"Every creation" hypotheses, instead of every computation 
or every mathematical structure.
I favor a variant of the everything idea, which I would like 
to call the "every creation" approach. In some sense it 
creates every "computational moment". Computations are 
not required as fundamental entities. Almost all you need is 
a natural definition to make new creations from pairs of 
creations. This determines the evolution of an avalanche of 
creations. Creations inside the avalanche may be aware only 
of those creations to which they are in relative equilibrium. 
As with other approaches, a consequence seems to be the 
emergence of the laws of Physics.

Let me start with the following 4 hypotheses:

1. There is an underlying time. 
2. There are creations (creation objects).
3. There is a natural creation operation defined, which 
creates new creations from existing creations.
4. Every natural creation operation happens.

Some more words on these hypotheses:

(1) There is an underlying time, which is discrete. This 
makes it easy to talk about creation operations, as if they 
happened in our time. I will do this.

(2a) New creations can be made (created). 
(2b) Creations do not get deleted. 
(2c) Creations can be made in multiple copies. Creations 
have multiplicities. Whether a creation can be made does 
not depend on (can not be prevented by) the preexistence 
of an identical creation. 

(3) For any two creations x and y, there is a natural 
creation operation [x,y] defined, which makes a creation z. 
Lets call x the operator, and y the operand. I do not specify 
the definition of the natural creation operation here. I have 
given one of my favorite definitions, using replacement 
operators, in a previous posting, where [(x1 x2),y] creates 
a copy of y and replaces every occurrence of x1 by x2.

(4a) Every-creation hypotheses. The natural creation 
operation [x,y] is happening for every existing creation x 
and for every existing creation y.

(4b) Every existing creation x has equal chance to become 
the operator in [x,y].

(4c) Every existing creation y has equal chance to become 
the operand in [x,y].

Let's also make the assumption that creations are (directly) 
responsible for our awareness and our perceptions of the 
world. What are the consequences of such a hypotheses?

Creations may perceive other creations only indirectly and 
only if the later possibly play a role in the creations' 
histories. We may not perceive properties which depend 
on the underlying time Tau. But we may be able to perceive 
invariant properties, which do not change when the 
underlying time Tau is getting larger and larger. We can be 
indirectly aware of creations who's multiplicities are on 
average in relative equilibrium with the multiplicities of the 
creations which are directly responsible for our 

Thus the observable universe consists, possibly only, of 
creations who's multiplicities grow on average at the same 

 Multiplicity(creation,Tau) = phi(creation) * growth_factor(Tau) 
 Multiplicity (observer,Tau) = phi(observer) * growth_factor(Tau)

The relative multiplicity, 
 Multiplicity (creation,Tau) /Multiplicity (observer,Tau) = 
 = phi(creation) / phi(observer),
is independent of Tau.

For creations inside the avalanche, the importance of 
the initial conditions depends on the number of possible 
equilibrium states (or the number of certain equivalence 
classes of possible equilibrium states.) If there is only one 
possible equilibrium state, then the initial conditions are 
not relevant at all.

Let's assume that Tau is large enough, so that the 
equilibrium is reached for the creations under 
consideration. The growth factor can be calculated when 
we make the simplifying approximation that every operation 
[x,y] just creates one new copy of y. In that case trivially all 
creations are in equilibrium, as required. If one of the 
operations [x,y] does not create a new copy of y, but 
instead another creation z, the equilibrium is broken. There 
is one creation y missing and one creation z too much. This 
is as if the creation y had been moved from y to z. The 
effective movement can be compensated by an effective 
movement back. There could be another operation [x2,z] 
which creates a creation y. Adding loops of effective 
movements does not change the equilibrium.

May a set X of creations x_i form a pattern, and the 
operations among these creations may produce another 
pattern Y of creations y_i. Lets call this an effective particle 
P moving from X to Y. The broken equilibrium can be 
restored by an effective particle moving from Y to X. Let 
me call this the effective antiparticle P_bar moving into the 
opposite direction as particle P is moving.

The choice of naming is intended to remind you of the 
Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation of E<0 Solutions of 
equations like Dirac or Klein-Gordon Equation:
Negative-energy particle solutions going backward in time 
positive-energy antiparticle solutions going forward in time.
In short, this interpretation claims that
 P(-E) *describes* P_bar(E). 
But the equilibrium argument claims that
 the existence of P *requires the existence* of P_bar, 
P_bar also moving into the opposite direction. 

This suggest a new(?) interpretation of the equations 
where the two possible solutions are not only two ways of 
describing reality. They correspond to two parts of reality. 
They are based on two processes, which require each 
other in order to keep the equilibrium. For every particle 
with energy E there is an antiparticle with energy -E, and 
the total energy is E = 0.

In a Feynman graph, there are lines that, according to 
Feynman, do correspond to a particle, *or* do correspond to 
an antiparticle moving into the opposite direction. However, 
according to the equilibrium argument, the line should be 
interpreted as a loop(s) composed of a particle, moving in 
one direction, *and* an antiparticle, moving backwards in 
time, back to the original space-time point.

Feynman, with his lines, draws kind of one-dimensional 
projections of such loops. The additional dimension, which 
is not visible in his graphs, corresponds to transformations 
between spaces, which you may call "invention space" and 
"feedback space", or covariant and contravariant space. 
This additional degree of freedom may be what is needed 
to explain the additional imaginary component of quantum 
mechanical amplitudes -- to explain them from multiplicities, 
which are given as natural numbers.

Covariant and Contravariant Spaces are not two 
descriptions of one reality which can be transformed into 
each other. They are rather two parts of reality which 
require each other in order to keep the equilibrium growth 

Does the Hilbert space corresponds to that part of the 
creation space which is already in equilibrium?

The following ideas may rely on the definition of the natural 
creation operation.  

Einstein's field equation might be understood as equations 
stating that effects of all loops going through one creation, 
such as all gravitation loops and all loops from energetic 
pattern movements, cancel each other and have no effect 
on that particular creation, except for its equilibrium growth.

What is gravitation? Creations lead to new creations by 
the continuing inflation, plus continuing shrinking, plus 
rotations, and other transformations of space-time, at any 
space-time point in the remembered history of those 
creations. This gives a kind of diffusion effect, which could 
be responsible for gravitation. Do today's gravitation fields 
evolve according to the dynamics of "the past", in particular 
the dynamics of the Big Bang? 

By the way, at the moment I favor space-time generator 
"definitions" which result in non-projectable dimensions. 
(Projections can not be done easily with few operations.) 
The projections to the border which I have mentioned in a 
previous posting may correspond to other degrees of 
freedom though. 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to