Mind-Bending Cosmology

I periodically collect postings of similar subject matter together into a compound posting. This collection is about the mind-bending cosmology of how we fit into the universe. The reason that it is mind-bending is that we are dealing with our own nature.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) HOW REAL ARE WE?

2) WHY THINGS GO WRONG

3) OUTER MATHEMATICS

4) MEET THE UNIVERSE

5) OTHER EXAMPLES OF MIND-BENDING COSMOLOGY

  5a) IS THE UNIVERSE ROTATING?

  5b) THE MYSTERY OF STRAIGHT LINES

  5c) MORE THAN TWO ELECTRIC CHARGES

  5d) DO WE REALLY HAVE FREE WILL?

  5e) THE REASON FOR POLITICS

  5f) THE ILLUSION OF DISTANCE

1) HOW REAL ARE WE?

We exist, or you wouldn't be reading this, but have you ever wondered what level of reality we really exist at? Just how "real" are we?

Remember one of the principles of my cosmology theory, that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. An example of this is color, we see different colors because it is how our eyes and brains process different wavelengths of light but, other than this, color does not exist. 

Another example is time, in my cosmology theory time exists only within us. Our consciousnesses move along the bundles of strings which compose our bodies and brains in the fourth dimension of the space over which the matter from the Big Bang is scattered. This is why we can move in three dimensions of space but perceive the other as time.

We are information that can process other information. We are able to "represent" information, by use of language and imagery, while inanimate matter can't. Everything can be described in terms of numbers, which is information, but with inanimate matter the only information is the matter itself.

We represent the reality around us first, by creating a model of that reality in our minds. We are able to further model or represent reality by such methods as language, drawing and, writing. More recently, we have gained the ability to represent or create a model of reality with photography and then electronic communications, and then computer technology. Another way that we create a model of the reality around us is money It represents thinks that we value, although it has little or no intrinsic value in itself.

Of course the universe seems real to us because it is made of the same information that we are, the only difference being that we are able to create models of reality for ourselves, which contain much less energy than the usual equivalence of information and energy, but just how real is it?

Modeling or representing the information in the universe means that we can transform the information into a form, such as language or photographs, with much less actual energy relative to the information contained, that is easy for us to deal with. 

In the universe of inanimate matter, the amount of information or energy is fixed. But we can model or represent it by storing the information as much less energy than it would take with inanimate matter. We can describe an object, by such modeling as language or mathematics, without all of the energy that is within it as per the mass-energy equivalence.

A painting, for example, can be a model of reality but is actually two steps away from the reality around us. First is the reality itself, then the model of that reality in our minds, then the expression of that reality in the painting.

But suppose that one part of the painting could interact with another part. How would the part of the painting that could interact with the other part, by way of processing information, see the part of the painting that it was interacting with? It would have to see the part of the painting that it was interacting with as "real" because the part that was being interacted with would be made of the same level of information as the part that was interacting with it.

Beings that could interact with other information would always see the information that it was interacting with as "real" because, to have such an interaction, the two would have to be on the same energy level. A being that could interact with the information around it would have to be able to access at least one other level of reality, the representations and models of reality as described above, because it would have to hold some "model" of reality, such as we do with our minds, in order to be able to interact with it.

But if there were higher levels of reality, above ours, we could not interact with those as we do with the information that is at our own level. We are information, like the universe around us, and, if seen from some higher level of reality, would seem like some kind of equation. We express the operation of the universe around us with mathematics, and a drawing is actually a mathematical model of something that uses distance instead of numbers in expression.

Since everything around us, and including us, can be seen to be ultimately numbers, that means that our level of reality is just an equation. We have to see distance because distance is numerical information. We cannot see distance solely as numerical information because we are at the same level of information so, we have to see it as distance. We could only see the reality of the universe around us as an equation if we were "looking down" at it from a higher level of information, which we are not.

So this is what happens when an interaction takes place between two entities at the same informational level. What is actually numerical information seems like distance. We are at the same informational level as the universe around us, and that is why we perceive distance. 

The only "lower" levels that we can interact with are the representative models that we create, such as language and writing and drawing. This is how we can express something without distance, with writing or mathematics, but only at those lower representative levels. At our usual level of informational reality, we can only see numerical information as distance.

If you are walking or driving to a destination up ahead, the distance to it is really only information. You see it as distance because you have to expend energy to get there. But we have seen that energy is the same thing as information also. All is information but we have to see the information that is at the same level as the information that we are, which means which we have not represented by numbers or other means, as energy or distance.

If you come up to a wall, and can go no further the wall is real to you, rather than merely a mathematical equation, only because it is made of the same level of information that you are.

The entire universe, both space and matter, are composed of negative and positive electric charges. If I were to define the universe in one sentence, I would say "The universe is negative and positive electric charges, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, and everything else is mere details". But these electric charges are just bits of information, and everything is composed of this information.

One of the realizations that I have had is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Therefore, the two must be the same thing.

Through technology, we can make our lives physically easier, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex. Since complexity is the amount of information, this shows that energy and information is really the same thing, because one can be transformed into the other.

But if energy and information is really the same thing, then why do we see them as separate? It must tell us something about our perspective on the universe to answer that question. We can create representative models of the universe around us, first in our minds and then through language, writing and drawing, and then through electronic communications and computer technology.

When we model the universe, we see that as information. When we deal more directly with the universe, we see that as energy. It is due to our perspective within the universe, as part of it, that we see energy and information as different when they are really the same thing. When information deals with information that is a model of reality, it will see it as information but when it deals directly with the reality, it will see it as energy.

Information cannot see other information at it's same level as information, it has to see it as energy. But energy cannot just exist as itself, it has to overcome something. What energy overcomes is distance. But since energy is really information, actually just numbers since everything ultimately comes down to numbers, then distance must be just numbers also.

Information can always be expressed as mathematics, and this means that energy and the distance that it overcomes must be just information also. We see the universe as vast distances between galaxies but what it really is, at a higher level, is a mathematical equation. We are part of the equation and so we have to see energy and distance, because we cannot see the equation from outside.

If you see a mathematical equation, as simple as A = B, you see it as information. But if you could actually "step into" the equation, so that the information that you are was on the same level as the information in the equation, it would seem like one side of the equation was energy and the other side was distance. The entire universe is really information but we, because of our perspective as part of the universe, see it as either energy or distance.

We can see an example of energy and distance in opposition to one another, but yet interchangeable, in how a higher orbit contains more energy than a lower orbit. If a spacecraft is in orbit and we give it three times the orbital energy, it will move to a distance in which it orbits at nine times the previous distance but, due to the Inverse Square Law, at only one-third the speed.

Energy, or information which is the same thing, increases the distance over which the negative and positive charges which comprise the universe must balance out. The number one rule of the universe is that negative and positive electric charges must always be exactly equal. But energy, or information, added increases the distance over which the charges must balance out.

The lowest possible energy or information state is empty space, which is alternating negative and positive electric charges like a checkerboard but in multiple dimensions. Any breaking of this pattern, which will bring about a concentration of like charges, will create matter. An atom is the "zero-state" of matter, as the electric charges balance out to zero. The charges still have to exactly balance out, as they do in empty space, but the distance over which they have to balance out is increased.

This shows that, since energy and information is the same thing, distance and information must be the same thing and since energy can move things to overcome distance, distance and energy must also be different forms of the same thing.

We can clearly see that distance is the same thing as energy, which is the same thing as information, by the fact that we can use a lever, which is a simple machine, to exchange distance for force, which is energy. If the two can be exchanged then they must be different forms of the same thing. The reason that they are different forms of the same thing is due to our perspective. We observe and interact with the universe, but we are really made of the same information that it is, that is why we see information, energy and, distance as being separate, when all is really information.

2) WHY THINGS GO WRONG

Why do things have to go wrong? Why can't everything just go right? There is actually a reason and it is based on my information theory, detailed in the compound posting on this blog "The Theory Of Complexity".

Humans are at a higher level of complexity than the surrounding inanimate universe. Think of a cliff with a higher and a lower level.

When we make use of our inanimate surroundings, collectively known as technology, we are imposing our higher complexity on it. The way I see it, all technology is equal in complexity to our higher level. But all technology has an internal and an external component.

A cup, for example, seems simple. But to really understand a cup it would be necessary to understand why humans would need it. It would be necessary to understand our digestive system and why we need to drink fluids. It would also be necessary to understand that we have fingers and an opposable thumb that can hold the cup.

This means that, while the cup's internal complexity is low, it's very high external complexity brings it up to the complexity level of the humans that made it.

With technology that is more complex than a cup, such as a car, more of it's complexity is internal, but the total complexity also adds up to the same level as humans. When an example of technology has more internal complexity, it is less necessary to understand all about what humans are to understand the technology.

Our higher level of complexity is why we have to have free will. Having free will would not be necessary or make sense if we were no more complex than our inanimate surroundings. But free will also means that we can be wrong about things, because there is not enough information in our inanimate surroundings for everything that we can conceive of to exist.

In my complexity theory, plants are far more intricate than the inanimate surroundings, meaning higher complexity or more information per mass, but contain no more overall information than our inanimate surroundings. That is why we require plants for food, but no one plant can provide all of the nutrients that we need.

This explains why we cannot reuse energy. Even though a fundamental law of physics is that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, technology cannot reuse energy. Once it is used it is lost, because our technology must necessarily be at the same level of information that we are, which is higher than our inanimate surroundings.

But this also shows why technology has a proclivity to break down. The lower level of complexity of the universe around us is always "trying" to pull our technology back down to the lower level. The technology, being as complex as we are, is always thus prone to breaking and malfunctioning.

When we impose our higher level of complexity on our surroundings to create technology, it introduces another issue. We can never be sure that we are grasping all of the aspects of the technology because to do so, we would have to be "smarter than ourselves", which is impossible.

Like our technology, our economy is as complex as we are. That makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for any of us to fully grasp the economy. It is much easier for each of us to just see the right or left. To see the entire economic picture we would have to be "smarter than ourselves".

So these are the two reasons that things have to go wrong, both explained by my information theory, we impose our higher level of complexity on our surrounding environment to create technology, and it's lower level of complexity is always "trying" to pull our technology back down. Also, to fully grasp all of the facets of our technology, and the economy that it brings into being, we would have to be "smarter than ourselves", which is impossible.

3) OUTER MATHEMATICS

We use mathematics to describe the universe around us. But we are of a certain finite complexity. We can only grasp, and describe with mathematics, things that are less complex than we are.

In order to describe ourselves, or something of the same complexity as ourselves, we would have to be "smarter than ourselves", which is impossible. We could describe it with words, which do not require a complete understanding, but not with numbers, which do require a complete understanding.

Any finite set of information can be expressed in a formula. What this means is that, somewhere out there, there is a formula that describes everything that you do and everything that you will do in your whole life. But you can never see it because, to grasp it, you would have to be "smarter than yourself", which is impossible. Your formula would naturally be as complex as you are and you can only grasp things that are less complex than you are.

The unseen formula that describes you is an example of what I refer to as "outer mathematics". Everything is really mathematics but we are only able to grasp that which is less complex than we are, which is what I refer to as "inner mathematics".

All "textbook" mathematics is "inner mathematics", it must be or we wouldn't be able to grasp it. If someone learns all mathematics they may think that is the end of it. But it isn't, it is only the end of what we are able to grasp.

There is outer mathematics that describes everything in the universe, as well as the whole universe, that we are unable to grasp because it is beyond our complexity level. This includes the formula of everything that you will do in your life, as well as the formula of the operation of your body. We perceive ourselves as having free will because we cannot grasp this formula because it is more complex than we are.

Everything is really numbers, including all that we express in words. Computers and phones understand numbers but not words. It would be making great progress if we could break words down into numbers. Then phones and computers would actually understand the words that are inputted into them. The trouble is, of course, that our language is as complex as we are and we would have to be "smarter than ourselves" to express it as numbers, rather than words. This makes it very difficult, although not impossible.

Since everything about us can be described by a formula, we are information ourselves. We see ourselves and our surroundings as being "real" because it is made of information just as we are. 

Aside from this set of "outer mathematics" there must be a still more distant set of outer mathematics. As stated we use mathematics because it effectively describes the world around us. But what if that world, actually the entire universe, had been different? 

The matter that all except particle physicists deal with is made of atoms. We could say that atoms are "exclusive" so the mathematics that works for us uses numbers and has the basic operations; addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, exponents, roots, etc. What I mean by "exclusive" is that atoms, and the matter that is composed of them, does not come into existence spontaneously and stays as it is until something changes it.

The numbers that we use have no real existence until they are manifested in some way. There is no such thing as the number six that we can see but we see it whenever we have six of something. But any number must exist whether it is manifested by anything or not. Consider the number 37,683,992,651,801,384,161,079,177,209,184. Let's refer to this number as "W". It may be that nowhere in the universe is this number manifested anywhere, but it is still just as much a number nonetheless because it could potentially be manifested. Just as a parking space still exists whether or not there is a car in it.

The mathematics that we use, both inner and outer mathematics, works for us because the matter that we deal with is as it is, matter could be said to be "exclusive". But what if matter, or the entire universe, was completely different?

There would still be mathematics that described it although it would be completely different from the mathematics that we are using. If matter, or whatever that universe was made of, was non-exclusive then there would be no reason for the addition, subtraction and, so on that we use. If that universe was somehow immeasurable or unquantifiable mathematics might express the effect that it has on the living beings rather than what it is actually made of.

Mathematics is inevitably related to scarcity, of not having everything that we need or want and of having to labor to get what we don't have or build what doesn't yet exist or get to somewhere other than where we are. Have you ever noticed that there is no mention of mathematics in Heaven? In Heaven we will have everything we want so why would we have any need to count or calculate?

The universe of atoms, electric charges and, electromagnetic radiation that we have is just one of an infinite number of possibilities that the universe could have been. It is like rolling dice. The numbers that came up are our universe. The numbers that didn't come up are all of the universes that never physically existed, but yet these numbers still exist.

But the mathematics, completely different from our own, that would have described them must nonetheless still exist. Just as we saw with the number "W" above, a number still exists whether it is manifested or not and the mathematics, which we cannot begin to imagine, of every different universe that never actually existed must also still exist.

This is what I refer to as "far outer mathematics". It is the mathematics of would-have-been universes and physical realms that do not even use the same basic operations as the mathematics that we use. What we could call "near outer mathematics" is, as explained above, mathematics that would use the same basic operations but is beyond our reach because we could not completely understand something whose complexity is greater than our own.

4) MEET THE UNIVERSE

 I have an idea to explain how the universe operates. Suppose that the universe could be transformed into a human being. What would the universe be like?

Have you ever known anyone who has difficulty making decisions? Do you sometimes have difficulty making decisions? You would actually have a lot in common with the universe.

If there is one thing that the universe cannot stand, that it will do anything to avoid, it is making a decision.

People used to believe that the earth was flat. Indeed a flat earth would require less information than a sphere, so that would seem to make sense.

But the earth is in space. This means that, if the earth was flat, it would have to be aligned in one particular geometric plane in space, to the exclusion of all other possible planes. But then that would involve deciding which plane the earth would be aligned in, and if there is anything the universe cannot stand it is making a decision.

So the universe simply doesn't decide on one plane. It chooses all possible planes. A sphere actually is flat, but it is flat in all possible geometric planes rather than just one. Each point on the surface of a sphere can be considered as a flat surface aligned in one plane.

Just imagine the universe going shopping. Since it would be unable to decide what it wanted in the store, it would just buy everything in the store to avoid having to decide. Even if there was a particular product that the universe wanted from a display, such as a can of drink and there were multiple cans, the universe would have to take all of the cans to avoid choosing one.

Now that the earth is a sphere, the universe is faced with another decision. How will the sphere be aligned in space? So that, for example, the sun will be at the 7 AM position in Toronto.

But the universe simply cannot decide. So what it does is makes all possible choices about how the earth will be aligned. The earth cannot be at all possible choices at once, so it goes through all of the choices. This is why the earth rotates.

If you ever meet the universe, after it has been transformed into a human being, be sure to never take it out for dinner. The universe would be unable to choose what it wanted from the menu, so it would just order everything on the menu. It certainly wouldn't be able to choose one restaurant over another, so it would have to be taken to all restaurants.

But when the earth, and other planets and stars, rotate, there actually is decisions that have to be made. For a sphere to rotate, it must rotate around an axis. For that to happen a decision must be made as to which direction in space the axis will be aligned. Also, it must be decided in which direction the rotation will be.

So we have gotten the universe to make decisions. It is actually energy that forces the universe into making decisions. But so resistant is the universe to making decisions that, even when it does make a decision, it counteracts it's choice by also making the opposite decision.

The way that our Solar System came together, by some of the matter of the star that preceded the sun coming back together by gravity to form the sun and planets, meant that one orbital plane, out of all possible geometric planes in space, would have to become predominant. This would be the primary factor in determining the rotational axes of each planet but would be, once again, a choice. Another choice would have to be in which direction the planets would revolve around the sun.

If our Solar System was all that there was to the universe then it would have been forced to make these choices. But the universe just cannot stand to make choices and it has found a way around this by making all possible choices.

The universe is so large, and has so many solar systems, that it is able to negate the choices that it has to make for each solar system by spreading all possible choices, of orbital plane, rotational axes and rotational direction, over all of it's solar systems.

This also applies to something like the rotational planes of spiral galaxies.

It is kind of like, when the universe went shopping, it simply bought everything in the store to avoid having to make any decisions. This means that all of the orbital planes of planets in solar systems in the universe must ultimately balance out equally in all directions.

To have it any other way would involve the universe having to make a decision, and we can see that the universe does whatever it can to avoid making decisions. So, even if we cannot see the far reaches of the universe we can be sure that all orbital planes and directions of rotation must ultimately balance out.

Every gravitational sphere, stars and planets and moons, that we can see are all different from one another. No two are alike. We can be sure that this must be true across the universe, no two spheres of matter that form by gravity can be exactly alike.

Suppose that a million gravitational spheres have formed, and are still forming and, thus far, no two are exactly alike. For any two gravitational spheres in the universe to be exactly alike, the universe would have to make a choice as to which one to replicate first.

Now we know how the universe just cannot stand to make decisions so the only way to avoid making such a decision is to have every gravitational sphere in the universe be different from every other gravitational sphere, no two being exactly alike. This is a lower information state than having some exactly like others, because choices would have to be made as to which ones, and choices are information.

So this gives us some insight into what the scale of the universe must be. Spheres are the default form for when gravity pulls matter together into stars, planets and, moon's. This is because the sphere is the 3D geometric form with the least energy and information.

But every gravitational sphere must be different from every other gravitational sphere, because that requires the least information and involves no choice as to which one to replicate first.

If gravity were stronger it would take fewer atoms to form a gravitational sphere and so the number of gravitational spheres that the universe could contain before they started to replicate would be reduced.

Heavier elements are produced by fusion of lighter atoms in stars. If there were fewer different atoms than the number of possible gravitational spheres in the universe, which have to be different from each other, would be reduced. This fits well with the formation of planets, which orbit second-generation stars and require a first-generation to first produce heavy elements by fusion and then explode in a supernova, because the supernova increases the number of different atoms in the universe and the planets increase the number of gravitational spheres.

This means that there must be a balance in the universe between the strength of gravity, which governs how many atoms are required to form a gravitational sphere, the number of different atoms and, the number of gravitational spheres in the universe.

5) OTHER EXAMPLES OF MIND-BENDING COSMOLOGY

Let's just have a look at some other examples of how mind-bending cosmology can be. Just see if you can wrap your mind around these few examples. Consider this as an exercise in mind expansion.

5a) IS THE UNIVERSE ROTATING?

Everything in the universe seems to rotate. Planets and stars rotate. Galaxies slowly spin. Even the electrons in atoms have a spin, either up or down.

So if all of the components of the universe seem to rotate then shouldn't the entire universe rotate?

The reason for rotation, in terms of my information theory, is that it happens because it represents the lowest information state. A planet or star rotates because, if it didn't rotate, it would have to choose a particular angular alignment, out of all possible alignments, and that choice would be information. The universe avoids making that choice, and thus achieves the lowest information state, by cycling through all possible choices, in other words by rotating.

Suppose, for example, that the earth didn't rotate. The place where you live might always have the sun in the 4:17 PM position. But that time is information, out of all possible positions that the sun could be in. So the universe achieves a lower information position by having the earth rotate through all possible alignments.

So it makes sense that, since everything in the universe is part of something that rotates, the entire universe would be rotating because, like the example above, it would achieve a lower information state by cycling through all possible alignments, instead of choosing one alignment.

But when we come to the subject of the universe rotating, that's when things start to get interesting.

Let's begin with the definition of rotation. The definition of rotation could be "The cycling through all possible alignments relative to an external reference point". So that means, for the universe to be rotating, the rotation would have to be defined by an external reference point.

The trouble is that the universe, by it's very definition, encompasses everything in existence. This means that there can never be any reference point outside the universe by which we can measure it's rotation.

So it becomes a philosophical question whether the universe is rotating. Plainly and simply, the universe is rotating if you would like it to be rotating. Furthermore the rate at which the universe is rotating is also up to you. You can speed it up, or slow it down, at will.

Doesn't that give you a sense of power?

5b) THE MYSTERY OF STRAIGHT LINES

One of my favorite topics on this blog, that I write about periodically, is straight lines. A straight line is usually defined as "The shortest possible distance between two points". Straight lines seem to be very simple and straightforward.

But there is a complication with regard to straight lines. It is the way we define them. We are visual beings and we will always define a straight line by the path of light.

That raises the question of how we can be sure there is not one or more other definitions of straight lines. For all we know, light could take some roundabout way to get to us, which we can never see because the light itself is the vehicle by which we see.

We usually define a straight line as the shortest possible distance between two points, presuming that is the route that light takes, but another possible definition is the lowest energy route between two points. We presume that the two definitions are the same but, given that we define straight lines according to the path of light, we cannot be absolutely sure.

If an electron could think, but not see, it would define it's path through an electric circuit as a straight line. It would not matter at all how tangled the wires of the circuit were. We, with our visual definition, would perceive the electron as taking a very roundabout route through the tangle of wires. The electron, with it's energy definition would see itself as taking the most direct, and lowest energy, route.

We know that the matter of which our universe is composed was scattered over three dimensions of space, four counting the dimension of space that we perceive as time. But since we are composed of this matter ourselves we could not possibly have any awareness of anything that goes on in spatial dimensions outside our own.

How can we know for sure that our block of spatial dimensions is not somehow warped or curved relative to the outside dimensions, possibly by the presence of the matter? 

If that were the case then our definition of straight lines would be correct, but only within our familiar dimensional block of space. Our straight lines would be curved relative to the outside dimensions. There would actually be "shortcuts" across space, that we would be utterly unaware of because we are limited to the dimensions of the matter that we are composed of.

5c) MORE THAN TWO ELECTRIC CHARGES

There are two electric charges that, in my cosmology theory, comprise everything in existence, both matter and space. The basic rules of electric charges are that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. In fact, the very definition of electric charge is how the charge interacts with the other charge. 

Space is an alternating checkerboard pattern of charges, in multiple dimensions. Matter is a concentration of like charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy.

This energy that holds like charges together as matter, and is what gives matter it's mass, is called the Mass-Energy Equivalence. It is also the basis of Einstein's famous formula, E = MC squared, where mass can be converted into energy. In a reaction between matter and antimatter, the energy that was holding the like charges together is released in a burst of radiation and the negative and positive charges rearrange themselves back into the alternating checkerboard pattern of empty space.

The two electric charges mean that there must be two opposite directions in each dimension of space. This is because, if we picture ourselves at an infinitesimal point in space between any two electric charges, if one direction begins with a positive charge then the opposite direction must begin with a negative charge.

We live in three spatial dimensions so we refer to these two opposite directions of each as up and down, left and right and, front and back.

But what if there had been other than the two electric charges? Can we even imagine it?

There really couldn't be just one electric charge because the interaction of electric charges requires at least two different charges, so that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. If there was only one charge then it wouldn't really be an electric charge.

But what if there were three electric charges, with each being the opposite of the other two? Can we even imagine it? There would have to be three opposite directions in each spatial dimension. This does not mean more dimensions, just more opposite directions per dimension, which is even more difficult to visualize than more dimensions.

This would utterly change the laws of physics. Electromagnetic waves have a peak and a trough, which are the two opposite directions of one dimension, so the wave would have to have what we would see now as another dimension, yet would not occupy another dimension in the three-charge space.

A three-charge universe would be virtually impossible for us to imagine. But you can give it a try, not to mention if there were four, or five, or more electric charges.

5d) DO WE REALLY HAVE FREE WILL?

Of course, we will always perceive ourselves as having free will. We make choices, decide on a course of action, and then take that course.

Suppose we bounce a ball off a wall. We will see ourselves as making the decision to throw the ball, with the ball having no "choice" in the matter. But suppose the ball could "think". If it was unable to see the decision to throw that we make at our level, the ball would think that it was making the decision from it's own free will to hurtle toward the wall so that it bounced off.

We would understand the reason for the ball's course as our own throw. But the ball, not understanding that, would have it's own cause and effect reasoning for it's course of action. From the ball's perspective it would have made the decision itself to hurtle toward the wall so that it bounced off.

Then what about our "free will"? We will always perceive ourselves as making our own decisions. But isn't it possible that, at a level we cannot comprehend, our actions are being driven and we really have no more free will than the ball being thrown toward the wall, even though we think we do?

Every "decision" we make could actually have been driven for us, leaving us with actually no "choice" but to make that decision, even though we think we are making a free choice.

Even if, facing a choice, we turn around and make a different choice we would still be going along with the cause and effect that is above our understanding. With everything that we choose to do, there is a cause and effect sequence that actually brought it about. Although we are at a higher level than the ball, and are it's cause and effect, we may still really have no more free will than it does.

5e) THE REASON FOR POLITICS

The real reason for politics is complexity. The primary component of politics is economics, and our economics are as complex as we are.

This makes it very difficult for any of us to see the entire economic picture. It is far easier to just see what we refer to as the "right" or the "left". The right can be said to represent the seller and the left the buyer.

Any economic transaction requires both a buyer and a seller. Both are therefore of equal importance. To say that one is more important than the other is like saying that a right shoe is more important than the left shoe.

But shoes are simple and it is easy to see that the left and right are of equal importance. But economics is not so simple and it is much easier to erroneously see either the right or left as more important than the other.

I refer a number of times to my cosmology theory of times in this posting. The posting that I use to introduce it is, "In Cosmology Everything Just Fell Right Into Place" May 2019.

5f) THE ILLUSION OF DISTANCE

One of the basic presumptions that we make, with regard to science, is that we have an unbiased view of the universe. This means that we can completely rely on our measurements and observations when seeking to make discoveries about the universe.

An underlying principle of my cosmology work is that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. So many discoveries not only cannot be explained by ordinary physics but actually contradict each other, particularly between Relativity and Quantum Physics. My explanation is basically that we are seeing ourselves reflected back at us.

What I want to discuss today is something else that is so basic to us, but yet might well be an illusion. That thing is distance.

When we look at a far-away object we see that there is a distance between us and the object. The object will look relatively smaller and dimmer by how far away it is, in accordance with the Inverse Square Law. But maybe distance is just the way we interpret it, according to our nature.

We can see that distance is actually equivalent to energy. Stars and planets form spheres because a sphere is the three-dimensional form with the lowest energy state, and we know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. A sphere is also the form with the lowest surface-to-volume ratio. This shows that energy is equivalent to surface area, and thus distance.

Another way that we can see the equivalence between surface area, and thus distance, and energy is the waves on water. If the water is still then the water is at it's minimum surface area, and that is the lowest energy state. But if there is a wind then there is energy in the wind. That energy shows up by increasing the surface area of the water, in the form of waves.

Orbits clearly show the relationship between distance and energy. The higher the orbit the higher the orbital energy, even though the object moves more slowly in a higher orbit according to the Inverse Square Law. The orbital energy amounts to space, in other words distance, the amount of space that a line from the earth to the object covers per unit of time.

But probably the simplest way to see the relationship between energy and distance is to drop something. The greater the distance it falls the greater the energy of it's impact.

All of this is why, if we want to go to a distant place, we have to expend energy to get there. Because distance is really energy and so we have to expend energy to get there.

I question what distance really is. We see it as something being either far or near. But since distance is equivalent to energy couldn't how far away something is from us simply be a manifestation of how much energy there is between us? Objects appear smaller and dimmer at a distance because the light from the object has to go through more energy to get to us.

According to my cosmology theory empty space consists of a checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. There is energy in the bonds between opposite electric charges, and that is why it requires energy to go anywhere in space. We have to match the energy in those electric charges. It is also why objects appear smaller and dimmer at a distance, light from the object has to go through more energy to get to us.

Also according to my cosmology theory matter, as opposed to empty space, is composed of like electric charges, held together against the mutual repulsion of like charges by energy. This is why matter consists of charged particles, like electrons and protons. But this means that matter has more energy than empty space.

This is why, if we are going to an object some distance away, it requires more energy if there is a wall in our way, that we have to go through or over, or objects in our way that we have to go around.

We perceive both light and gravity across space as operating by the Inverse Square Law, an object twice as far away will have one-quarter the size, brightness and, gravity. But we know that light is a two-dimensional wave, with the two elements of amplitude and wavelength each of which requires a dimension. Because of these two dimensions of light, which forms a square, we could perceive information across space as operating by the Inverse Square Law.

A basic presumption in science is that we have an unbiased view of the universe, that we can completely rely on our measurements and observations. My view is that so much that is otherwise unexplainable falls into place when we realize that we do not have an unbiased view of the universe. We are part of the universe ourselves and we see it as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.

Ordinary textbook physics is the way the universe really operates. New physics, such as Relativity and Quantum Physics, which both contradict each other and are unexplainable by ordinary physics, are really elements of our own nature being reflected back at us. 

Our presumption that we have an unbiased view of the universe may work fine for other branches of science, but when we get into studying the basic nature of the universe we start seeing our own nature reflected back at us.

We know that so much of what we see all around us is optical illusions. Rainbows and the blue sky are not really there. Color itself is an optical illusion, just the way our eyes and brains handle different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that we can see.

So why shouldn't even more of basic physics, such as distance, turn out to be just our way of seeing things, because we most certainly do not have an unbiased view of the universe?