmological Theory of Love (see above).
So how are these notions relevant, and how are they linked?
Plato’s selected “message” for this essay would be that our reality, or our level of reality, is not the true or truest reality that exists. There is the realm of ideas, containing the perfect versions or templates to everything which we perceive to exist on our level of reality. To Plato’s Theory of Forms I speculatively add the form of forms idea. This “form of forms” is some essence that is contained in every platonic idea. In a religious context, it may be a divine point of origin.
The Leibnizian heritage is crucial, for this is probably the best known work that deals with value-based differences between (possible) worlds. If one ranks worlds according to their “goodness” – a bit differently, but more punctually maybe: based on their level of morality – then one will find one world that is the best of all. In my view, this best possible world may be a parallel, or a higher level “otherverse” (this is how I refer to other universes). So the focus is on the opportunity of the best possible world’s – at least theoretical – existence.
Next up is Watts’ Dream of Life. What I would highlight from this thought-experiment is the standpoint, that if we would dream our life again and again, with an arbitrary level of control, our ultimate desire would be the dream which resembles reality – where we have the least control over the events. This is similarly optimistic as to say that we live in the best possible world, as Leibniz did. This thought experiment, however, is in several aspects more sophisticated. It designates a tool for improvements between worlds, or lives lived. That tool is randomness. In Watts’ thought-experiment, it is the lack of control that results in sufficient randomness.
And here comes John Williams’ “Hating Perfection” book quote: „If the structure of randomness relaxes its vigilance against unintended patterns even in tiny ways, even in just one facet of a complex structure, someone somewhere will find that flaw and tell the rest of us.” So Williams’ reality check basically goes like: If it’s not random enough, it is not real.
The unit of the lack of randomness is a coincidence. Coincidences may be our world’s equivalents for signs in Nolan’s Inception movie, which displayed unusual physical behavior. Softer signs, that this is not an ultimate, single reality. As written in my Exocosmological Theory of Love, coincidences may be forms of communication from otherverses. Coincidences may seem neutral overall, but as love is presumably the only thing capable of “slipping through” singularities, coincidences ought to be positive, overall, too.
The rest of this essay is a brief collection of thoughts and questions on the topic, to be further elaborated on later.
On the best possible world:
How can one imagine the best possible world of all worlds? Should “evil” gradually be eliminated in theory, aspect by aspect?
So how does one create a better world? By describing an imaginable better world, thereby convincing those who could implement the new ideas, maybe realise parts of the plan themselves, OR, inversely, is the world sometimes improving on its own, “accidentally”? That creates new ideas and concepts then. Maybe every generation, or even every person born, is a chance at arriving at a better world. One step at a time, in a world with a near infinite number of general and concrete aspects.
May we be living in just the second best possible world? That would be a little disappointing, but also motivating for an “outbreak”, or an improvement.
If this is the 2nd best possible world, would the best possible one contain more / only coincidences, or “pure” randomness?
More on randomness:
Can there be realities, even more random than ours?
Is there a minimum rate of coincidences per interdependence level, on a given scale?
Does increasing interconnectedness, with its complexity, generate more randomness or more coincidences?
Randomness is “the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization; unpredictability”. So are coincidences proofs of a "principle of organisation", as of some divinity or of otherverses? If that divinity is the “form of all forms”, this would mean that just one level of reality “higher”, there is a new, denser atmosphere of coincidences.
What if reality consisted of coincidences? On a higher level of course, because, to some extent it already does. Non coincidental realities would feel like void, in comparison. Morality may be the direction of coincidence manifestation.
Can one design an experiment for coincidences? It sounds paradoxical. May it be possible in quantum mechanics (only)?
On morality:
Coincidences are like signals, or “stars”, and morality is the ultimate compass.
Overall, do the good things correlate and/or converge? Is that some pattern / principle of morality?
There can be a morality-related "fate", which - at a more advanced point - can be understood, accepted and followed. Even more distantly, this "obedience" could lead to accessing otherverses.
• Divinity and the otherverses are not competing notions. Coincidences are manifestations of communication from the world of forms, while the highest-level organizing principle is the form of all forms.
• Coincidences are of a special nature of uncontrollability – actually, they may be the most uncontrollable phenomena in this (!) world.
• On occasion, the Simulation Hypothesis and religion are linked up. One reason for this may lie in the concept of enlightenment, characteristic both of religious journeys and of hypothetical “breakouts” from our level of simulation. Enlightenment could be lucid dreaming, in the Nolanian sense (if this world is only a 2nd or 3rd level of reality).
In video illustrations of spacetime, one usually observes a 2D net, or a 3D lattice. Spacetime, however, is 4-dimensional. If it has units, their illustration should resemble a tesseract. The peculiar nature of such 4-dimensional cubes comes to surface when they “rotate”.
Time might be “generated” by such rotations (“spins”) of spacetime units. Space might be the axis of the particle rotation, that’s why we perceive space as relatively static.
The rotations “generating” time establish different crystallizations within the 4-dimensional spacetime lattice. If the units were spacetime particles indeed, each of them would have to possess past-, present- and future sides, as attributes in some form. It reminds one of the 3 basic states of matter: solid, liquid and gas. These would also reflect the alterability and predictability of each time phase well.