Path to enlightenment?

Fil...I 'think' I can see where you are going. Two 'objects' bumping against each other do not go through each other because of the 'coding' of the atoms that make them up. Is this correct?

Mind you - I still think of it as a pointless exercise, but I'm curious as to what it is you actually believe. It appears the term 'language' here is being used very loosely by you.

Someone said I can ´t recall exactly who that the natural language of the Universe is binary code because it is the simplest...on Occam´s razor it makes sense...the 4 forces of Nature and the way they operate, their "fine tuning" can well be the result of such code and the evolution of such code...mind that such assumption does not need or imply´s any kind of God...what I am actually implying is an infinite loop of layers of language, or at least a circular one from which "objects" emerge in context...the function of all this different layers of language build upon each other and simultaneously side by side to each other would be to exhaust all possibility´s through parallel Universes where you have variations on the rules themselves...again I emphasise that this imply´s that the very rules the programming, are themselves the product of Evolution and selection....that means, points to, or leads once more that we infer a "machine" who builds up "languages", from binary (the simplest, the source root code) and up...

The way I define Language in where is not a simple eccentricity from a creative mind toying around but exactly the correct interpretation of what language actually is...

Alright, so you are saying what I mentioned. And yes the term 'language' is being used loosely compared with the common definition - I've no problem with that, but mention how you're using it first up and it'll save us debating over a concept using two different definitions

Where does decay fit into all of this?
Is it a fundamental feature of the four forces, or are we just unlucky enough to be aware in a parallel where decay exists?

Decay is part of the process...how through entropy from low to high the code develops new "languages" new combinations... after maximum entropy has been reached and you are left with vacuum energy, through aeons you have a "system restart" with a new variation on the initial conditions for the 4 forces of Nature...you have a new scenario of low entropy, a new slightly different big bang going on...

In this perspective the second law of thermodynamics is wrong given enough time is provided to achieve a new low entropy state in the Universe...
(The 2 law is good for expansion periods, but not for the period after maximum expansion has been reached in a given zone/local in which mater decays into energy...)

I have doubts that the Universe expands forever although I may speculate that it moves forever...in a donut like configuration the universe would expand and curve on itself to recreate a new low entropy period without having to reverse its direction..

...far beyond the event horizon new clusters of matter would form from low entropy zones which would continually be pushed together in the other side of the donut thus moving into the centre again and resulting in a new big bang...

...such speculative model although elegant poses a question without which none of it makes sense...
How would space curve on itself at a close maximum entropy state when clusters galaxy's are on the verge of collapsing into energy ? Would such curving be the result of the collapse of all matter at light speed ?

An interesting video worth seeing...enjoy !

I'm not very good at this, kinda dumb actually, but I think I've got a rough idea of what you've theorized.
I like the donut image, for practical purposes, I think as we learn more about what happens inside of Black holes we might understand light speed better.

I've done some thinking about what might happen to time, in relation to perception of time, as you approach a blackhole and it gets pretty weird.
The donut image makes it understandable, but the actual curving probably happens in a way we aren't equiped to understand, like the big bang happening everywhere at once.

In your model, then, we exist somewhere in the donut hole?

I construct a linear model, along which time compresses to our present, as the observer, and decompresses away from our present. Sort of like the action of air along an airfoil, it never changes relative to our position as the observer.
I can place that linear model within the hole of your donut, and it seems to work.
My problem is, I can't place myself outside the donut to observe time outside of my particular point of observation, I just don't have the imagination.
Make any sense?

Hi Wayne !
In my model we all can be described as bits of information which bottom line are just a relative/functional description of another layer of information which then again keeps on describing yet another layer and so on in an eternal loop, its a metaphysical model which points to maths and rules instead of "matter"...as for the donut image well the donut image is quite another thing which kind of ads to this in a side note more focused on how from our present knowledge of physics would we visualised the organization of this info geometrical speaking...it just so happens I have a huge conceptual problem with the elegance of an ever expanding model of space towards nowhere, its not sound...so I rather prefer to pursuit a self enclosed model instead...if you want its a gut feeling, an intuition solely based on the aesthetic elegance that from my perspective such view presents... to the point, so far we know that galaxy clusters not only are not slowing down but they keep accelerating further away from us (Doppler effect) thus there is no indication that the old Big bang/Big crunch model apply´s any more as it was originally conceptualized...and such that what I am looking for instead is an alternative to that old elegant model that basically and fundamentally works the same way while simultaneously respecting the most recent data concerning how galaxy's behave and will behave in the future...I not only want galaxy´s emerging from low entropy points in space in an eternal re creation loop process, but I want them to emerge from a big bang like scenario without ever reversing direction...the "donut" image more or less roughly does that in my mental conceptual imagery regarding how the whole thing works...it just was that simple.
Appreciate the interest, stick around !

...my speculative dissertation on this subject hypothesizes that we don´t see any galaxy´s reversing because what is reversing beyond the event horizon of the in touch visual universe are not galaxy's any more (collapsed in energy) but instead Space and Energy converging in a hole on the other side of the donut pushed by the ongoing momentum of vacuum energy...on the other side the same direction goes from the edges to the centre thus squeezing the space and diminishing the potential entropy locally...imagine it like an "apple" where a hole links both sides...the twist is that I would have to explain how would space curve on itself at the maximum expansion entropy/point and I don´t have the knowledge to do it...I solely rely on intuitive speculation regarding more carefully "main" functions like the necessity of a perfectly cycling system or not sound must nots like the expanding towards nowhere hypothesis...

I definitely think we're on the same page, I wish I had some of your technical skill though. I have the same problem conceptualizing the curve as you do.
I also see it in terms of being drawn past the event horizon by a sort of vacuum energy, thus my compressible model of the present.
I find it impossible to conceptualize outside of my position relative to t/r/d.
Beyond the event horizon it all becomes pure matter/logic, outside the matrix so to speak?

I can conceptually slide my present state of observer along the linear model of my existence and see that space time distorts on each side of the point of observation. However, I can't yet get a grip on what that really means.

It could be that each existence, you and I, are our own apple/bubble of info with in a larger bubble etc, etc, which I think is what you mean by the layers.
The question is, what happens to my individual bubble of info beyond the event horizon of the next layer.

I'm going to visualize the donut/apple as a bubble with a sort of axis tunnel, then it becomes possible to distort the bubble at will.

Lets see if we can clarify a little bit more...
The event horizon is the place where you loose touch with information in a direct functional meaningful way...from where we/you are we have access to our local in touch zone of space, that is the place where "stuff" still can communicate with each other and affect each other...the problem is that there is other stuff that you cannot observe any more either because its causal information travelling at light speed did not yet reach earth and our local space, or because they are moving at close to light speeds further away from us and their information cannot or will not reach us while our sun and us are here...

"Layers" refer to the type of relation structure in between bits of info...you can think of it a bit like about sets inside bigger sets and the relative relations of functions between them...

...for instance at one layer I can describe the moon either as a bunch of atoms working together or as a celestial body in another layer of explanation...imagine it like speaking either in English or French while explaining the same phenomena from a different point of view or perspective...

..."layers" contain tinier layers, and are contained by bigger layers...they operate at different levels and establish different algorithms from their "perspective" describing reality...

Right, I think I got you ok. The event horizon is where things get really weird, kind of stretched out by the vacuum force. I'm not sure at what point the observer, assuming the observer survives the trip, would notice the difference?
How to describe,, we would become relatively huge?

From our perspective, don't all those layers converge to our present point of observation?

On layers:
...think of it for instance like physics describing the operations in chemistry and chemistry describing the operations in biology...but they all speak of the same through a different relative/functional eye...