THE BEGINNING OF REALITY
This text is very speculative with uncertaintes and bold statements on reality. But I think its captivating and fun to write. Maybe some even will find it fun to read.
In trying to find an explanation for the absolute origin of reality, it seems difficult to avoid circular explanations. This usually leads to some form of object or activity that in itself also needs an origin. Typical examples of it are: A new even smaller particle, combination of particles, energy, God, ether, substrate, earlier universe, multiverse, strings, quantum foam, wave motion, etc. Can any of these be explained by themselves without an additional underlying explanation? Do they lead to other unknown answers. Maybe they turn out to be on their way but not to be the absolute end goal.
Even my own attempts with “realoids” (my own word), nodes, relationships, may not be quite there yet. My attempts so far have been at finding the absolute least complex basis for existence. I have mostly wanted to use an abstract approach, where the metaphysical comes before the physical. My starting point has been that the physical is basically constructions of abstract concepts. The physical universe is an expression of abstract patterns and laws. In this sense, mathematics comes before physics. Perhaps it is even philosophy that comes before mathematics. In physics, the direction of science seems to be to start from our own observable world away and backwards into the unknown via links of explanations and more empirical data. The further away from what can be observed in our everyday lives, the more complex and uncertain the research becomes.
Instead, I try to go the other way by trying to find a formulation of the simplest and most primitive premise of existence. According to some kind of belief or feeling that I have, the foundations of reality are less complex than their compositions, which sound obvious, formulated in this way. The larger the scale, the more complex, the more intrinsic scales, the more intrinsic processes, the more connections to the outside world, the more possibilities, the more of everything.
If I'm not mistaken here, mathematics starts with the simplest principles and works its way further into increasingly complex rules or simple rules that are still based on underlying rules.
But still, for me, it's not enough to explain the start. Mathematics describes a non-material machine, just as physics describes a material machine. By machine I mean a combination of laws connected to each other that regulate a structure. Another term is the pattern of structures....
What I'm trying to formulate isn't necessarily what is the smallest particle. Rather, it is what is the simplest form of existence or reality. What is the reality minimum? Such an existence is unbound by scale. In that level, there is no size. The concepts of size and distance are relative, dependent on relationships between different relationships, i.e. composite relationships. If we use the concept of point instead of node and distance instead of relation, we find that: If there are only two points, the distance between them is meaningless. The points have no extension of their own. Therefore, the distance between these points cannot be compared to anything. If, on the other hand, there are three points, a difference immediately arises. Then there is a triangle. In all triangles, there is an inherent difference between the points. The simplest triangle is the equilateral one because it contains the least difference. In all other triangles including right angles there are different distances and different angles between different points and connections between them. In the equilateral triangle, the relationship between all points and its connections are equal. All distances and angles are equal. In all other triangles there is a difference, not all sides have the same length and angle. That is a critical step into the notion of scale. Then there is no longer this dormant equilibrium as in the equilateral triangle. One notion though is that there are in fact different lengths in an equilateral triangel, the endpoints define lines connecting them. From one endpoint to the line connecting the other two there goes a line and the length of that one differs from the endpoint conncting lines.
All triangles define a two dimensional plane. If another point is added, so that there are 4 points, the differences increase significantly. Then the points can describe a 3-dimensional volume. However, the equilibrium can exist in a 3-dimensional context such as a tetrahedron. If you add yet another point to the tetrahedron, the differences are there. Then there are, with certainty, different distances and angles between points and their connections. The same should apply to the number of points in several dimensions. That brings me to the question of how dimensions arise. Mathematically, as I understand it, there can be an unlimited number of dimensions. Physically, we can interpret three dimensions in space. The question is how to interpret time. Whether there are more dimensions is still the subject of theoretical discussions.
A purely speculative thought I just had is: Can dimensions be directions between different united realities?! Let's put it this way: A reality arises. A different reality arises. These two realities are only infinitesimal existences, or a kind of container of existence. Since there are then two nodes, there is also a relationship between them. It is the first relationship, a kind of direction. Yet another reality arises. This reality as well as the first two are all related to the other two. This describes a plane. In this way, there are two dimensions. If the four realities are related to each other, relationships can establish three dimensions. A dizzying perspective is whether this relationship works with even more realities and correspondingly additional dimensions.
These realities could be the basic realoids described in the text on "time." This assumes that there can be contact between realities. That is, that realities can be united into composite realities. If so, how does this contact arise?
Another premise that I have in mind is: For the union of realities to contribute additional dimensions, none of these can be a consequence of internal relations inside a reality. Or as I would like to put it with realoids: In the vast majority of cases, they arise within an already established reality in the interaction between every single other realoid and its compositions of these. In that process, everything takes place within the already established dimensions. To establish new dimensions, contact between otherwise unrelated realities is needed. It cannot be done as a logical connection. This happens outside of mathematics. No reason can explain how this can happen. Is it at all possible that completely unrelated complete structures can be linked together as a new composition of these? If it does, it will in any case be a surprise, because it cannot be predicted within any of the realities.
Within the logic of each individual reality, this cannot happen.
At least here circular explanations begin, or can you say a recursive explanation, i.e. an explanation that requires a similar explanation. Precisely here it is a question of a superreality that acts as a coordination to the other realities. If so, is it possible to formulate any principle that differs between realities and this metareality? Otherwise, it is conceivable that several meta-realities are in turn administered by a metameta-reality. This dependency then never ends but involves an unlimited number of levels backwards in the causal chain. The search continues...
However, it will be different if there are fundamental differences between a reality and a metareality, so that several higher levels would not be required. Or at least there are fundamental differences between the levels that mean that all levels converge to an absolute final level. This level would then be the origin of all realities.
I think of the different levels as containers for sub-levels.....
