One might ask where the light may come from. Sure, it comes from the stars, but what was before that?
How did light arise?
In this text I will discuss a topic of high abstraction and theoretical thought. But I have to warn you, there are many brute leaps of thought. Otherwise I tried to write it so that it all makes sense at the end like a final drumbeat. By the way it will lead us to valleys of desperation and to the mountains of enlightenment.
Benevolently I let you plunge into the chaos. And let's see, some may recognize a glimpse of order in it. So close your eyes and begin to see! Embrace chaos, because it is a friend of inspiration and creativity, and enemy of stagnation. But beware! Not every flight in the depths of chaos hides stairs, often there await fathomless abysses and sharp-edged ledges. So take care!
- Official beginning of the EPoO hypothesis: February 13th 2016
- Official beginning of the EPGHypothesis: Somewhere around 2013
- Official beginning of the HotCM: June 2017
(3.1) Metaphorical jigsaw puzzles
(3.2) A brief history of the hypotheses
(3.3) Metamathematics and how one can regain control over the own mind
(4) Preparing poetry for the HoIP - shaping the meta-hypothesis
(4.1) The Mathemagician
(4.2) The Perfused Fractal
(4.3.) The One and Only Fractal
(5) The main principles and assumptions of the HoIP
(6) The thought experiment that started the entire EPoO hypothesis
(7) Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
(7.1) About closed systems and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
(7.1.1) The Perpetual Motion (Machine)
(8) Holism and reductionism and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
(8.1) Examples of paradoxes
(8.1.1) Tangled hierarchies
(8.1.2) Non-orientable surfaces
(8.1.3) Further ideas about paradoxes
(18.104.22.168) Binary thinking and conventional logic
(8.1.4) How can we solve paradoxes?
(9) Chaos and Order
(9.1) What are chaos and order?
(9.2) What is "ordered chaos"? - Self-organisation of complex systems
(9.3) Laplace's "Clockwork universe" vs. Poincare's "Chaotic Universe"
(9.4) The way from probabilism to determinism
(9.4.1) Deterministic chaos
(10) The role of synergetics in the EPoO hypothesis
(10.1) What is synergetics?
(10.2) Further thoughts about synergetics
(10.2.1) What does it have to do with EPoO?
(10.2.2) The phenomenon quantum foam
(10.3) The contradiction between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
(10.3.1) The contradiction as core of the EPoO hypothesis
(10.4) Wave-function collapse and the gap between probabilism and determinism
(11.1) The dilemma of the missing (exact) definition of fractals
(11.2) Short overview about fractals
(11.3) What is infinity?
(11.3.1) About the difference between infinity and endlessness
(11.3.2) Conformity and endlessness
(11.3.3) The definition of infinity - ether
(22.214.171.124) What is ether?
(126.96.36.199) What is infinity?
(11.4) The problem between physical reality and mathematical reality
(11.4.1) Elementary particles and their "identity"
(11.5) Figure and background alias self and environment alias observer and observed
(11.6) Euler's Identity
(12) Quantum mechanical horror - introduction to EPGH
(13∥ How I imagine an elementary particle to be
(13.1) The inner vortex
(13.1.1) The inner vortex as non-closed system
(13.1.2) Back to the inner vortex
(13.2) The geometry of model I
(13.3) The geometry of model II
(13.4) The geometry of model III
(13.4.1) Platonic solids
(188.8.131.52) The golden ratio
(184.108.40.206.2) The golden ratio in dodecahedrons and icosahedrons
(13.4.2) Vertices, edges and faces of the platonic solids
(13.4.3) Inner vortices and platonic solids
(220.127.116.11) Grouping according to spin
(18.104.22.168) Grouping according to mass
(22.214.171.124) Grouping according to charge
(13.5) Comparing Groups I - V with platonic solids - Version 1
(13.6) Johannes Kepler and platonic solids - nested platonic solids
(13.6.1) The sphere
(13.7) Comparing Groups of elementary particles with platonic solids - Version 2
(13.7.1) Version 2.1
(13.7.2) Version 2.2
(14) The collapse of the (geometry of a) particle
(15) Implications in cosmology
(15.1) The Big Bang in the focus of the EPGHypothesis
(15.2) The inflation phase of the universe
(15.3) Black holes
(15.4) Continuous vs. Grainy - and the Phase Transition thereof
(16) Principles of shape and formation
(17.1) What is a tesselation?
(17.2) The fractal as irregular tesselation
(17.3) What are the roles of chaos and order in tesselations?
(18) What will this hypothesis contain and why is it part of this hypotheses collection?
(18.1) The role of introspection
(18.1.1) How can objectivity even be found in introspection?
(18.1.2) Analysis of introspection
(18.2) The (sub-) conscious mind
(19) The impossible triangle of logic, creativity and intuition
(19.1) Chaos, deterministic chaos and order - and intuition, creativity and logic
(20) What is consciousness?
(20.1) The illusion of separation
(20.2) The development tree
(20.3) Law of oneness
(20.4) Root to EPGHypothesis
(20.4.1) Observation and decoherence
(20.5) What's the meaning of shape in the arising of consciousness?
(20.5.1) The incompleteness principle
(126.96.36.199) Uniqueness/ Individuality
(188.8.131.52) The interplay of Individuality and Generality
(20.5.2) The meaning of size
(20.5.3) What is "nothing"?
(20.5.4) What is shape?
This hypothesis is actually three similar hypotheses composed to one. The EPoO hypothesis is the philosophical and partly mathematical part, whilst the EPGHypothesis takes the entire ideas to the level of theoretical physics. My target is, straight-forwardly said, to form a base for the Grand Unification Theory (or „Theory of Everything) in physics (or whatever this hypotheses will become). I know it is a hard and somewhat naive to think I can achieve that, but if one does not even begin to try how can we even progress? In the end we learn through our mistakes. That's the least I can do. Those who never do mistakes never learn something new.
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible."/p>
- attributed to M. C. Escher
And in the very journey of discovering these thoughts and intertwined connections of many different hypotheses from all the different sciences it will form a highly abstract, yet beautiful, and somewhat elegant holistic result.
However, if it will contain the mathematical elegance and beauty, we'll see and I will do my best to proof it – even if that means to „step outside“ the conventional methods.
One of my leading concepts is summed up in the following quote pretty well:
"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power,..."
- Mathematician Paul Dirac, in "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature" in Scientific American (May 1963)
In the chapter (5) The main principles and assumptions of HoIP I try to start with as few assumptions as possible and make some implications of it (- therfor I used a nested design to make it better visible).
These hypotheses are a result of thinking for myself since I can remember. Every thought, may it be true or false, transformed and shaped further thoughts. Many false ones got extinct, some changed so they became true. - But what do I want to explain?
As I was a child, like 5 or 6 years old, I once said to my mother "Life is like a jigsaw puzzle." I never realized how true this was until I came to the conclusion that every jigsaw puzzle piece is an entire jigsaw puzzle game itself. This gives this entire analogy a very recursive and nested nature.
One can substitute a fact with a subordinated hypothesis itself - so said.
An example: The fact is: "Nothing can travel faster than light speed."
The subordinated hypothesis: "Nothing can travel faster than light, because something would collapse into a black hole if it travels faster than light speed, because of the very high kinetic energy."
I also have to say that the entire "orderly seeming" text here was once even more messy - it actually started with the Elementary Particle Geometry Hypothesis (EPGH) in the end of 2013, whose name changed multiple times in the beginning. One name was "Sub-Elementary Particle Dynamics" for instance. Now I think that EPGH fits the best.
It all started with my passion for physics in the beginning of the same year. I read a lot of books, most were about superstring theory.
The philosophical concept crystallized itself in course of time; and finally, in February 2016 I had another good idea; The EPoO was born!
As I began to read "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas R. Hofstadter around that time it brought me forward in all my ideas and concepts.
As I read about Synergetics first in April 2016 I already knew it has to be mentioned in my hypotheses. Later I will explain what this is.
In June 2017 I added the Hypothesis of the Complex Mind (HotCM) to this collection of hypotheses. It evolved from an epiloque I wrote for the EPoO and EPG Hypotheses and it gained more and more complexity and became another kind of key role for the Hypotheses of Intertwined Paradoxes (or shortly HoIP).
Today, the eleventh of February 2018, I came back to my almost 5-year old hypothesis. A lot of time passed since I wrote latest. I think it was on June 20th of last year when I wrote here.
Again my brain seems to accumulate something huge and complex; And my thoughts seem so foreign to me, and yet, I have to say, I do know them well already.
I gave away my thinking to my inner demons for far too long, and yet, I'd say, they seem to be pure geniuses. It fascinates me to look into the world of the multi-dimensional broadband thinking, and yet something plaques me; to fathom the fathomless!
How can one redefine thinking? And how can one regain control over the own mind?
One key seems to me to be (meta-) mathematics, formal logic that explains step for step what happens multi-dimensionally in all the different hyperspaces.
Hence I remarked the following:
1) To think for oneself one needs to find linear analogies of multi-dimensional fractals.
2) Mathematics is a language of high freedom of expression; It can explain far more than the "usual" languages. Nevertheless it needs much effort to understand mathematical thinking. At first we lean on already known theories, theorems, equations and equalations. But the high art of mathematics lies in the application, in combining already known principles and explanations thereof to explain new principles. Soon we can recognize a very intertwined and fractal nature.
3) The first step to understand mathematics we need to forget everything (we learnt in school) about mathematics and to understand mathematics as a very useful, beautiful and elegant universal language.
4) Analogies are the main points of math. Similar to metaphors in language they are bridges between similar problematiques. Nevertheless analogies can never explain the hundred-percent complexity of the problem that's in front of us.
Also important to say is the fact that (meta-)mathematics seems to be a kind of therapy for me. It helps me staying sane in this insane amount of thoughts.
The following sections are poems that should prepare the mind for the HoIP.
is indeed a magician
for he plays with numbers
like they were some kind
of juggle balls.
He speaks the language of the universe,
the language of logic;
Speaking in analogies
he combines equations
like the chemist combines toxic elements...
- they are the words
of logical thought,
are capable to tell stories
about the universe's very first days.
The mathemagician's passion
is to find analogies
just like the writer
searches for metaphors...
He searches for understanding the cosmos...
In dialoque with the universe
he begins to wonder and wander
across the ocean of infinite possibilities...
Fervor with measure,
passion with exactness,
that's the ultimate of mathematics;
Connecting the details
to create the big puzzle...
with reductionistic thinking...
That’s when the details coalesce
to one big picture.
The mathemagician loves riddles,
is as fascinated as a child discovering something new.
Nothing can stop the mathemagician's curiosity
from finding out
by what the world is held together in its innermost…
that's what drives him
- almost crazy...
I'm listening to your tone.
Fading to one's own existence
my miserable brain tries
to make the incomprehensible
You are a riddle,
my very personal Theory of Everything,
which binds me more
than the thought of the best hypothesis
to explain you,
because you are unapproachable.
Every analogy to describe you
fails to express your true complexity.
Perhaps you are
- and I dare to say "only" -
an analogy of recursive analogies,
a loop opening into itself,
that provides consciousness
here and there.
I hear you
in each of my thoughts,
that is in front of me,
in all your variations,
because you are diversity.
You are God.
You are chaos,
you are life.
And I would give everything
to understand you.
But this would probably
end in fatal inception;
I see it coming;
Because no human of this or another time
can ever fathom
Perhaps it's indeed a fact
that I will never comprehend you.
do facts still exist
if they have fractions
bearing inside themselves?
...if they themselves are not fundemental building blocks
as well as the metaphorically decaying, zero-dimensional point particles.
Who are you? Who am I?
I am the universe, and you are me!
I am the fact, you the analogy,
but in the upshot
we are one
Analogy is fact,
and fact is analogy;
Isn't this simply
of unequal sides
proves to be paradoxical
at first sight.
But this holistic thought shows
isn't far away too.
of three-dimensional objects
show up quickly
in the dazzing nature
Thus nothingness is indeed
the foundation of everything
and the world
only a single projection
of twisted loops,
twisted in the ocean
of spatio-temporal paradoxes.
I'm an analogy,
of an analogy,
self-reference characterizes me.
so I'm empty at the same time,
the sheet that fills itself,
the black hole of my self,
a closed causality
that's never fully closed;
The perfused fractal!
You will never know who I am,
yet you know it already
since the beginning of your time.
Because I am you,
and you are me.
I am you,
that grows all the time
in the cycle
of becoming and passing away.
And there still lies the enigma of our being
in the wonderful interplay
of you and me,
of infinite complexity.
You are me,
because we are everything else then conform,
and yet one and the same in perfection.
And I observe,
see you and me
as a union,
or even a gas
that's searching for
And yet there's pressure
on our shoulders,
because we carry the weight of the world
on our heads.
We are giants,
like inverted abysses
that grab for the stars.
We are incredible fools
we could ever compare us with the stars...
- if the stars are inside us
in the same moment?
What have we thought,
to separate us
from this gigantic world,
if we carry the world inside us
in the same moment?
•The universe has a fractal nature
→ Everything is connected to everything else.
→ Everything stems from one and the same.
→ Illusion of separation
→ Law of oneness (Everything is part of the ONE.)
→ principle of non-orientableness
→ Incompleteness principle
→ Individuality and Generality
→ Holism and reductionism
→ self reference
→ paradoxity arises
→ observer and observed are parts of the same, yet they need to differ somehow.
→ Development tree (fractal-like and complex)
→ Every branch is unique, except for isolated elementary particles.
→ Crossing of branches is equal to interaction
→ observation and decoherence
→ Illusion of separation between observed and observer creates consciousness.
→ Everything interacts (Synergetics).
→Microscopic chaos creates macroscopic order. (Hermann Haken, from Die Selbstorganisation komplexer Systeme - Ergebnisse aus der Werkstatt der Chaostheorie, Backcover)
→ microscopic equals subordination; macroscopic equals superordination
→ "x does not arise from x, but from y."
→"Order doesn't arise from order, but from chaos."
→ Analogy with fibonacci sequence:
Fn = Fn-1 + Fn-2
"Fn doesn't come from Fn, but from Fn-1 + Fn-2."
→ "Changing factor", transformation and recursion
→ Everything is nested (recursive).
→ Deterministic chaos and causality; One can't predict the long-term outcome in complex systems, because of the high sensitivity to initial conditions.
→ One can only predict in probabilities.
→ One can't simply differentiate between the observer and the observed or the self and the environment.
→ Quantum mechanics plays a role.
→ One can't exactly determine momentum (velocity and direction) and position at the same time.
→ Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
→ also: Wave-Particle Dualism
→ Everything can be zoomed out or in infinitely.
→ This results in a so called "flow into itself", that is similar to the artwork "Spirals" by Maurits Cornelis Escher (from 1953). By the way it is similar to an Ouroboros or a snake biting its own tail.
→ There infinity is just a kind of illusion, because it only flows into itself and is therfor similar to a circle or sphere - You can walk infnitely, but infinity as kind of a "straight line" doesn't exist.
→ Everything is either paradox or incomplete, but never both. (A simple implication of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem)
→ Sometimes so called "tangled hierarchies" arise. They create strange loops. We will discuss it more later.
→ It has something to do with non-orientable surfaces, such as möbius strips and klein bottles.
→ Does consciousness arise from strange loops?
→ What is consciousness?
→Everything has self-similarity.
→ Everything is a kind of analogy of one another, just with some differences in the details.
→ What is conformity? Has every elementary particle a "given identity<"or are they utterly identical? Are they only identical to one another if they don't interact with each other?
→ This could describe why particles that don't interact are "everywhere at the same time", because they "become the superordinated spacetime". (They become "conform".)