Metaphysics

The metaphysical model must go first because it justifies claims about why God exists, how God functions, and what God wants.  Including it makes my presentation more complete.  It's not essential as an "article of faith" but you'll have more depth if you try to understand it.  So, let's eff the ineffable.  

​

Because the alternatives are nonexistence and arbitrary limitation, existence is infinite. 

​

Why assume that the default must be nonexistence?  Why assume things tend to not exist and then wonder why they exist anyway?  And then be mystified about why a particular thing exists rather than some other?  What could possibly be the basis of selection if there were not something even more basic to define the possibilities and how a decision will be made?  Every turtle needs another turtle to stand on.  All roads lead to it being turtles all the way down.  Infinite turtles.  Because things do exist.  That's one piece of evidence we can be sure of.  Something is, therefore all things must be.  To put it in a mockery of math, if reality is analog, then: ">0= infinity". 

​

This is our foundation.  All else is baseless or arbitrary.  

 

Its essence is that what can be must be. 

​

Everything that can be must be.  In theological terms, God's one limitation is an inability to think of a thing without that thing manifesting.  Don't think about elephants.  You can't direct your thoughts to stop because the act of directing is itself thought.  You can only direct your thoughts in a positive manner, toward rather than away from.    

​

This conflation of infinity and compehensiveness could be an error, but I don't think it is.  Sure, 2/3 is 0.66666... with the number "6" repeating infinitely, but that isn't comprehensive.  It doesn't contain other numbers, like 5 and 7, much less chairs or giraffes.  A clown might ask, "How do you know, have you followed it all the way to the end?"  But seriously, the attack is unfair because we aren't really talking about numbers, we're talking about general possibilities.  The kind of infinity that is a necessary alternative to either nothingness or arbitrariness is that kind of infinity that contains all things of all kinds, just as the basis of nothingness is infinite nothingness of  all kinds of things (rather than just "no giraffes"), and the basis of arbitrary selection could be any kind of arbitrary selection (rather than just selection based on beauty and elegance).   Why would you hobble the infinity basis with an assumption of uncomprehensiveness (why would you assume infinity includes giraffes, maybe it's all 6s) but not similarly hobble the other two?   

​

Every manifestation implies new possibility, which must manifest, so creation is continuous, and we experience this as time. 

​

Suppose you have an infinite "universe" including everything that could possibly be.  Now, take that and cut it up into pieces (presumably by defining infinite cutting planes or more complex hyperspace equivalents) and rearrange the pieces.  Juxtapose them each in all possible new combinations. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Try all the different ways you could cut it up and all the different ways you could rearrange the pieces.  Obviously that wasn't complete before was it?  It didn't include all these new possibilities.  So those have to be possible so they must exist.   Now you've got it right.  Now you've got an infinite "universe" including everything that could possibly be.  Whew!  You're done now, obviously.   No more of that.  Let's all think hard about no more of that.  Yeah, no.  Not that the possibility of geometric rejuxtaposition is the only or even main way that an infinite universe can imply the  incompleteness of its own infinitude, but it's an easily demonstrated one.  A universe whose contents have qualities other than bland geometric location would be even more infinitely permutable than a white square.  It might go through an endless series of transformations based on a predictable pattern.   What would we call something like that?

​

It's never done making permutations.  It just keeps going, exploding into infinite dimensions forever and ever, adding new exponents to the exponents of its rate of growth.   Each moment time takes a right angle turn into a newly created dimension, each moment is new creation, but always at our level it's a copy of old creation.  The rejuxtaposition process is all on scales vast beyond comprehension.  

 

Orderly progressions are created in ever increasingly greater abundance than random chaos, because order implies infinitely from a finite definition. 

 

A wave is defined by a finite formula and goes on forever. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It may interact with other waves and change, but its impact goes on (even if it tunnels out of existence at some point it continues in another world).  Anything finite is infinitely small in comparison.  So, when you create a collection of all possible things, all jumbled and duplicated and rejuxtaposed many times over, what you end up with is a great many waves interacting complexly and nothing finite and bit mapped.  Everything is patterns.  

​

Now you may note that elsewhere I point out that a cycle (such as a wheel, wave, or repeating digits) isn't really infinite, it's just repetitive.  Reality is more like Pi.  The waves that make things up are made non finite by virtue of the fact that they aren't alone.  They constantly interact with other waves to make permutations.

 

Anyway, the only way to "cut up" an infinite multiverse geometrically so you can rejuxtapose the pieces for new permuations is to define an infinite "knife" that determines what is in which part without defining it one point at a time.  In a 3d  universe the knife might be a simple plane, but  there are many more kinds of infinite surfaces that can be defined that would do the same thing.  This is essentially math.  And maybe these are also waveforms.  So, waveforms experience time because they are the means of permutating the multiverse.  Just brainstorming undeveloped notions.

​

We see such orderly progressions as time space continua in which physical forces follow predictable laws. 

​

A time space continuum is a really huge, complex pattern.  However many dimensions they really have and no matter how complex the laws that govern them, (the patterns that make them infinite), what matters is just that they are everything.  Everything is made out of these things because these things are big.  The bigger and more complex something is, the more copies of it have to be made.  It's the opposite of intuitive thinking.  It's trying to be profligate, not parsimonious.  If I'm rich and I want to spend all my money fast I'm not buying packs of gum, I'm going for real estate.    Everything is made of huge orderly assemblages and the bigger and more complex types are more common, more probable. 

 

I use the term "continuum" instead of "time line" because apparently universe time lines are all interacting, interfering with each other (without exchanging particles) so it's really a multiverse that just kind of evolves.  You can't separate one deterministic four dimensional time line.  But if a bunch of universes are evolving and affecting each other, that just means each continuum is much larger than 4d.  We can still call it a continuum.  And we can postulate that there are many of them that we exist in and that they constantly evolve greater complexity in all dimensions of time.    And there are more of those sets of sets.  It's always more complex, there's always another layer on the outside.  

​

But because existence is infinite and constantly growing, identical copies of each of us exist simultaneously in every environment which could have possibly produced us. 

​

Continua are orderly and obey laws, whatever they actually are, but that's not all that determines what we see.  You, your mind with all it knows and remembers, is a "system," a thing that has a non-arbitrary boundary, a boundary drawn on some basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

There are myriad copies of you.  Wherever the local conditions and rules allow something like  you to exist, then there's one of you there.  These are not just copies of different versions of you, they are all you and you are all them.  You are identical.  You have one identity.  One has never experienced anything different from any other, but possibly what generated those identical experiences is wildly different.  When some of you encounter something different from the others, the sets of copies of you differentiate and you are no longer identical.  But because reality is comprehensively infinite, there are still infinite numbers of you existing in every possible environment.  The sets are infinitely divisible, but there are varying ratios between the relative sizes of populations of your environments that may have different kinds of features.   You exist in lots of worlds (environments which which you are causally linked) of one type, and fewer worlds of another type.  The ratios between these possibilities are the same thing as probability.    

​

We don't know exactly which world each of our selves is in, though probabilities reflect relative abundances among the possibilities.  

​

You might be a brain in a vat.  That would be one possible origin story for who you know you are.  It's just not very likely, so there aren't many worlds like that, but there are some of them.  

​

Each of the worlds we exist in is constantly replicated many times over as new creation, slight variations on the old creation extending into new dimensions, so probabilities constantly change as order increases. 

​

Time is actually happening because the multiverse is constantly expanding.  It's a block  universe, but then again it's also this new block universe orthogonal to that one but one moment later in every possible variation from each moment of it.  

 

We exist in many time space continua at once, each of which is one kind of time that is fixed, but because the set of such universes is growing there is a real and living type of time that is not fixed. 

​

Remember, kids.  We're told,

"Don't believe your lying eyes.  Time is not real."

Ignoring things helps isolate for testing, but try not to

read the reflection of your method as data.  When you

listen to God, "I am God" is not the lines you are to 

repeat to people.  When you create a theory that doesn't

find considering time useful, don't read that as evidence

time doesn't exist.  When you look through the lens of

an optical  telescope, don't come away with the impression that

the sky is perfectly round.  When you use mathematical 

conventions to describe the shape of something, don't attribute the shape to the math.    When you abstract an impression of an animal track with plaster, don't confuse the casting for the foot.  

​

​

​

​

​