Hello Patrick,
Thanks for your comments on my blog. I have read your essay. Yes I think I have found a like-mind! To improve things both encouragements and criticism must go hand-in-hand forming bits, 1 ans 0!
So for the likes (1):
- two states: one existence and one non-existence
- UBs are the most basic constituents of the Universe sphere...
- Basic constituents are the smallest of everything and cannot be subdivided. A UB is just a bit of potential information. A UB is not material and does not have a shape as such, but its apparent size, in any directions, is one Planck Length and it FLICKS between existence and non-existence every Planck Time. FANTASTIC.
Compare this with Leibniz statements in his Monadology and you see why this is so:- "1. My topic here will be the monad, which is just a simple
substance. By calling it 'simple' I mean that it has no parts,
though it can be a part of something composite.
2. There must be simple substances, because there are composites.
A composite thing is just a collection of simple ones
that happen to have come together.
3. Something that has no parts can't be extended, can't have
a shape, and can't be split up. So monads are the true atoms
of Nature--the elements out of which everything is made.
4. We don't have to fear that a monad might fall to pieces;
there is no conceivable way it could •go out of existence
naturally." Then concerning your FLICKS above, Liebniz says, "there is no way for a simple substance to •come into existence naturally, for that would involve its being put together, assembled, composed, and a simple substance couldn't be formed in that way because it has no parts...
So we can say that the only way for monads to begin or end--to come into existence or go out of existence--is •instantaneously, being created or annihilated all at once" [Only the initial 8 paragraphs or so are on physics, the rest are somewhat spiritual).
Then for the dislikes (0), unless I can be convinced otherwise:
1. I think you crammed too much into the essay, by describing how the universe expands and including energy. Although, I agree "No energy is actually created anywhere; it is just the result of an opposition of two worlds".
2. ...we assume that the number of "existence" and "non-existence" CBUs is equal and that they are equally spaced out
- If something can spatially separate existence CBUs then certainly that thing is not non-existent. My take is that nothing spatial or extended (res extensa according to Rene Descartes) can separate the most fundamental UBs which from comparison with Leibniz and the Pythagoreans are monads. This presents a continuous space picture. That brings the puzzle how then a discrete nature of space can be expressed.In my opinion, not by making non-existence CBUs to have dimension but by resorting to the FLICKS which you have identified!
3. Our Universe has only got 3 dimensions: two space dimensions and one dimension which is both space and time.
- I would rather stick with the 3-dimensions for space and maybe add one dimension for time, making 4. We can measure space in metres, in what you units do you measure space-time?
This reply is detailed because we seem to have similar thoughts. Others with similar essays are Roger (advocates a spherical shape) and Manuel (who advocates that existence is not caused by another IT).
All the best in the contest.
Akinbo
*I am yet to go the link you added on 3-D.