Re: Every creation and gravitation

From: John Mikes <>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 12:00:59 -0400

Looks fine;
you 'postulate' exactly what you need for your story and then apply them.
So your story comes 'true' - just like in conventional physical sciences.

a bit like the 'numbers-related image that moves (!) - it would need an
additional postulate to 'start the movement' (- by itself?). Is there?

SOMEBODY makes all these 'views' start moving. Even the universal
computer. (Is there a U-Dove-starter as well, to start the 'tailing'?)
Definitely not the conventional 'God" - who/what is in the image of
man (that low??) - (or reciprocal?) and so also needs to get started.

John M

On 5/8/07, andy gh <> wrote:
> "Every creation" hypotheses, instead of every computation
> or every mathematical structure.
> I favor a variant of the everything idea, which I would like
> to call the "every creation" approach. In some sense it
> creates every "computational moment". Computations are
> not required as fundamental entities. Almost all you need is
> a natural definition to make new creations from pairs of
> creations. This determines the evolution of an avalanche of
> creations. Creations inside the avalanche may be aware only
> of those creations to which they are in relative equilibrium.
> As with other approaches, a consequence seems to be the
> emergence of the laws of Physics.
> Let me start with the following 4 hypotheses:
> 1. There is an underlying time.
> 2. There are creations (creation objects).
> 3. There is a natural creation operation defined, which
> creates new creations from existing creations.
> 4. Every natural creation operation happens.
> Some more words on these hypotheses:
> (1) There is an underlying time, which is discrete. This
> makes it easy to talk about creation operations, as if they
> happened in our time. I will do this.
> (2a) New creations can be made (created).
> (2b) Creations do not get deleted.
> (2c) Creations can be made in multiple copies. Creations
> have multiplicities. Whether a creation can be made does
> not depend on (can not be prevented by) the preexistence
> of an identical creation.
> (3) For any two creations x and y, there is a natural
> creation operation [x,y] defined, which makes a creation z.
> Lets call x the operator, and y the operand. I do not specify
> the definition of the natural creation operation here. I have
> given one of my favorite definitions, using replacement
> operators, in a previous posting, where [(x1 x2),y] creates
> a copy of y and replaces every occurrence of x1 by x2.
> (4a) Every-creation hypotheses. The natural creation
> operation [x,y] is happening for every existing creation x
> and for every existing creation y.
> (4b) Every existing creation x has equal chance to become
> the operator in [x,y].
> (4c) Every existing creation y has equal chance to become
> the operand in [x,y].
> Let's also make the assumption that creations are (directly)
> responsible for our awareness and our perceptions of the
> world. What are the consequences of such a hypotheses?
> Creations may perceive other creations only indirectly and
> only if the later possibly play a role in the creations'
> histories. We may not perceive properties which depend
> on the underlying time Tau. But we may be able to perceive
> invariant properties, which do not change when the
> underlying time Tau is getting larger and larger. We can be
> indirectly aware of creations who's multiplicities are on
> average in relative equilibrium with the multiplicities of the
> creations which are directly responsible for our
> awareness.
> Thus the observable universe consists, possibly only, of
> creations who's multiplicities grow on average at the same
> rate.
> Multiplicity(creation,Tau) = phi(creation) * growth_factor(Tau)
> Multiplicity (observer,Tau) = phi(observer) * growth_factor(Tau)
> The relative multiplicity,
> Multiplicity (creation,Tau) /Multiplicity (observer,Tau) =
> = phi(creation) / phi(observer),
> is independent of Tau.
> For creations inside the avalanche, the importance of
> the initial conditions depends on the number of possible
> equilibrium states (or the number of certain equivalence
> classes of possible equilibrium states.) If there is only one
> possible equilibrium state, then the initial conditions are
> not relevant at all.
> Let's assume that Tau is large enough, so that the
> equilibrium is reached for the creations under
> consideration. The growth factor can be calculated when
> we make the simplifying approximation that every operation
> [x,y] just creates one new copy of y. In that case trivially all
> creations are in equilibrium, as required. If one of the
> operations [x,y] does not create a new copy of y, but
> instead another creation z, the equilibrium is broken. There
> is one creation y missing and one creation z too much. This
> is as if the creation y had been moved from y to z. The
> effective movement can be compensated by an effective
> movement back. There could be another operation [x2,z]
> which creates a creation y. Adding loops of effective
> movements does not change the equilibrium.
> May a set X of creations x_i form a pattern, and the
> operations among these creations may produce another
> pattern Y of creations y_i. Lets call this an effective particle
> P moving from X to Y. The broken equilibrium can be
> restored by an effective particle moving from Y to X. Let
> me call this the effective antiparticle P_bar moving into the
> opposite direction as particle P is moving.
> The choice of naming is intended to remind you of the
> Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation of E<0Solutions of
> equations like Dirac or Klein-Gordon Equation:
> Negative-energy particle solutions going backward in time
> *describe*,
> positive-energy antiparticle solutions going forward in time.
> In short, this interpretation claims that
> P(-E) *describes* P_bar(E).
> But the equilibrium argument claims that
> the existence of P *requires the existence* of P_bar,
> P_bar also moving into the opposite direction.
> This suggest a new(?) interpretation of the equations
> where the two possible solutions are not only two ways of
> describing reality. They correspond to two parts of reality.
> They are based on two processes, which require each
> other in order to keep the equilibrium. For every particle
> with energy E there is an antiparticle with energy -E, and
> the total energy is E = 0.
> In a Feynman graph, there are lines that, according to
> Feynman, do correspond to a particle, *or* do correspond to
> an antiparticle moving into the opposite direction. However,
> according to the equilibrium argument, the line should be
> interpreted as a loop(s) composed of a particle, moving in
> one direction, *and* an antiparticle, moving backwards in
> time, back to the original space-time point.
> Feynman, with his lines, draws kind of one-dimensional
> projections of such loops. The additional dimension, which
> is not visible in his graphs, corresponds to transformations
> between spaces, which you may call "invention space" and
> "feedback space", or covariant and contravariant space.
> This additional degree of freedom may be what is needed
> to explain the additional imaginary component of quantum
> mechanical amplitudes -- to explain them from multiplicities,
> which are given as natural numbers.
> Covariant and Contravariant Spaces are not two
> descriptions of one reality which can be transformed into
> each other. They are rather two parts of reality which
> require each other in order to keep the equilibrium growth
> intact.
> Does the Hilbert space corresponds to that part of the
> creation space which is already in equilibrium?
> The following ideas may rely on the definition of the natural
> creation operation.
> Einstein's field equation might be understood as equations
> stating that effects of all loops going through one creation,
> such as all gravitation loops and all loops from energetic
> pattern movements, cancel each other and have no effect
> on that particular creation, except for its equilibrium growth.
> What is gravitation? Creations lead to new creations by
> the continuing inflation, plus continuing shrinking, plus
> rotations, and other transformations of space-time, at any
> space-time point in the remembered history of those
> creations. This gives a kind of diffusion effect, which could
> be responsible for gravitation. Do today's gravitation fields
> evolve according to the dynamics of "the past", in particular
> the dynamics of the Big Bang?
> By the way, at the moment I favor space-time generator
> "definitions" which result in non-projectable dimensions.
> (Projections can not be done easily with few operations.)
> The projections to the border which I have mentioned in a
> previous posting may correspond to other degrees of
> freedom though.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Wed May 09 2007 - 12:02:23 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST