- Reality -

Chapter 00 - introduction.

'Reality' can be seen as a combination of several theories i've been working on, most of them unfinished. 'Reality' also came into existance as my other theories needed a common base, and sometimes, a conclusion. 'Reality' will try to describe the fundaments of a complete multi-dimensional reality. Note i said 'try' and most of all what follows in the next chapters has not been proven to be either correct or incorrect, or may never be able to be proven by humans. And that really is the most interesting fact about this work. Altho this work can be seen as it's made from a theoretical 'astrophysical' point of view, it will also be linked to the sci-fi series '4th moon of Xyth' which takes place in a reality based on the rules explained in the following chapters. The existance of '4th moon of Xyth' in itself is also a reason for the existance of this work.

Right now science is able to explain to humans how things work, or how they're supposed to work, mostly we take it for granted. But i seriously doubt most (f.i.) physical formulae are correct, they may give a result that's close to what is supposed to be the real result, making reality seem like it's build up around very simple laws. But one can't expect to have the correct formulae, altho it may not be that hard to prove them wrong it's very hard to come up with the correct ones that should replace the wrong ones. To have a perfect formula you first need perfect measuring equipment and you need to measure every possibility that can be explained by the formula you're trying to create. And there you have 2 problems : perfect equipment and every possibility. (On top of that you need to take into account every element that has an influence on the phenomenon you're trying to describe using mathematical formulae, and that's something neither mankind or our best super computers can achieve so we use estimates.)

Perfect equipment can be ruled out for now because of an inperfect fabrication process, there may be standards that determine f.i. how long one centimeter really is, but it's gonna be very hard trying to find 2 rulers that have exactly the same length. And what if those 2 rulers were made by the same company, using the same equipment to make them? Can the company guarantee that f.i. the number of atoms between one centimeter-mark and the next on their rulers is constant? I think not. And no, i'm not exaggerating, 'just' one atom. Do we know for sure what atoms are made of? Maybe, but do we know for sure what the building blocks atoms are made of consist of? And so on. Until we are able to find the elemental 'building blocks' of matter and are then able to use exact amounts of said elemental pieces we are not able to make perfect equipment. And it's not just a matter-related issue, using a metal ruler in a cold or hot environment will affect the results as the volume of the ruler changes with changing temperatures. We know about the issue and we even have formulae to deal with it so we still have a 'acceptable' result compared to a certain standard, f.i. that length at that certain temperature. But is the formula correct? Who knows. And is temperature the only thing that can influence the measurement? No, but do we know all forces and conditions that may influence it and in what ways? I don't think so. Every factor must be taken into account, in nature these things like gravity, f.i. just work. According to current laws, masses exercise a force upon each other called gravity. Taking into account 2 planets as example : every elemental unit of matter in planet one will exercise this force on every other unit in both planets and vice versa, all at the same time (parallel). For a human or computer to manually calculate this, it would take alot more time since we're limited to a serial workflow, ideally one person or computer to calculate the force exercised by 1 unit would be the fastest way of computing the total force exercised by one planet on the other. Practically impossible, we instead opt to get an approximate result by placing the entire mass of each planet in a zero-dimensional point, leaving only 2 'units' that need their forces calculated. Much less work, much less exact result but acceptable and no way to verify if it yields the same result as computing it the other way, also due to the fact that our measuring equipment is far from perfect, which in turn makes it useless to try and compute the correct value in the first place.

Second problem : every possibility. And remember one thing i said in the above paragraph : 'elemental building block'. How many possibilities are there? A limited amount, or unlimited, finite or infinite? At this point i will already say that i rule out the possibility of infinity. It's not logic and it's also an easy way to make certain formulae 'work' - just throw an infinity in there. Allowing infinity to exist before any measurements are done is allowing said measurement to never be correct upfront, as there may be an infinite amount of variables included in the formula and finding all of them may take more than a life-time, or even more than all life-times of all humans included. "Ah but maybe time is infinite too and the human race will live on forever" is an answer one might expect, but adding more infinities won't make it work either because you're still stuck with a formula that is never correct and will only be perfect in an infinite amount of time, way into the future, whenever that may be - actually that means as much as saying "it will never be perfect". A formula may have a limited amount of variables, but you will only know for sure if you checked every possible variable or factor that may influence the outcome of said formula, to rule out those that will not affect it for sure, but even then it's not possible to complete the formula in a limited amount of time since there are an infinite amount of factors or variables. Making each formula, no matter how close they are to being correct, completely useless. Lets say there are 10 factors that have to be included in a certain formula to be correct and 7 have been found, that's not too bad as it gives you an idea of how incorrect the formula is, to keep it simple, let's just say its 70% correct. In a reality where infinity exist, 7 out of infinite or even 700 or 7 million out of infinite is still 0% correct, it may be close to what its supposed to be, but it will never be proven to be correct.
So lets do the opposite : eternity doesn't exist, allowing the existance of elemental building blocks, each with elemental stats such as an elemental size or volume etc and build up from there up to a certain maximum. Let's not determine the maximum yet, as things (f.i.) can keep on growing and growing, but not eternally.
Example : you start to count from 0 and never stop counting cos it's always possible to create a number which is 1 more than the previous number, eventually arriving at infinity. Counting takes time and you don't live forever, letting some-one else take over when you die and so on, won't solve it unless mankind lives forever, but that wont help either cos eventually those numbers become so long it takes more than a life-time to pronounce 1 number, the closer you get to this 'infinity' the more time it takes to reach it and this will never stop, creating a circle : eventually you need an infinite amount of time to pronounce a certain number and still you will not have reached true infinity because it's still possible to add 1 to said number, needing yet another infinite amount of time.
"Let a computer do it - they're faster than humans". Allright, lets take the fastest computer and let it make the biggest possible number, a simple program prints a '1' on screen and then starts putting zeros behind without end. But there you have already defined infinity by saying it starts with a 1 and all other figures of this number are zeros, thats wrong, that's no longer infinity. Using random numbers instead of zeros then? No, cos computers will need an infinite amount of time to create a pure 'random' number, since infinity allows the existance of an eternity of combinations of 10 different figures, and definition of a true random number is taking one out of all possible combinations and each of those need to be defined and available in the computer's memory for it to choose from it. Defining them will take an eternity of time, putting all of them on harddisk will take an infite amount of harddisks. Computers cannot generate random numbers, what they do instead is taking a number from a long row, which repeats itself over and over, its looks like random but it's not. Pure random is like pure chaos, all possible situations available, in a limited universe there will never be a true random number generator and there will be no pure chaos and since one can link the amount of entropy (chaos) in a closed system to the age of of said system, it also rules out that this system will remain forever. But what happens in the end, maybe i'll find out at the end of this work, after having writting a - hopefully - finite amount of words.
Back to 'every possibility' : now that we know we're dealing with a finite system, it's actually possible to create formula to describe everything in this system within a limited amount of time. But what if you have discovered everything there is to discover, will that somehow affect the reality as a whole? Here i make a difference between a system and a reality. A system can become a reality when there are self-conciouse elements in this system that are aware of the existance of the system and themselves. Those self-concious elements define the reality and are related to it and may obtain the power to alter the reality in itself.

That being said, it's time to move on and see how out of nothing a system can come into existence. Warning : this may no longer be pure science, i'm tempted to call this an astrophysical work, but it's probably not. Not that it matters, really...

Read on...
Contents...