Honey, I Shrunk the Universe…

… or, “What if we were totally wrong?”

Inside-Out Universe

To say that the Universe ‘exploded’ from a ‘thing smaller than an electron’ in what’s commonly called “The Big Bang” could be a complete misunderstanding of the data we’ve gathered from our observations of the galaxies and ‘stuff out there around us’. Let me show you the ‘other side’:
Continue reading “Honey, I Shrunk the Universe…”

“ALL Reality is Transformation” – A Review


It may seem absurd that I see Reality (indeed, all Reality, hence the capital ‘R’) as being ‘made of’ Transformations. I am the first to admit it because this is my view almost despite myself – “I would it weren’t so”. In fact, it’s this very discomfort, this very dismay that motivates me to review each reason, carefully, once more.

While it may seem reasonable that, in seeking something which can both be ‘Sameness’ and ‘Difference’, I choose Transformation as the definitive candidate, it nevertheless seems difficult to grasp how that might come to be, in the real physical realm.
Continue reading ““ALL Reality is Transformation” – A Review”

Set Theory 2.0 – a first attempt

Definition of a Thing:

If a Thing is to exist, it must be, by necessity, at the very least ‘not’ that-from-which-it-exists. This ‘not’ is what enables it to exist, and as such is the transformation by which it exists. This transformation is the defining boundary of a Thing; the Thing is fully-bounded by “not”. But the existence of a boundary gives rise to there being two sides[1]. And so we understand that for a bounded Thing to exist, there must exist that Thing’s complement – that is, the that-from-which-it-exists. “not” is an involutory transformation in that a second “not” cancels both. However, in normal speech, this cancellation is referred to as “is” – where “is” is “not not”. So we understand that by being defined by ‘not’, an extant Thing is absolutely unique. If it was not, then it would not exist – because it would not not-be something else (it is not-not something else – thus it ‘is’ something else).
Continue reading “Set Theory 2.0 – a first attempt”

On rotations as continuously-reflected translations

Image of PDF file - single page

rotatn_is_reflected_translatns.pdf is a pdf of a little diagram I created this morning, where I muse with the ideas of transformations and how we can express Rotations (and circularity or curvature) using “not” – the ‘omni-dimensional’ Reflection (how would you describe a zero-yet-infinity-dimensional thing? “multi-“? or “trans-“?).

I don’t know why I called those vectors in the diagram ‘rays’  – they’re vectors which describe a translation transformation.

If this is right, why would we need ‘curved’ non-Euclidean spaces?



This zero-D Reflection is a strange bird…

The very existence of a boundary to separate a space in two gives rise to a higher dimension in which both can exist. In zero dimensions, a Thing bounded by a Reflection (“Not”), then (and I know the words are dangerously wrong here) has a kind of ‘inside’ which is not ‘outside’. Strictly speaking, this ‘inside’ is no longer even in the apprehensive realm of whatever is ‘outside’ – precisely because of the boundary which ‘shuts the door’ to the ‘inside’. It is clearer in 2D and then you can roll-back the analogy to 0D later:

Think of a circle – an enclosed section of 2D space. To a 2D observer, that circle is closed and has a boundary. Because it is closed, then the 2D observer might conclude that the circle has an ‘inside’ – but has no way of getting to it, unless one of two actions are taken:

1) Using a special 2D scalpel, the 2D observer ‘cuts’ the circle open. By doing this, it has reduced the circle to  a 1D line – an object in a lower dimension than the observer, and so both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ can be observed (though arguably both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ are lost, the moment the circle was ‘cut’)

2) Trying to ‘step over’ the boundary. Like trying to jump a fence – the only way to do this is to briefly traverse the 3D realm, only to land ‘inside’ the circle. But because the observer is 2D, now ‘inside’ the circle, then the observer loses all apprehensive ability of ‘outside’ the circle. It’s either-or.

The Reflection in a dimension, I’ve said elsewhere, has a special property in that it is a Half-Rotation in a higher dimension. So to pass from ‘inside’ to ‘outside’ (and vice-versa) you have to be subjected to a higher-dimensional Half-Rotation. But you’ll start and finish in the original dimension. What if you wanted to stay above 2D? Well, you’d have to ‘not’ complete the Half-Rotation. You’d have to do a Quarter-Rotation of sorts. This is obvious when we consider that the third axis of 3D is 90° perpendicular to the other two, but it’s also beautiful when we consider that some Thing both Is and Is Not in a higher dimension. So back to zero-D, where what can be said of a Thing is that it “Is” or “Is not” – in 1D then you can ‘see’ both.

Consider this line: —–IS—–<NOT>____ISN’T____<NOT>—–IS—–

The ‘region’ bounded by both those ‘not’ Reflections, is invisible (incomprehensible) to a 1D observer. We see it because we’re in a higher dimension.