Little Tables & the construction of the Universe
26th February 2014
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Little Tables and the construction of the Universe.
'Little Tables'.
What are 'Little Tables'?
[I will remind you here that it is important that you understand the concepts first, then the actual solution].
Imagine that you where trying to describe a normal (''Real') big Table in terms of the normal 3 (independent) dimensions of space [we will ignore for now the dimension(s) of time, to make our description easier and simpler].
I would say that you can not reduce the description of the Table with dimensions less than that is required to do so, that the Table possesses in total.
In other words if the "units" that you describe your Table have not got all the dimensions (linked) within them to start with, then you will not (and can not) fully describe the 'Real' Table.
So trying to describe a 'Real' Table in terms of Abstract points and lines to create a 3 D table is incorrect, and can not fully describe the Table. Now most people would hesitate here, because this is how a Table is normally described [remember for simplification, we are ignoring Time].
Why can't you?
Well let me use a conceptual analogy, so that people do not get confused with biased opinions of points and lines, and dimensions.
Imagine again we are trying to describe this Table, but this time we are not allowed to use points and lines, and dimensions; to describe it. The conceptual argument still applies as before.
If you reduce the Table to its component 'units' then I say that the 'units' must contain all the components that the Table possesses to start with.
[Let us say that the Table consists of a top and 4 legs].
So if someone tries to describe a Table in terms of something less, let us say that they reduce the description of it in terms of minute 'little table tops' and 'little table legs'; then the description will always be incomplete.
Let us say that this someone convinces us that if you put lots of these 'little table tops' together then you will create a big Table top. This sounds reasonable.
Then we say "What about the legs"?
Well they could be lots of 'little table legs' stacked on top of each other to make columns that would create the legs. I suppose this could also be reasonable.
So what is the problem with that?
Well for starters there appears to be two independent fundamental components ('units') [the tops and the legs]. Nothing really wrong in that!
But what if there were more 'little table tops' than 'little table legs' an imbalance, we should see free legs or free tops floating about.
Why am I now complicating things?
What has this to do with our supposedly simple description of the Table?
These are the types of problems that will arise later, so this clever someone decides that they can eliminate the excess 'little table legs' or excess 'little table tops', and says well I can create the legs with just the 'little table tops'.
If you stack 'little table tops' on top of each other then you can create legs, or their is something called quantum fluctuations that make excess 'little table legs' or 'little table tops' appear and disappear with some sort of random probability.
What?
I said keep it simple.
The solution is simple, just have one fundamental 'unit'; 'Little Tables'.
If you have one 'unit' with all the components within it to start with, then there is no problem in creating the big Table and no problem of any imbalances later either.
The problem is then reduced to how can you construct the big Table from 'Little Tables'?
What I have conceptually said is that all the components the 'little table legs' and the 'little table tops' are linked together and are inseparable in the one unit the 'Little Tables'. (Ie. There are no independent 'little table legs' or independent 'little table tops').
So I also say that conceptually all the dimensions are required to be (linked) in one fundamental unit to describe a 'Real' Table, [in fact anything 'Real'], and can not be reduced further. (I.e. There are no independent 'points' and 'lines', and 'dimensions').
[Also nothing appears or disappears unless you don't know where it goes].
Now the trick is:-
"What is this fundamental 'unit'"?
and
"How can it construct everything required"?
First let me give a simple description of the big Table using the 'Little Tables' as the fundamental 'units'.. It has to do with the construction and the scales.
Concept 1.
You can not go below a certain scale, otherwise the 'Little Tables' [which are 'Real', like the big Table] would cease to 'Exist'. You would go into the world of total Abstraction where you are missing dimensions (components), or creating things to compensate for the 'Real' dimensions that are lacking below this level. (Ie. In the 'Real' world [Universe] you can not go to infinitely small scales without things becoming Totally Abstract.
[Which also means they don't theoretically 'Exist' as 'Real'].
Concept 2.
Because of the scales and the construction, the supposedly 'little table legs' and 'little table tops' can appear or disappear or the 'Little Tables' can appear not to have 'little table legs' or 'little table tops'.
Now let me construct our big Table with these 'units', taking the above two concepts into consideration.
The top of the big Table is simply lots of 'little table tops' next to each other, just like the first description that I said was incomplete, but this time the 'little table tops' are constructs of 'Little Tables' at a different scale. Two 'Little Tables' inverted with their little legs stuck together would appear not to have any 'little table legs' because they are hidden inside, and would appear as smooth top and bottom like 'little table tops'.
The legs of the big Table would be simply a stack of 'little table legs' similar again to the previous incorrect analogy, but this time the 'little table legs' are constructs of 'Little Tables' at a different scale. Two 'Little Tables' stacked top on top of each other so it looked like 'little table leg' columns, with their 'little table tops' stuck together would appear not to have any 'little table tops' because they are hidden inside the column. You should also be able to see a third option that two 'Little Tables' can be stuck 'little table legs' on top of 'little table top', this would bring in a new construct with different properties. [There is no need to go further with this analogy, as I said keep it simple].
Now if you have followed the concepts correctly, you should see where I am going.
Now I say the 'Real' fundamental 'unit' of the Universe is the 'APE' that has all the (linked) dimensions required within it to construct the 'Real' Universe. Abstraction is just Abstraction and does not truly describe the 'Real' Universe.
[Anyone can be clever (well not really anyone) and they can create something totally Abstract, and can even create an Abstract reality, but this is not 'Real'. E.g. If I decided I could create something totally new that has not been thought of before. I will do this now to illustrate it.
I will invent something called '˚Mirror ˚Numbers" this is not numbers reflected in a mirror, this would be just reflected numbers. '˚Mirror ˚Numbers' are imaginary numbers in another dimension that are different to all the numbers we know, they would all have their equivalent in our dimension but would not have the same properties if they where to interact in our dimension. So now I can play with real numbers 1,2,3 ... Etc. and imaginary numbers like i and √i and with '˚Mirror ˚Numbers' like ˚1,˚2,˚3 ... Etc. and imaginary imaginary ˚i and ˚√˚i.
As you will plainly see (maybe not).
I can create my own rules with things like 2 x ˚2 x √˚i x˚√˚i - 4 = ?
Is this the same as 2 x ˚2 x √˚i x˚√˚i - 4 ˚= ? (note the ˚Mirror ˚=).
A mathematician will have a field day with this one.
Anyway you see my point, I could create a whole new Universe, but it does not make it 'Real'.
As I have said in the past the mathematics does not dictate or create the Universe, it is a tool, and only if used correctly can it describe the Universe.
Conceptually the Universe dictates the mathematics that can be used to describe it and not the mathematics dictates what Universe is allowed.
Another way of putting it is 'Reality' can dictate or create Abstraction, but Abstraction can not dictate or create 'Reality'.].
Now back to the 'APE',
What is it? and How can it construct everything required?
[See another Tea Break Book].
But while I am here, I will give an example of the mathematics dictating the Universe.
There is a formula that was proposed to give the Entropy of a Black Hole.
For the layman, which this book is aimed at, it is supposed to measure the information that is contained in the Black Hole. (It doesn't matter what that information is to explain my concept).
The formula was as follows
Entropy S = (1/4) A/lp²
(the actual meanings of the formula is not required either in this explanation)
What is important is the constant of 1/4.
This was based on the concept that the Entropy was contained in the event horizon of the Black Hole and is proportional to it.
This then makes the formula more or less correct, but it assumes that the 'Real' Black Hole has this basis. I.e. The mathematics is stating that this is so.
If I now say that the concept is in error, and the true Entropy is not on this basis, and is actually based on the cross sectional Area of the Black Hole (another Tea Break Book) then the formula becomes something like:-
Entropy S = Å/lp²
The 1/4 constant doesn't actually exist and is just a fabrication of the mathematics to correct for the error of the conceptual mistake. Mathematically the answer is still coincidentally proportional to the event horizon but is 4 x's too large, so you have to divide it by 4 to give the more correct answer. The more correct answer is automatically 4 x's smaller, so you don't have to divide it by anything.
I.e. When the concept is more correct ~the mathematics changes.
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés
Little Tables and the construction of the Universe.
'Little Tables'.
What are 'Little Tables'?
[I will remind you here that it is important that you understand the concepts first, then the actual solution].
Imagine that you where trying to describe a normal (''Real') big Table in terms of the normal 3 (independent) dimensions of space [we will ignore for now the dimension(s) of time, to make our description easier and simpler].
I would say that you can not reduce the description of the Table with dimensions less than that is required to do so, that the Table possesses in total.
In other words if the "units" that you describe your Table have not got all the dimensions (linked) within them to start with, then you will not (and can not) fully describe the 'Real' Table.
So trying to describe a 'Real' Table in terms of Abstract points and lines to create a 3 D table is incorrect, and can not fully describe the Table. Now most people would hesitate here, because this is how a Table is normally described [remember for simplification, we are ignoring Time].
Why can't you?
Well let me use a conceptual analogy, so that people do not get confused with biased opinions of points and lines, and dimensions.
Imagine again we are trying to describe this Table, but this time we are not allowed to use points and lines, and dimensions; to describe it. The conceptual argument still applies as before.
If you reduce the Table to its component 'units' then I say that the 'units' must contain all the components that the Table possesses to start with.
[Let us say that the Table consists of a top and 4 legs].
So if someone tries to describe a Table in terms of something less, let us say that they reduce the description of it in terms of minute 'little table tops' and 'little table legs'; then the description will always be incomplete.
Let us say that this someone convinces us that if you put lots of these 'little table tops' together then you will create a big Table top. This sounds reasonable.
Then we say "What about the legs"?
Well they could be lots of 'little table legs' stacked on top of each other to make columns that would create the legs. I suppose this could also be reasonable.
So what is the problem with that?
Well for starters there appears to be two independent fundamental components ('units') [the tops and the legs]. Nothing really wrong in that!
But what if there were more 'little table tops' than 'little table legs' an imbalance, we should see free legs or free tops floating about.
Why am I now complicating things?
What has this to do with our supposedly simple description of the Table?
These are the types of problems that will arise later, so this clever someone decides that they can eliminate the excess 'little table legs' or excess 'little table tops', and says well I can create the legs with just the 'little table tops'.
If you stack 'little table tops' on top of each other then you can create legs, or their is something called quantum fluctuations that make excess 'little table legs' or 'little table tops' appear and disappear with some sort of random probability.
What?
I said keep it simple.
The solution is simple, just have one fundamental 'unit'; 'Little Tables'.
If you have one 'unit' with all the components within it to start with, then there is no problem in creating the big Table and no problem of any imbalances later either.
The problem is then reduced to how can you construct the big Table from 'Little Tables'?
What I have conceptually said is that all the components the 'little table legs' and the 'little table tops' are linked together and are inseparable in the one unit the 'Little Tables'. (Ie. There are no independent 'little table legs' or independent 'little table tops').
So I also say that conceptually all the dimensions are required to be (linked) in one fundamental unit to describe a 'Real' Table, [in fact anything 'Real'], and can not be reduced further. (I.e. There are no independent 'points' and 'lines', and 'dimensions').
[Also nothing appears or disappears unless you don't know where it goes].
Now the trick is:-
"What is this fundamental 'unit'"?
and
"How can it construct everything required"?
First let me give a simple description of the big Table using the 'Little Tables' as the fundamental 'units'.. It has to do with the construction and the scales.
Concept 1.
You can not go below a certain scale, otherwise the 'Little Tables' [which are 'Real', like the big Table] would cease to 'Exist'. You would go into the world of total Abstraction where you are missing dimensions (components), or creating things to compensate for the 'Real' dimensions that are lacking below this level. (Ie. In the 'Real' world [Universe] you can not go to infinitely small scales without things becoming Totally Abstract.
[Which also means they don't theoretically 'Exist' as 'Real'].
Concept 2.
Because of the scales and the construction, the supposedly 'little table legs' and 'little table tops' can appear or disappear or the 'Little Tables' can appear not to have 'little table legs' or 'little table tops'.
Now let me construct our big Table with these 'units', taking the above two concepts into consideration.
The top of the big Table is simply lots of 'little table tops' next to each other, just like the first description that I said was incomplete, but this time the 'little table tops' are constructs of 'Little Tables' at a different scale. Two 'Little Tables' inverted with their little legs stuck together would appear not to have any 'little table legs' because they are hidden inside, and would appear as smooth top and bottom like 'little table tops'.
The legs of the big Table would be simply a stack of 'little table legs' similar again to the previous incorrect analogy, but this time the 'little table legs' are constructs of 'Little Tables' at a different scale. Two 'Little Tables' stacked top on top of each other so it looked like 'little table leg' columns, with their 'little table tops' stuck together would appear not to have any 'little table tops' because they are hidden inside the column. You should also be able to see a third option that two 'Little Tables' can be stuck 'little table legs' on top of 'little table top', this would bring in a new construct with different properties. [There is no need to go further with this analogy, as I said keep it simple].
Now if you have followed the concepts correctly, you should see where I am going.
Now I say the 'Real' fundamental 'unit' of the Universe is the 'APE' that has all the (linked) dimensions required within it to construct the 'Real' Universe. Abstraction is just Abstraction and does not truly describe the 'Real' Universe.
[Anyone can be clever (well not really anyone) and they can create something totally Abstract, and can even create an Abstract reality, but this is not 'Real'. E.g. If I decided I could create something totally new that has not been thought of before. I will do this now to illustrate it.
I will invent something called '˚Mirror ˚Numbers" this is not numbers reflected in a mirror, this would be just reflected numbers. '˚Mirror ˚Numbers' are imaginary numbers in another dimension that are different to all the numbers we know, they would all have their equivalent in our dimension but would not have the same properties if they where to interact in our dimension. So now I can play with real numbers 1,2,3 ... Etc. and imaginary numbers like i and √i and with '˚Mirror ˚Numbers' like ˚1,˚2,˚3 ... Etc. and imaginary imaginary ˚i and ˚√˚i.
As you will plainly see (maybe not).
I can create my own rules with things like 2 x ˚2 x √˚i x˚√˚i - 4 = ?
Is this the same as 2 x ˚2 x √˚i x˚√˚i - 4 ˚= ? (note the ˚Mirror ˚=).
A mathematician will have a field day with this one.
Anyway you see my point, I could create a whole new Universe, but it does not make it 'Real'.
As I have said in the past the mathematics does not dictate or create the Universe, it is a tool, and only if used correctly can it describe the Universe.
Conceptually the Universe dictates the mathematics that can be used to describe it and not the mathematics dictates what Universe is allowed.
Another way of putting it is 'Reality' can dictate or create Abstraction, but Abstraction can not dictate or create 'Reality'.].
Now back to the 'APE',
What is it? and How can it construct everything required?
[See another Tea Break Book].
But while I am here, I will give an example of the mathematics dictating the Universe.
There is a formula that was proposed to give the Entropy of a Black Hole.
For the layman, which this book is aimed at, it is supposed to measure the information that is contained in the Black Hole. (It doesn't matter what that information is to explain my concept).
The formula was as follows
Entropy S = (1/4) A/lp²
(the actual meanings of the formula is not required either in this explanation)
What is important is the constant of 1/4.
This was based on the concept that the Entropy was contained in the event horizon of the Black Hole and is proportional to it.
This then makes the formula more or less correct, but it assumes that the 'Real' Black Hole has this basis. I.e. The mathematics is stating that this is so.
If I now say that the concept is in error, and the true Entropy is not on this basis, and is actually based on the cross sectional Area of the Black Hole (another Tea Break Book) then the formula becomes something like:-
Entropy S = Å/lp²
The 1/4 constant doesn't actually exist and is just a fabrication of the mathematics to correct for the error of the conceptual mistake. Mathematically the answer is still coincidentally proportional to the event horizon but is 4 x's too large, so you have to divide it by 4 to give the more correct answer. The more correct answer is automatically 4 x's smaller, so you don't have to divide it by anything.
I.e. When the concept is more correct ~the mathematics changes.
Morph your mind with Morphological at
apepes.com
