Omniverse Perspective?

[3blake7]

I haven't done much research on the string theory or any of the other theories for that matter. I just wanted to wrap my head around one particular part, the very, very, very beginning. Not just the beginning of our universe, but the beginning of everything. I tried to deduce it logically using philosophy and created something that was parallel geometrically. I know it has no basis in theoretical physics. Feel free to rip it to shreds but if you could I would really appreciate it if someone articulated a similar perspective in an established theory.

----

The Omniverse at the most universal perspective is both zero and infinity, it is Nothing and it is Everything. Everything is a signal and Nothing is noise. Nothing is so much signal that it becomes noise. From the most universal perspective, all dualities become a singularity, they are one in the same, synonymous and ambiguous. The Omniverse is a point within a space but is also a space within a point, depending on how you look at it. It is two points emerging from one, two equal and opposite points, Everything and Nothing. Everything sees Nothing and Nothing sees Everything. Everything feels Nothing within and Nothing feels Everything within. Everything and Nothing realize they are one in the same, viewing themselves from different perspectives. Everything and Nothing rise above themselves to become one again. Everything imagines a possibility, a line in the static of Nothing and it is created or did the line already exist in reality and Everything observed it? Creation and Evolution are equal and opposite positive feedback loops. Everything can be categorized as Observers and Observational Forces. As there are more and more Observers competing in the collapsing of the waves of probability, there are fewer and fewer possibilities. If there were no competing Observers, any possibility imagined by an Observer would become reality.

The Omniverse has no beginning and no end, it is zero with random fluctuations, such as 0 diverging into +1 and -1. The two equal and opposite points interact with each other and both points interact with the source point. The duality will expand from the source and they interact with each other, going from a 0-simplex to a 2-simplex. The two points of the duality will begin to contract after one interval of omni-time but will diverge into two sub-dualities, which makes the overall structure a 6-simplex. Then the sub-sub-dualities will meet and cancel each other out, forming a 2-simplex, followed by the remaining duality, forming a 0-simplex. When the universe collapses, immediately after another duality will emerge with more momentum than the previous. This cycle will repeat, with each loop having more momentum, causing the peak to be greater and greater n-simplexes. The following is a representation of simplexes diverging and converging, in and out of existence.

0 → 2 → 6 → 2 → 0

0 → 2 → 6 → 14 → 6 → 2 → 0

0 → 2 → 6 → 14 → 30 → 14 → 6 → 2 → 0

From another perspective, you can think of the Omniverse as a circle growing larger in diameter. Is the circle growing larger in diameter or is the Observer moving closer? Both are one in the same.

If a universe diverged, forming a 3-dimensional space with no matter present, there would be no competing Observers in the collapsing of the waves of probability and thus matter would spontaneously appear based on the properties of the universe. The effects of matter on distant space, that has expanded beyond the speed of the Observational Forces, makes it also possible that matter will continue to spontaneously emerge while the universe continues to expand faster than the effect of Observational Forces.

Edited July 1, 2015 by 3blake7

[Phi for All]

I haven't done much research on the string theory or any of the other theories for that matter. I just wanted to wrap my head around one particular part, the very, very, very beginning. Not just the beginning of our universe, but the beginning of everything. I tried to deduce it logically using philosophy and created something that was parallel geometrically. I know it has no basis in theoretical physics. Feel free to rip it to shreds but if you could I would really appreciate it if someone articulated a similar perspective in an established theory.

 

I think you have a fine mind, and I think you would greatly benefit from more formal education. The kind of research you've been doing doesn't help you link together all the various bits of science you're referencing here. Mainstream, textbook teaching would help with that a lot.

 

Logic is a subset of mathematics. Logic is not "stuff that makes sense to me". The term you're looking for is reason, or rational thought. But reason is based on trusted steps and processes, and it can't be applied to a time before the Big Bang. We can't even say what happened right at the moment of the BB, because the densities and energies involved are beyond our present maths. We can start to see the development only a fraction of a second after the inflation began. Before that, we can't be sure at all, physics as we know it doesn't seem applicable (the four forces can't be distinguished one from the other, for instance).