I’m forwarding this to you because:
- You’re interested in Andrius’ other ideas
- Andrius is the person who first taught me about sharing openly so I’m sharing this with you through our open letters instead of simply forwarding by email
- You may not know this yahoo group
- You have explained ideas from physics to me
From: Andrius Kulikauskas firstname.lastname@example.org [livingbytruth] <email@example.com
Date: 8 January 2016 at 08:49
Subject: [livingbytruth] Thoughts on the big picture in physics
philosophy as a book. I think I’m making good progress.
This week I went to Vilnius University to talk with Thomas Gajdosik of
the theoretical physics department. We talked for five hours. I
overviewed my philosophy and how it got me interested in learning more
about entropy. He was very encouraging and so I was able to think more
fantastically about some implications for physics. I wrote up some
ideas which I share below, especially because I imagine Doug Binkley
might be interested.
What I write below won’t be interesting unless you know something about
The second law of thermodynamics says that there is a tendency for
things to grow disorderly, nondeliberate.
For example, I may knock down a bucket of ash and spill it on my floor.
By the laws of physics this process is actually reversible because
energy and momentum are never lost, they are conserved. This means that
it is possible (though extremely unlikely) to have a slightly warm pile
of ash on the floor whose many molecules bump into each other (like a
swarm of bees) in just such a way so as to tumble into a bucket, push it
upright and have it knock my foot. (The ash would then be slightly
cooler because some of their energy was used to set the bucket
upright.) Such a miracle would be so strange that it would seem like
the action of a ghost (or a movie in reverse). It can happen, though.
But it is extremely unlikely because it would involve an amazing
coincidence in terms of how the molecules would have to bump together.
If you wait long enough, though, then something like that will
definitely happen. (Because in a finite system in some sense every
possibility is tried out and everything basically repeats.) But you may
have to wait many times longer than the universe has already existed.
Best wishes from a cold Lithuania (-17 C = +1 F),
+370 607 27 665
We discussed the ambiguous nature of entropy (in how things tend towards
disorder) and its relevance for experimentation and measurement. In
order to do an experiment, the experimenter needs to set up certain
conditions, then step away and wait objectively (containing the
experiment), and finally observe the results. Each of these three moves
involves (increasing/decreasing) entropy in its own way. The experiment
involves setting up a temporarily closed system. However, at a certain
point, if we wait long enough, then we will end up with the observer
getting sucked into the experiment. That is because with physics being
reversible, all of the steps that the physicist took to set up the
closed system will at some point be able to function in the reverse
direction and reach out towards the physicist and undo what they did and
go even further out. Thus objectivity is only temporary. If we wait
long enough, then the objective will have to become subjective. This is
just to point to the contingent nature of entropy. It is also to say
that the distinction between being within a subsystem (subjective) and
outside a subsystem (objective) is very basic, and is related to the
concept of entropy.
We know from quantum mechanics that there is a world of possibilities
and then some times (when there is an “observation”) the possibilities
get reduced to an actuality. So we are interested in what it means,
physically, to have an observation or a measurement.
I had an idea today from our conversation. We imagined the universe as
an experiment that is becoming ever more precise. Well, that means that
information is growing. But that means that globally we have decreasing
entropy! That means we have something to balance the second law of
thermodynamics, which is happening locally. It also means that the
local is becoming subject to the global. Which is to say, personal,
local investigators are becoming subject to God, the global investigator.
A related idea is that if we imagine God as going beyond himself into
himself, then as regards the physical world, the initial God is prior to
the singularity, and via the Big Bang has gone beyond himself into the
“heavens”, the region beyond the visible universe. But also he goes
beyond himself into all the local particles, inside them, their “souls”,
so to speak. Initially, these are all just “monads” that are basically
the same. So initially there is hardly any distinction between the
“heavens” and the “souls”. That is when the investigation is completely
undefined, imprecise. But it seems that the “heavens” are simply
distinguished as encompassing all the others. This distinction is
sufficient as a reference point for an evolution of relationships
between the “heavens” and the “souls” which makes for a rift between the
gravitational and the quantum points of view, which creates distinctions
between “souls” of particles of different functions, some as messengers
to the “heavens” (like the neutrinos) and so on. So it is possible to
think of the role that each kind of particle plays in the global
I had an idea to explain in what sense the “heavens” are a distinguished
My claim is that each particle is like a “bubble” and that also the edge
of the known universe is also the edge of a bubble. And we are on the
outside of that bubble. It is an inverted bubble. Each bubble is a
receptacle of “spirit”. So there is the big “Spirit” (the “heavens”)
and there are lots of little particles/bubbles with spirit in them. How
did the Spirit get distinguished from the other spirits?
Imagine that we start with a “void”. And that void goes beyond itself
(and thus into its “self”). It enters a Bubble (its Self). So the void
entered into a Bubble. And there is also what is outside the Bubble.
Our physical world which we inhabit is the outside of the Bubble. Let
us picture this as follows. The void (God) is investigating whether or
not it is necessary. So the void draws away. Pictured in two
dimensions, the circle where it has drawn away is the outside of the
Bubble, it is our physical world. We and our universe are in that circle
which is drawn away. And that circle is the void’s experiment. The
circle is growing bigger and more sophisticated.
So there is this initial Bubble and then lots (currently, say, 10**90)
of bubbles which are embeddings of the Bubble back into the Circle. And
what is the difference between the Bubble and the bubbles in the
circle? Well, one difference is that the “withdrawing” Bubble is
complemented by the “expanding” Circle. And the expanding Circle looks,
from within the Circle, that it was caused by an explosion from a
singularity, from an original Bubble. So from our point of view in the
Circle the universe is special in that it was prior to everything else.
But it’s just that the Bubble is oriented opposite to how we naturally
imagine it. The Bubble is withdrawing and leaving empty space, whereas
we think of it all as our Circle which is expanding from a singularity.
So we can thus start with a Bubble, a Circle of empty space and also
embedded bubbles within it. (“I”s) These bubbles can meet back with the
Bubble (“You”) or there may be a gap between them (for a hypothetical
Although these are very humble beginnings, it is possible for them to
grow more complex. For example, there can be relations (and coincidings
or distinctions) between the Bubble and a bubble, or between two
bubbles. There can be bubbles within bubbles. There may be bubbles in
the big Bubble itself. We can think about each particle and each force
and try to surmise what it contributes here. So, for example, neutrinos
may be the way of globally keeping track of energy and momentum
disappearing locally as a result of the weak force.
Each letter sent to firstname.lastname@example.org
enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN whenever it does not state otherwise. http://www.
Please credit our authors!
Yahoo Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: