NLC-THE VERY SMALL

SINGULARITY VS SIMULATION, MATRIX OR HOLOGRAM

The science fiction of all quantum mechanics and indeed in Zeno’s paradox from 2500 years prior, is that on close examination the foundation of the universe begins to fall apart.  The fact that a “perfect circle” is impossible to draw is only an indication, the more important aspect of this is that there is a number instrumental in the drawing of the perfect circle that does not exist.  Quantum phenomenal explain how this is possible, but the inability to split a Planck length diameter in halve to get a radius shows the system has its problems.

Whether you go all the way back to the singularity, have an intermediary stage defined by the hologram or eliminate reality completely using a simulation or matrix analysis, the theories all come together at certain levels.  The theory which supplies the best framework for either the origin of the process involved, the mechanism for the process involved and which allows the maximum amount of manipulation is the winner of the contest.  In this way NLC both wins and loses.  NLC explains phenomena well and thereby provides a framework for manipulation; but if accepted, it means that we have no “true” control.  However, on close examination, the same is true about the other theories.

EHT started with some really rough ideas for the framework, NLT provided some ideas about the process.  Both had in common the lack of true randomness.  There are several reasons to rejects aspects of the simulation, matrix or hologram and to accept others.  A simulation is too complicated, because it provides for some background control, meaning that there has to be a more complicated universe which generates the simulation.  NLC does provide a background to generate perceived linearity which is much like a simulation, but the NLC background need not be more complicated than a singularity which eliminates any other complications and reduces the universe itself to a point, dimensionless and timeless, from which the illusion of linearity is derived.  Given the difficulty in otherwise defining the universe, a point universe where everything happens at once as predicted indirectly by Einstein seems as likely as a true linear universe where events follow.  That is, a still picture is much more simple than a motion picture.  ***

It helps to put this in perspective.  Let's talk about some large things and some small things.  ADP to ADT, the Krebs cycle is an interesting thing in that the use of these two chemicals, not always together, is the source of all living power on earth.  If there's an exception I don't know about, fine, but if not, there you have it.  What is important in this is that amid the insanely complex miasma of life on this planet, there is consistency in an area.  

This simplicity of and incredibly complex organization of the small things in the universe is worth remembering.  It is worth noting that the "random" change which led to everything from dinosaurs to the bubonic plague is the result of a chemical process that we now can manipulate to make apples that don't turn brown.  If we can change “apparent” randomness for a purpose, then it is predictable.

 In all of the universe, ignoring ct5 and higher states and ct3 and lower states everything is made up a group of elements that fit on a chart that can be hung on a door.   That, however, is nothing, because all of those elements are made up of a single thing, energy, which despite its many forms is just what it is (ct2 and 3).

This easy transition to complexity starting with the large and going backwards is the very suggestion of information theory, supporting both NLC and simulation theory.  The fact that we can start with ridiculously (from our perspective) simple information (plus/minus) and transition to fairly simple energy and from that to the complexities of matter and the presumably greater complexity of the ct5 states indicates that we can start with something which appears so simple (information bits) and end up with an entire universe.