A handbook for the creation of a universe

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » A handbook for the creation of a universe

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2008 08:56 pm
A handbook for the creation of a universe

Copyright 2008, Dennis H. Kane

The following is an attempt to define the most fundamental logical conditions of any real, non-empty universe. It is separated into four [unbreakable] universal laws and one [variable] guiding principle. This is not an attempt to give an accurate accounting of every possible physical phenomenon or fundamental particle. Rather, it is more of a "metaphysical template", to be used as a sort of handbook for any potential creators of universes. This, after all, is what physicists aspire to become in their pursuit to develop a "theory of everything"! Smile

The main thing that I have dispensed with is the Cartesian-inspired duality between space (or geometric form) and mass-energy (or matter). The problem with Descartes' ontology is that the Cartesian coordinate system is meant to define non-dimensional points rather than the spaces that give tangible reality to the universe. Newton, by using this method, had to resort to using point masses that are meant to interact via motions through space. The complications that result from a strict adherence to the Cartesian/Newtonian construct have led to the various dualities and infinities that plague our current theories and mathematical calculations. (For example, a "point mass" must have an infinite density, because it has zero volume.)

You should realize that the following construct relies purely upon [Euclidean] shape, linear time, and number. As such, it is wholly a set of logical relationships rather than an attempt to represent discrete objects and their interactions. These relationships are meant to allow for universes of arbitrary scale and complexity. Theoretically, given enough brute computing power, programming skill and time, a person should be able to create a universe that makes at least as much sense as the one in which we currently live... Take this as a challenge, you gods-in-waiting!


Given: Three equally spaced sets of parallel planes that are set at mutually perpendicular angles. This grid describes a set of equally sized cubes, where every face of each cube is shared by exactly one other cube (except for the faces at the edge). The entire set of cubes is a universe.

The four laws:

1) The law of definite values: Every cube must contain a value , x, such that -infinity < x < infinity and x != 0.

2) The law of conservation of value: The total value of a given universe (the sum of the constitutive cubes) must remain constant throughout its lifetime.

2a) Corollary to the law of conservation of value: Given an arbitrarily small subset of adjacent cubes: if the total value of this subset differs by a certain amount from one moment to the next, the negative of this difference must be added to the remainder of the universe.

3) The law of variability: Adjacent cubes may not have the same value.

4) The law of organization: No single cube may be immediately surrounded by cubes of greater absolute value. (A cube of value -14 may not be surrounded by cubes of -15, -16, -17, and such.)

The guiding principle:

1) The principle of minimum variability: The differences in values between spatially adjacent and temporally successive cubes tends to a minimum.


The following are explanations to allow for an understanding of how the previous construct applies to certain physical principles.

The law of definite values is meant to give each cube a non-infinite energy density. The inclusion of negative numbers allows for the easy accounting of such phenomena as particle/anti-particle creation. Zero is not allowed mainly because it does not have a numerical opposite. (I think this is really just an aesthetic choice. Zero also smacks of "vacuumishness", which is not allowed by the third law.)

The second law is just the law of conservation of energy, of which we are all familiar. Without it, accounting is simply impossible.

The law of variability gives us a "grainy" or "wavy" universe, depending on the perspective one is using. A universe, in other words, may not be a featureless vacuum. This law also gives us general repulsive effects, such as when two similarly charged bodies are brought towards one another.

The law of organization is meant to ensure that, in general, roughly spherical structures may be formed such that interior energy densities are greater than exterior energy densities. Gravity fields and individual atoms are examples of such structures.

The principle of minimum variability is simply a "tendency" or a "suggestion" rather than a strict law. It encompasses such notions as: entropy, the effectiveness of the various forces, and the uncertainty principle. The less this principle is enforced by the creator of a universe, the more uncertain everything will seem to be. This is the only "run time variable" that the creator of a universe has available. This is effectively a "smoothing out" factor. It may be applied locally or globally.

If a creator adjusts this factor to 0, the universe will turn into a state of perfectly unpredictable flux. Set to 1, the universe will crystallize, allowing for no change from one moment to the next. All predictable yet dynamic universes must have a value of somewhere between 0 and 1. The exact value in question, how often the value is changed, and where it is applied depends purely on taste!


I realize that all of this might sound like a joke. Believe me when I tell you that my twofold intention is solely:

1) to develop a formalistic ontology that improves upon the dualistic Cartesian formalism that is currently taken for granted as being the only game in town. (i.e. adjacent cubes rather than isolated points.)

2) to construct a "guiding logic" that is general and flexible enough to allow for descriptions of definite systems of arbitrary size and complexity.

I hope that my efforts will inspire and assist people from many different fields, and with many different goals (not just potential creators of universes!).

Dennis Kane
April 15, 2008
Tampa, FL, USA
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 04:29 pm
This is very interesting, Dennis. I'll have to print it out and study it carefully before I can say I really understand it, but I think it's definitely worth understanding. You must be familiar with Cantor, whom I've just discovered. Although I'm terrible at math, my thinking has led me--despite stalwart resistance--to admit the necessity, and perhaps even the primacy, of what are essentially mathematical principles.

Oh, and I realize how deadly serious you are, and must be. In order to actually prove that your approach is unserious, one would have to take a similar (or even more rigorous) approach, and thus comically contradict him or herself. Or he or she could just dismiss you--but then you could just dismiss them back Wink
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 07:47 pm
Hey, thanks for the reply!

I've actually posted this on physforum.com, under the "relativity, quantum mech. and new theories" board. I've answered a question and posted some new thoughts. But if you have some feedback, I would love to hear it!

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » A handbook for the creation of a universe
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/22/2024 at 07:25:48