I would like to present the "Binary
Model of Universe", which is described in the book: "Theory and
Practice of Contrast: Integrating Science, Art and Philosophy" (Chapter
20). It is an alternative model to physical models of the universe such as the
Big Bang Theory, String Theory or Multiverse Theory. Closer to it are concepts
related to information processing, such as the universe as a computer or
computer simulation.
What distinguishes the Binary Model is that it combines mental issues (their
deep analysis) and physical issues and considers them to a similar degree,
while existing models are based unilaterally on the physical realm of reality,
external to the mind. The second distinguishing feature is its simplicity. Not
only is it a simpler model than existing ones, but it is also the simplest
theoretically possible one, which contains all the information necessary for
understanding it, including consideration of every level of complexity of the
universe.
It was created about 40 years ago, as a by-product of aesthetic inquiry,
while trying to solve the mystery of beauty. When I found a solution and
considered it satisfactory, I looked for a concise and general form to
demonstrate it. I decided to test the binary model, that is, the simplest one
possible. Although it seemed unlikely, it turned out that binary structures can
be evaluated aesthetically, just like sound or visual structures, and it
involves counting their features (information). These features-information in a
binary structure are all distinguishable regularities (distinguishable
arrangements of zeros and ones). When comparing different structures with the
same number of zeros and ones, those of them that contain more
regularities/information are also more aesthetically appealing (for details,
see Binary Model of Visual Interactions, page 16). From this model directly
follows the general (abstract) definition of complexity, which defines the
complexity of a binary structure as the number of information "N"
squared, divided by the number of zeros and ones "n", i.e. N²/n (for
details, see Abstract Complexity Definition, page 22). This is a new general
definition of complexity, which is the only one among the existing ones that
meets the intuitive criterion saying that "the complexity of an object is
greater the more elements it has and the more connections there are between
them."
At that time I did not yet know that binary structures can simulate any objects
and processes of reality, this information I acquired later, after studying
Bertalanffy's "General System Theory." and the so-called Digital
Physics. However, I supposed that since the visual world (its interactions) can
be modeled binary then perhaps all other structures of reality can be modeled
as well, given that binary structures belong to both the physical realm (they
can be visually evaluated) and the mental (abstract) world.
>> The binary structures used for simulation are binary waves (digital
signals) with the appropriate energy and complexity. Since they simulate
material objects and have energy, the question arises whether similar waves
(but with much higher energy) could not be identified with material objects?
Here de Broglie's theory comes with help, which says that all objects of
reality are also waves.
Thus, we have strong scientific arguments for the fact that reality is formed
by binary structures of varying complexity: 1. the binary model of visual
interactions and the possibility of binary simulation of all objects and processes
of reality, 2. the Abstract Definition of Complexity and 3. de Broglie's
theory. . On the basis of these we can also look for experimental confirmation
(the experiment is described on p.185). Such confirmation would have
far-reaching implications, including the possibility of designing and creating
material objects using appropriate algorithms and structures of electromagnetic
pulses.
Further considerations concern the genesis and mode of existence of binary
structures (p.183). They show that the universe is an infinite and
ever-increasing binary number formed by the fundamental (smallest) quanta of
energy and the gaps between them (zeros). In this infinite number-binary
structure are present all possible combinations of zeros and ones (and therefore
all possible complexities) representing all objects of reality, including us.
As the number grows, it reorganizes itself cyclically and its complexity (in
different fragments) increases or disappears. This hypothesis is based on the observation that any binary number with a
certain number of zeros and ones (e.g., n = 8), at the beginning (the smallest
number) has a one and zeros alone (10000000), then growing exhausts all
combinations of zeros and ones (10000011....10010110...) until it reaches the
largest number consisting of only ones (11111111). The next numbers will
already have one digit more (n = 9). Thus, we can see that during growth, the
binary number is constantly reorganizing and such reorganization (growth and
disappearance of complexity) is also observed in reality.
As for the genesis of the existence of zero and one, that is, the existence of
something and nothing, the answer is astonishingly simple: there must be both
because we would not be able to distinguish either of them separately. In general,
our reality is so constructed that we cannot isolate anything without
juxtaposing it with something else. This is the basic principle (of contrast)
on which our reality is based, which is also our (objective) limitation beyond
which neither now nor in the future will we be able to mentally go. The
realization of this limitation closes further possibilities of explanation and
should be regarded as the solution to the riddle of being. It is also the
answer to Leibniz's well-known question: "is there something rather than
nothing?" (which has not been answered to this day). The necessity of the
existence of both zero and one is also the possibility of the existence of the
universe as their structure.
The above model because it is theoretically the simplest possible, also sets
the limits of our understanding of the universe. Further search for reasons
(even simpler and more basic) for the existence of the universe makes no sense,
because nothing simpler (in our reality) exists.
The link to the site of the book is here:
https://www.routledge.com/Theory-and-Practice-of-Contrast-Integrating-Science-Art-and-Philosophy/Stanowski/p/book/9780367770020
Post created on behalf of Mariusz Stanowski.
