It is a matter of some ease to calculate the length of the universe in NLC. Rather than the infinite and random universe of Lucretius, it is both finite and perfectly defined. It is also, calculable with a certain amount of ease. The text of Lucretius which will be gotten to in due course is the subject of the book I'm reading (the swerve) and covers quantum mechanics (albeit a version which I've abandoned), psychology, religion and the like in the cruel, irrefutable logic of the Greek (ancient and to some extent current). The part I will focus on initially has to do with his infinite universe and my finite one.
If something is finite, you should be able to say "how much of ______ is in it." In this case there are two related answers. Since linearity is offset by gravity, we can use gravity to tell us how much "time" there is in any quantum moment (knowing the sum total of information is equal to all the moments of time times this total amount of information at any one time). It remains possible that the amount of information in the universe varies from moment to moment, I've touched on the fact that we humans create information and to the extent our information equates to the information reflected in linearity we would assume that our actions increase the amount of information. While much of our time remains non-linear (if we make a cd, chock full of information, it doesn't play the information linearitly until it is put in motion) but I think this is where we must assume the "information" of the universe is different from the information created by consciousness because our information does not create gravity, if it did the sheer quantity produced might have a measurable effect..
This question is not academic. It is observed that information in the form of matter (4 coordinates changing at once) has an enormous compression ration to information stored electronically (waves have 3 coordinate changes at a time). This means that the "matter" in which the information is stored is vastly larger than the electronic waves storing information within the matter, but both have some gravity if space equates to dark matter. This however, is a side issue and for the moment I am going to assume that for whatever reason our information is different from the information that causes the universe to exist in a linear form and that "our information" is merely the restructuring of it, a very Lucretion concept (forming of unforming of combinations of matter)
Knowing what % of the universe is dark matter and assuming that dark matter is linear space, the smallest quantity of information being represented by the amount of quantum gravity generated by the linearity of a single point in space, then one can assume the rest of the universe can by this ratio be converted into space. Knowing the total amount of space it is only then necessary to figure out the quantum measurement of gravity. Having this (very large number), one need only assume there is one point in time, one quantum of time for each finite quantum of gravity and this tells you how much information there is at any quantum moment of time in the universe.
Compression theory assumes that all the times together (past present and future) provides the amount of information necessary to compress all the information at any quantum moment at a scale allowing all changes to happen in concert (at once) which gets us back to a "singularity" based on compression of information based on shared coordinate changes (the number changing at once). So you need only "square" the first number to know how many quantum moments there are in the universe and you can take this number (the amount of time at any quantum point) and translate it into linear seconds and you can find the exact moment the universe will end (from the big bang assuming that is the beginning (see prior posts) and assuming combination doesn't require time from any other "universes" or "linearities').
This assumes that our universe has all the time to recycle (see prior posts for compression to the point where all times happen at once is actually back to the singularity). The existence of other universes created by god like non-linear beings (also discussed previously) could radically change the equation.
You might ask why I don't do this calculation right at this moment if it is so easy and I would answer that I have no sponsor who pays me for these things and therefore I must do them when the struggle for survival allows for it.
While Lucretius is no doubt more brilliant that I am (he continues to exist in my theory while he ceased to exist in his own), having done more with less, he undoubtedly had sponsors or private convenience in one form or another.
I also want to disagree with him on the true meaning of love which he attributes to the same failings that lead to misleading religions, that is the evolutionary mandate (Lucretius did envision evolution in a very direct sense rather far in advance of Darwin) of striving for safety. For religion he envisioned that it was our projection of a psychological safe haven, the perfect safety (or disaster) of an afterlife which he firmly rejected (I don't need an afterlife since moments continue, we are stuck in this one-and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make). In love perfect safety I opine that he opined is reflected in perfect love which he, therefore, believed to be an illusion. On this I accept his premise, but having experienced perfect love, I refuse to accept it is an illusion and instead believe, it being fixed for all time, has some purpose to me, however inconsequential it might be in the grand scheme of the universe, it remains as fixed as the quantity of time for me.
I, by virtue of my understanding of the universe, have a better method of determining how it changes and could, if time so dictated do whatever I want with it. This unusual insight would make all things possible to someone like me, a power in understanding that is shared, perhaps less directly, by those who found new religious, perhaps by confusing vision with power.
I do not believe in true randomness, a cornerstone of the Lucretion (and most pre-NLC universes) universe, but I do believe in a more powerful illusion of self determination. For Lucretius believed there was no afterlife, while I believe that each moment continues indefinitely so that his true randomness has none of the staying power of my illusory self determination.
Lucretius' beliefs led him to believe that we should live hedonistic-ally and on this I have to agree to some extent, for if we don't seek happiness, and time with our true loves, then those moments that occur forever are lived over and over in its absence. The idea of causing pain to another for some reason inhibits me from seeking happiness and to this I must answer for both of us.
Before I knew love existed I could be happy in the simple hedonism of Lucretius, Having been found while love remained unattainable, I could have satisfied myself otherwise, with empty acts of which Lucretius would fully approve. But having found what I will call true love possible, despite those who say it does not exist, there is nothing else that I want, nor do I want to want anything else.
The idea of being otherwise satisfied is abhorrent. If I cling to it, I find myself as doomed by my fiction as those who are tied to their false religions. To someone unwilling to do what is required I find myself with two choices, satisfaction or self sacrifice and there is only one logical choice in that.
Having power over the universe that comes with understanding, is different from using it. The unwillingness to manipulate it, as I have proven personally it is a relatively easy undertaking, can only be a weakness in my spirit that I can fathom no reason to accept, even though understanding the importance of hedonism is different from the selfishness required to sacrifice others to find it. Hoping that somehow I can find assistance from events outside my control to make it easy and that i won't lose courage and be doomed to the results of sacrifice instead of an eternity of happiness. It is worth waiting for, to have that type of happiness, but waiting makes little sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment