Chapter VII

Introduction to Physical Systems Theory

I have come to elaborate physical systems theory in order to offer a systematic set of basic statements about the structure and nature of physical reality, and how this basic structure may be related to the larger shape, processes and origins of the universe. I do not seek in this work to prove this theory, as the means for its proof rests experimentally beyond the framework of this text. The theory is primarily conceptual and logically driven by a consideration and reinterpretation of the evidence. I believe mathematical equations governing complex equilibria in energy exchange relations suggested by the theory are in order, but I do not know enough of physics to attempt to develop the equations mathematically on a sophisticated level.

On one level, this theory allows us to unite fundamental physics with astro-physics in terms of postulating the fundamental structure of atoms and their basis in cosmology, and it provides the basis for the theoretical unification of our understanding of the basic energy fields as these have been found in the structure of physical reality, in particular the critical underlying role that gravitation plays in the organization of event structures and energy exchange dynamics, and the equivalence of gravitation to electromagnetic radiation and matter. At the same time, I believe, it helps to reconcile certain other dilemmas of conceptioning about physical systems that have not yet been sufficiently addressed. It permits, I believe, a logical proof, or at least a logically correct argument, demonstrating the infinity of space-time by means of the universal applicability of the rules of thermodynamics that would not permit us to define a closed universe except in a relativistic manner.

I offer in this theory as well a revised form of "universal relativism" that makes basic statements about the synchrony of all periodic processes and the relativity of size-scale governing different periodic processes at different levels or orders of physical integration. The cosmological principle, logically extended, is supported entirely within this framework of universal relativity, and it further suggests, if true, that the universe as a total system is without either a center or a periphery, a beginning or an end. It suggest furthermore that the curvature of space-time may be in fact variable and non-isotropic in structure, as well as locally distorted within gravitational fields, hence, it becomes virtually impossible to apply a simplified cosmographical model to the total universe.

Physical systems theory is an important area of active interest in natural systems theory, and in a sense forms the empirical foundation for the development of systems theory in all the other areas. It is the case, clearly, that whatever else any real system may be, at whatever level of integration that it operates upon, any such system is always in the first and final place a physical system that can be represented and explained completely in terms of its constituent physical processes and dynamics. But it is also the case clearly that physical systems to date are not always well understood or comprehended.

There is a logical and natural order of physical systems from a systems framework, and this framework informs theory and method in physical systems research at every level. Physical theory today, in spite of its advanced state of development, has not been immune to the paradigmatic and ideological influences of social construction of knowledge. We need a cosmological worldview today more desperately in a sense than any time in the past, simply because our own science has brought us face to face squarely with the possibility of our own self-induced extinction. We have come to put a rather naive and blind faith in specialists whom with attribute with the qualities of intellectual genius in order to address the larger and more fundamental problems of a naturalistic worldview. Thus the average person on the street today will not have a clear or well-defined worldview, in a basic physical sense.

Few modern scientists today would dare to seriously question the received paradigm of cosmology today, what is now effectively the Church of the divinely Cosmic Egg. It is not because they are not at every step intellectually challenged to do so, if just by native intuition and logical instinct, to search beyond the received norms and standards of socially defined knowledge. It is because such knowledge, and the dialog pertinent to such definition of knowledge, is now being effectively managed by globally-minded gatekeepers who with immunity and near complete anonymity administer rewards and punishments to intellectual conformists and disconformists alike. To risk questioning the received orthodoxy of current physics is to risk the ostracism and madness of social pariahood. It is to risk having imposed upon one's world a dome of silence that prevents any significant communication outside of one's little bubble. It is to risk, after all is said and done, freedom from the chains that keep us bound to the cave of our own illusions of knowledge. It is to risk, ultimately, one's relative sense of sanity in an insane world.

The theory of physical systems as I have developed this has grown more sophisticated and more complete from its original conception in the first book on natural systems theory and the second work on metasystems theory. It has become more coherent and consistent with a variety of evidence, and it even admits now of basic mathematical equations relating to systems of equilibrium and equivalence in energy exchange in nature. There are now even the suggestion at least of basic kinds of experiments that might be practically completed to demonstrate the conclusions obtained by the theory. Even so, I do not claim that this theory is necessarily complete or even correct. It is only presented as an alternative to the received status quo of thought about physical systems in our advanced state of knowledge about such things.

It probably remains equally true that there are just somethings about the universe, or about our shared physical reality, that we will know for certain beyond any shadow of a doubt or any question of alternative possible solutions. Much about our reality probably will always remain essentially beyond our observational or even inferential capacity. The trouble is that we will never really know where to draw these kinds of lines, and that is the saving grace for our sciences and theory about reality. It means that we will always try to push the envelope on what is unknown and what may prove eventually to be unknowable. For the unknowable is as inductive as is the known.

There are some things, some questions, of course, that are properly unknowable and not the domain or problem of science to try to solve. They become the domain of faith, or at best, of pure reason in a platonic sense, to try to solve. We can seek to explain in a logical way, based upon the evidence, the relative origin of the universe in terms of the likely sequence of events and causes and consequences of these events. But I doubt we will ever be able to clearly answer why the universe was created, or how it all began in any ultimate sense. I do not think that it is necessary for scientific knowledge to try to answer these kinds of questions, but only to acknowledge that they exist as signposts that demonstrate the ultimate limits of science.

I have undertaken this work as the third part of a related set including the books Natural Systems (2000) and Cosmology & Reality (2001). It comes almost literally upon the heals of the second of the series, even before this previous work has been adequately edited and reproduced. But it comes like a twin baby that cannot wait for its normal time of delivery, premature perhaps, but otherwise fully formed.

My interest in undertaking this work is to develop a more coherent field theory about what can be said to form the physical substrate of the universe. The central question has been "how does the total universe hold itself together in a self-consistent way?" How can it occur in an inferentially and hypothetically instantaneous and integrated system, especially if it must obey the space-time constraints set down in general relativity theory?

My answer to these basic questions has been that it doesn't necessarily obey the space-time constraints of general relativity, at least on its most basic levels of phenomenal process. This implies a whole level of physical patterning, far below that of the atom and its constituent elements, that we do not seem to be able to directly observe, and yet upon which we must rely so much for our accounting of gravitation and the constraints of space-time itself. Among many other possibilities, it suggests that some form of almost instantaneous transmission of basic elements may occur continuously and pervasively within the universe. This process constitutes the invisible background field from which all known physical particles, energies and their associated properties are configured and reconfigured in neverending rounds of continuous creation and destruction.

The reconciliation of cosmological theories rooted upon general relativity and quantum mechanical theory, particularly in resolving a unified field theory, has been an important development in theoretical physcis. I developed my spime-mechanical model of the dynamic-state universe independently of the knowledge of superstring theory, mainly to address the issue of gravitational unification in the large rather than in the small. I have subsequently encountered string theory and it is quite evident that Physics has been leaning heavily in the direction of unification for a couple of decades now.

I accept most aspects of string theory, and do not find it incompatible with the notion of a spime mechanical model. How we conceptualize constituent entities on the smallest imaginable scales in the universe perhaps makes little difference in our models. If we see fundamental particles as closed loop strings the properties of which are based upon the shape of vibrations, or if we see these particles as spinning composite entities that beget vibrations, it perhaps makes little ultimate difference.

I propose a "spring" theory, that is somewhere intermediate between a string and a spining thing. I propose a spinning helice as the appropriate structure for this level of reality, that I have called spime. In fact, I hypothesized a closed loop chain interlinkages for my 'nth-particulates, and it is at this level that strings and spime appear to converge as the same entities. I proposed a "spring" shape primarily because it provides a sense of vibration defined by oscillation about an axis, and it provides a sense of instantaneous direction that such an entity may take. Furthermore, it is a half-open type of structure, which entails that it can connect and interpenetrate other similar structures quite readily.

Thus, vibratory resonance patterning of strings would be and essentially are the equivalent of spin-resonance patterning of particulate entities. Springs are a good intermediate model.

I have gone one step beyond string theory. I do not see the Planck length as a necessary fundamental size limitation to the physical structure of the universe. I do not think a string or a spring, or whatever we would want to conceptualize and name this order of reality, is necessarily irreducible in some self-consistent and fundamental sense. What is found in the texture of physical reality is an inherent constituency of structure, or stratification of order, at all levels. Furthermore, postulating such a fundamental entity invites back the conundrums of a zero-state universe that I dealt with in the previous related work, Cosmology and Reality.

I have therefore accepted a model of the fabric of reality as constituting a well system of ever finer constituent entities, each of which is used to construct, and hence analytically explain, the complex combination of properties, particles and forces at the next higher level. At each level of analytical reduction in our explanation, we will encounter some kind of "entity-energy" that will need explaining in terms of some constituent structure. If we adopt a fundamental self consistent model somewhere along the way, we are closing the universe fundamentally, and failing to explain in a mechanical manner either the origins of the fundamental particles or ultimately of the universe itself.

In fact, at each level, we find not only increasing orders of stratification by size, but we find pattern variation at each level, much of which tends to be idiosyncratic and chaotically relative to that analytical order of reductionistic explanation. Variation of pattern at each level is a function of its constituency, such that eventually, with decreasing orders of scale, we should in theory get simpler and less variable patterns. The fact that we may hypothesize a number of sub-atomic particles can be taken as direct confirmatory evidence of the constituency of these entities. The fact that quarks themselves may be arranged in families suggests a string-like constituency of their structure as well.

At the bottom of the well of physical reality, I hypothesize a "Zeroth entity" that is homogeneous and unitary, with out any self-defining characteristics except perhaps for one or two intrinsic properties. But if we hypothesize even a Zeroth entity, the law of universal symmetry might entail an anti-zero particle as well, and we may eventually discover that the order at which we are defining our alleged zeroth particle actually comprises a whole spectrum of new variations on a zeroth-theme. Thus, such a Zeroth entity is a hypothetical construct that approaches what I would call cosmic singularity but never quite reaches that point.

The Zeroth entity really chases the question of cosmic singularity and a zero-state universe on an infinitely receding horizing, or in a receding bottomless well system. It is really our short-hand way of accounting for all that remains unknown by lumping it all into a global or cosmic variable, that I will designate as x, or rather, for the residual of things that are needed before our scientific equations are really complete or really completely unified.

From our perspective, we impose limits of the very large and the very small to the structure and size of our universe and the reality it contains. But if we accept the possibility of an infinite universe, then it is likely that it is infinite in every way we can think of--extensively, eternally, intensively and dimensionally, at least. We can see that our well system never really diminishes, as size and scale themselves become relative to the level at which we are dealing.

If we look in the other way, out across the vast corridors of space-time to the edges of our known universe, it is likely that we are failing to comprehend physical properties and larger scale patterns of organization that constitutes what we see in some larger system or metasystem of relations. We can depict such a view as below:

What we must realize is the fundamental anthropological relativity of our physical reality, and hence the universal relativity of size-scale from our own relative frame of reference. A universe composed of zeroth-entities is equal in scale and vastness to a meta-universe made up of multiple universes, and both these are equal in scale and scope to a classically human order universe that we experience with our naked eye and with our feet. We must come to the realization eventually that in the larger structure of reality, size perhaps makes no fundamental difference, but defines parallel realities that cooccur simultaneously in the same instantaneous manner, albeit at different orders or scales of measurement, and from a human standpoint at least, measurability.

In understanding this concept, I put forward the model of the measurable universe as related fundamentally to the inferential and observable universe, and as perhaps being an intermediate between these two constructs.

In this model of the dynamic-state universe, "mini-dimensionalities" embedded in a complex space-time at different levels or orders may in fact be possible. What appears homogeneous, non-isotropic and steady-state at one level, may in fact be heterogeneous, isotropic and chaotic at another level. It is evident as well that though all the structure of the universe shares the same instantaneous continuum, or what I will call the simultaneous universal continuum. This complex, stratified and multidimensional structural continuum is the same for all realities at whatever level of our analysis. They all occur simultaneously in the same hyper-volumetric space. They are separated by orders of scale and size, which appear to be fundamentally important dimensions.

There is no reason to think that the properties of space and time, as we construe these and understand these in terms of general relativity, hold true equally or the same at all levels of reality. I hypothesize that universal relativity holds that these properties are relative to the analytical level that we are dealing with, and vary depending on the scale of measurement we treat. This is a central hypothesis of universal relativity which defeats the classical cosmological principle and that makes necessary a dynamic cosmology.

These principles are mandated by logic, if we accept the hypothesis of a non-zero state universe that automatically implies an infinite state universe. To see the universe in any other form would be illogical unless we hypothesize a zero-state structure.

The basis for a general field theory, as proposed within this book, is the assertion that all reality is cooccurring at multiple levels simultaneously in the universe. This can be proven, I believe, by simple logic and reason alone, without having to resort to elegant but opaque physical theories or supercomplex mathematical formulas. When we look at the light from stars 16 billion years old, what we see is a figment of a long gone past. It exists as starlight in some kind of coherent field, but it does not exist as something that can be inferred as contemporaneously "out there" at this passing instant. What actually exists at this moment out there is unknown, but we can infer that there must be something out there by the fact of our receiving the starlight in the first place. Universal instantaneity or simultaneity of a cooccurring universe is a principle upon which our continuum of reality depends, and which we cannot forego in a logical way with sacrificing the fundamental coherence of the structural integrity of reality or the universe as a minimally integrated system.

The congruence of structure of the total universe, in terms of physical properties, is what underlies the order and structural patterning of the instantaneous continuum of reality in the first place. If we imagine fundamental disconnections or discontinuities of structure in the universe, that cannot be integrated on some level of analysis, then we are imposing a model of a zero-state universe beyond which we can neither see nor think. If other worlds existed beyond such a universe, it would be irrelevant because we could never know these in any fundamental way. They could at best be only imaginable state universes, and hence would be fundamentally non-scientific constructs.

The instantaneous continuum of the universe appears to be integrated within a common temporal dimension, but I wish to demonstrate that this sense of temporality is really relative to the level of our analysis and does not hold either for the very small or the very large. What is common to the integration of this continuum is its instantaneity of structure that is universally cooccurring. Evolution as we understand our own observable, classic scale universe to be undergoing, does not necessarily apply in the same way to the very large or the very small. Everything must cooccur at the same instant, at all levels, in all places, but that doesn't mean that everything necessarily is traveling in the same temporal dimension.

One basic principle seems to me to be necessary in this model of hierarchically stratified pattern of physical reality. We can state is simply as: "Large things/processes are composed of smaller things/processes." It follows from this general observation that all macroscopically observed patterns and processes are derivative of and analytically explanable in terms of the microscopic patterns and processes of which they are composed. This appears to be true even though analytical explanation alone may be insufficient to the total explanation of the process without reference to interrelationship or interaction between entities and processes.

We might turn it into a kind of logical paradigm as follows:

All things or processes in the universe are composite.

Larger things or processes are composed by smaller things or processes that in turn are composed of even smaller entities or events.

There are therefore no essential self-consistent things or processes in the universe and the universe itself is both non-zero state and infinite state.

I believe this is the logical basis for the notion of universal relativity in a non-zero state model of the universe. In other words, all events and entities are relative to the framework in which they occur, and which they themselves create as a function of their composite makeup or constituency.

In a universally relative structure, time and space itself, as dimensions, are relative to the framework at which they are manifested as constraints. In an absolute sense, they can be thought of as dimensionless attributes or constraints that define in a basic way the framework of event patterning and analysis in which they occur or become expressed. If they are dimensionless attributes in a negative sense of their machian relativity to the things and events that they constrain in the physical world and by which they gain expression, then in a positive sense they may also be multidimensional characteristics in that they may be basic variables which may occupy any possible number of alternative state-values. Time and space may in fact be quite rubbery objective properties of the basic substrate of physical reality.

In this regard, we might state the following kinds of propositions:

1. The smaller the entity/event, the less spatially constrained is the event.

2. The smaller the entity/event, the more temporally constrained is the event.

We might reverse this kind of order in thinking about very large systems and hypothesize that large systems are more spatially contrained, but less temporally constained. If we go to the largest and smallest limits of size imaginable, we can say that at the largest scale, time has no value whatsoever, or is relatively timeless in dimensionality, and on the smallest scale space has no value whatsoever, or is relatively spaceless. Perhaps this hypothesized relativity of space-time is connected to the known Lorenz transformations, such that we experience spatial compression and time dilation depending upon the relative state of motion of the system.

We can never ultimately prove or disprove this set of presuppositions. It can only be derived by inductive inference from observations we make about known physical entities and events, all of which reveal or at least suggest a complex composite structure of patterning at whatever analytic level we are dealing.

Thus, integration of the universe is about the universal instantaneity of its continuous structure at multiple levels of possible analysis and observation. The relative values of basic dimensions of space and time shift with changing levels of systemic organization of physical structure. The field we seek to explain is the instantaneous field that is created continuously in the now that represents the simultaneous integration of the entire universe at multiple levels of event organization. This field contains an infinite amount of information. It contains information about the deepest past. It may contain information about the widest present, and possibly, if we knew how to read and see it, information about the furthest future.

In answer to our original question, it appears as if I have endowed the apparently empty field of space-time with some intrinsic characteristics or properties, which endowment suggests that this field is not nothing in some absolute sense, but something in a relative sense. The basis of this work in Field Theory is to seek to explain as much as possible what this relative somethingness about space-time is. I do not believe that science can deliver any final answers at this time upon this subject, as there is still much that we do not understand about physical reality and the structure of the universe that would permit us this kind of understanding in our scientific quest. But even if we cannot answer the questions fully, part of the solution is in being able to answer the right kinds of questions in the first place.

*****

I seek to impose a fundamental dichotomization of structure to this instantaneous field that I hypothesize occurs at all levels, and is a residuum of its internal stratification and intrinsic variability of pattern. This dichotomization is one of a figure-field relationship that I take to govern the instantaneous patterning of the universal field. It imposes a fundamental isomorphic conformity of structure that seems spatially defined by size and scale, at all levels. This isomorphism entails a kind of universal consistency of pattern that interlinks all the levels that occur in the universe in a coordinated, albeit infinitely complex manner. Figure-field relations are differential distributions of physical reality that are structurally isomorphic in an intantaneous sense at all levels of reality. These relations are inherently dynamic and hence are always changing, regardless of other change dynamics or temporal dimensions or constraints occurring at different levels of reality.

Generally, a figure-field relation can be said to be a complex pattern of the emergence of some kind of configurational pattern in contradistinction and interaction to the background field of relationships within which that configuration arose and within which it becomes defined. Such patterns are never permanent, and always in the long run fluctuate.

This fundamental dichotomous structure is basically antinomial in the Cartesian sense. To say one came first or the other, or that one is more basic is to beg the essential question that they constitute together a cooccurring system of relationships that tend to complexity rather than simplicity.

Internal dichotomization is structurally necessary for any system to occur that is informationally interesting in the minimal sense possible. It is by such a means that something can become differentiated from itself, as relative to itself in some essential sense. Without it, we end up with absolute singularity that implies, among other things, changelessness, pure homogeneity, and ultimately, nothing.

Logically, I would like to say that nothing is impossible except perhaps as a unrealizable abstraction--it is a residuum of our own intellectual abilities, at most. If nothing is impossible, it logically follows that the universe must be non-zero state. This is a radical approach to cosmology and reality, but, I believe, a necessary one if we are to arrive at a unified field construct that is fully scientific and sufficient to the task of describing the whole of the universe and all of physical reality.

This work is about the hypothetical field structure of the universe based upon the model of its instantaneous and continuous patterning. This field structure has not been well understood yet in a number of ways. For instance, how is it that multiple energies can appear to cooccur and be expressed, at multiple levels, in the same spaces at the same time?

*****

Space-time as this is normally construed, with all its gravitational ripples and convolutions, may be really not unlike the reflective surface of a large pool of water. Classical relativistic models see this construct as the surface of an elastic balloon that is either expanding or contracting. The attribution of elasticity to classical space-time is an intrinsic property of its relativistic definition. This elasticity is usually regarded as a one-way and universally homogeneous process, based upon presuppositions of large-scale homogeneity and non-isotropism of structure of physical reality. If we remove these presumptions, we can see that elasticity might occur both ways simultaneously, if we assume a basic principle of universal reciprocity, just as it appears to do in local spaces in non-reciprocal ways. The give and take of space-time in different quarters or sectors of the universe may in fact result in a net balancing out, or "flattening" of the entire field structure.

To see space-time as we experience this gravitationally as the surface of an infinitely deep reservoir that unfolds in at least 4 if not five dimensions simultaneously, is to cast our entire universe in a new cosmological frame of reference. When we travel, we are planning upon its surface, and the speed of light sets a certain limit on to how fast we might plane upon the surface. We can only submerge into its depths by penetrating the surface structure somehow, and once submerged, we might discover the normal space-time constraints that governed our possibilities no longer applicable, at least not in the same form or to the same degree. In a sense, time itself would almost appear to cease, and possibly even at times flow backward as we ourselves happened in reverse.

The depths of space-time are a relativistic medium that is cast in a fifth dimensional framework, or what might be called a quintessential dimension.

I have hypothesized that its properties were are that of a universally integrated negative energy field that always balanced the positive energies that are required to overcome the field inertia associated with acceleration and change. It is a form of energy that is everywhere and always reciprocal, such that its effects happened both ways simultaneously. Things interact with one another in equal and balanced measure due indirectly to the reciprocal effects of the background energy field in which they arise. This background energy field is also infinitely deep and hence it is an infinite reservoir of potential yet unrealized and mostly unrealizable energy.

We might say in the observed universal effects of thermodynamic entropy in the universe are the consequence of positive physical energy states yielding up its energy by increasing degrees to this background negative reservoir, in an ultimate sense. The inherently random and chaotic patterning of ordered phenomena decaying to non-linear and disordered state trajectories, can be understood as part of this balance exchange as well. And if we are to undertand gravitational equilibrium & unification, or alternatively, even charge balance, we can most effectively do so from the standpoint of this negative energy background field.

In a sense, the apparent emptiness of space-time can be seen as a hole of energy that is required to be filled in with mass and charge in order to produce some form of positive physical effect. The more mass and charge we supply to the hole, in concentrated forms, larger the endproduct we can observe.

In a sense, an object of matter that has mass exhibits a degree of "bouyancy" on the surface of this field, sustained as it is by the fieldlines that interconnected everything within it. We can say that the larger the mass object, the deeper the hole that it leaves within the negative field and the greater the amount of negative displacement it results in. Gravity systems are the consequence of this kind of displacement.

We really have a glimpse at the background substrate of the universe when we observe fundamental elementary particles and their behavior. We can infer this background field from the effects it leaves upon electromagnetic energy, or the effects thermodynamic energy leaves upon this field, and also in terms of gravitational effects of all kinds. A total accounting of all these different kinds of physical phenomena cannot be made adequately if we do not infer such a field.

This field is always integrated at all times, and it serves always to embed all things within it in a consistent and coherent way. There can be no structural space-time discontinuities occurring between that object and the field in which it is embedded or between any other objects within that field. Any such object must behave in certain predictable and mechanical ways in irreversible time and irreversible motion with a finite measure of mass and a relative state of temperature. These effects occur, I propose, because they are non-reciprocal transition or change effects in space-time. These effects only arise as the result of special binding characteristics, or properties associated with particular kinds of bound states that are relatively stable and predictable. Otherwise, space-time or "spime" as an "entity-energy" remains only partially or minimal spin bound, which is presumably parallel binding to its main axis.

The object of this book is to explain in as much nontrivial detail as possible, and as concisely as possible, the following:

1. The way that the universal background field achieves its integration and unification, especially in an instantaneous sense.

2. The way that different forms of energy and mass are maintained, realized, interact and become integrated within this background field.

3. The structure and shape of this background field in a cosmological framework.

4. The fundamental structure and systematics of this background field in a quantum framework.

5. The historical evolution and dynamic fluctuation of this background field, especially in terms of its state-transition dynamics and its spatial-temporal stratification.

Relativity theory made classical field theory unnecessary in the geometrical accounting of space-time as a self-consistent and a priori construct, but it left unanswered the question of a unified field that integrated especially the charge dynamics of electromagnetism. It left space-time as an empty field that obeyed rather deterministic structural patterns, albeit in fundamentally relative ways. Carrying this conceptioning of empty space-time to its logical limits brought theoretical physics to the end-point of singularity and to basic boundaries that we could not escape.

I put forward the proposition that we cannot entertain a full field accounting of the physical structure and pattern of reality and the universe, unless and until we adopt some form of field theory that is based upon a composite or constituent structure of the space-time construct. The space-time cannot be empty and do all the things that we expect it to. It cannot be only a void and still have all the properties that we attribute to it. And it is only by redefining the structure of space-time itself that we can then see how gravitation arises in the background field as a function of the interaction of this field to the matter and energy that exists within it. This is a big paradigmatic leap of faith that most who were trained in the classical relativity model will refuse to make.

If we are to resolve the logical conundrums and some empirical and observational inconsistencies of classical relativity theory, then we must step beyond the paradigmatic presuppositions and boundaries of this theory to embrace a more reasonable model of its basic structure and patterning.

In place of general relativity, which I hold to be true as a covering law model of the observational universe especially, I have proposed the principles of universal relativity. This paradigm states, ultimately, that there is a fundamental equivalence between space-time, or what I call spime, and the energy and matter that is embedded within it. We can understand this equivalence in terms of balance theory, or a form of universal equilibrium that states that there will always be a net conservation of both positive and negative forms of energy in any transition effect. These forms can be expressed differentially as either charge, mass or spin, which is the mechanical equivalent of both motion and change. Hence, all positive transition effects occurring in terms of any form of energy or matter in the universe, always occur and are configured within the same universal background field that can be assumed to be minimally integrated and therefore theoretically coherent. This background field is completely isomorphic with the total universe, including all possible sub-universes embedded within it. Hence, we may state the following principles:

Any two systems or more systems that occur and happen uniformly to one another in the same universal framework must obey the same basic physical principles.

It can be logically concluded from this that the principle of universal congruence applies to the entire universe, and in a minimal sense of its basic universal background structure, the total universe is relatively homogeneous and non-isotropic according to a revised cosmological principle. Indeed, this is exactly how the integrated universal field appears in structure. In essence, I will state that all physical systems can be accounted for in terms of a theory of universal equilibrium that states that there is always a net balance in all change dynamics and energy transactions that occur in the universe. Thus we can hypothesize a law of universal conservation.

All systems seek ultimately a state of perfect equilibrium with the universal background field in which these systems arise and take shape. This equilibrium tends towards complexity in natural systems, rather than simplicity. Hence the universe is growing increasingly dynamic.

We can express this sense of dynamic equilibrium of the structure of physical reality in the following way: The positive state universe is thermodynamic in non-reciprocal ways, hence it is always entropic. But positive reality is always in complementary balance with a negative state universe that is non-thermodynamic in reciprocal ways. Hence it is always counter-entropic in its end effects. Positive and negative state universes always complement and balance one another out in the larger structure. If we measure the positive mass of a large sphere, we must understand gravitational energies associated with that mass as arising from the negative mass-energy of the space-time manifold in which that large sphere comes to displace, and always displaces. In a dynamic state universe, therefore, non-reciprocal transition effects, or changes, always result in disequilibrium and relative imbalance between the system and its background. These effects result in basic state changes in the balance and patterning of the universe--hence, the universe evolves in a manner that is defined by chance alone.

My point of departure in this book, in my universal and unified field accounting, is to claim that in fact the positive state universe is but a subset of the negative state universe, one among many possible alternative subsets. Furthermore, the negative-state universe is itself complexly stratified and internally dynamic in important ways. One consequence is that if we experience the universe to be expanding, the basis of this apparent expansion is probably due to the creative and anti-entropic consequences of its main constituent construct, space-time, which leads to the creation of something from apparent nothing.

Thus, in the largest sense, the fundamental laws of equilibrium and conservation are violated in a relativistic way, and this is only accountable by the presupposition of an infinite-state universe.

And what is true of the largest scale in the universe, is accounted for by the smallest scale possible in the structure of reality, or in the substantial fabric of space-time itself. This is the instantaneous possibility of its smallest entity--the Zeroth Entity that always exists only relatively as a constituent of a constituent construct. The Zeroth entity can be anywhere and everywhere at one time, hence it is, relativistically speaking, nowhere at any one time. It is the basis for the fieldlines that tie the entire universe together in a minimally integrated manner, fieldlines that are based upon the fundamental spin synchronization, hence the gravitational unification, of the Zeroth Entity.

The Zeroth Entity can be said to approximate the singularity principle in a universally relativistic manner. It constitutes the fundamental event horizon of the structural integration of the physical universe. It can be said to exist before and beyond both time and space, as we experience these things. We can say that the zeroth entity only approximates the singularity principle because in fact in its constituent structure it always approaches, but never reaches, this principle. It reaches a level of patterning and an order of the universe that is without a definable point, but of infinite uniformity and homogeneity of structure. At this point, all accounting comes to a stop, as there is nothing significant left remaining to account for. We can say that the zeroth entity, in its nth-constituency, is just next to nothing in a residual sense.

We can say that the Zeroth Entity has at least two determinants that define it. These two defining determinants are the following:

1. In all the omnidirectionality of its possible fieldlines, it is capable of expressing itself in a single, infinitely definite direction. It can therefore generate perfectly linear fieldlines that extend forever in any possible direction.

2. All Zeroth Entities in their ultimate state have a basic monopolar spin characteristic that is always uniform and continuous. If such a spin characteristic fluctuates, it fluctuates in harmonic resonance with all other spin characteristics in an equal manner such that there is no difference occuring between them.

We can understand zeroth fieldlines as themselves composite constructs in an already unified field. These stretch in any and all directions forever, and exist instantaneously out of both time and space. Propagation occurs across the main axis, and perturbation, resulting in "attraction" occurs across the transverse acess. This is the warp and weft of the fabric of physical reality defining the foundation of its integration.

The concept of the Zeroth entity, as a relative constituent construct, suggests the possibility of singularity that would entail a form of zero-state boundedness to the universe. But the concept can be seen in a hen and egg way, if we can imagine that possibly the very largest and the very smallest of scales of reality suddenly merge and become one--isomorphic to one another in everyway. This is a paradox, but we can picture it if we imagine out diagram above connected into a cylinder:

From this model, we can conjecture several possibilities:

1. The first is that the universe grew increasingly dynamic and differentiated at multiple levels. Else, it was perhaps dynamic fundamentally in its states, altering these states as time goes by, but not in the dynamic complexity of its overall constituent continuum.

2. The second possibility is that the continuum itself may twist in different ways or even loop back upon itself such that the ends of the cyclinder above describe a torus or donut, and possibly, a complex kind of Mobius strip. We could only speculate what this may mean for our dynamics. I would conjecture that it suggests that we live in a world of a past dimension that is observationally available to us, and in which a present dimension is logically inferable but observationally unavailable. Then there may be a futureward dimensionality in which the processes of time (or naturalistically, of change) may in fact reverse themselves. This possibility would suggest that the total universe might be in fact self-contained either temporally or spatially, or both, though we might never know this from our own point of view. It might be a form of relative boundness in which the very large unites with the very small and the very distant unites with the very proximate in space-time. Infinity would be bound within a closed system, relative to that system, and at the same time the boundary conditions would be made relative to the intrinsic infinity.

3. The cylinder might in fact be open and continuous on both ends, or even branching as a structure that leads to alternative universes. From this, we could conjecture that there may in fact be n-number of alternative total universes, that were connected historically in time, but may be currently or futurewardly unconnected or reconnected.

Of course, conjecturing on past states of the universe is irrelevant to the consideration of the current field-state, except that past states may provide our only empirical handle to our understanding of the current field. Past states would imply dynamical aspects of a changing universe, and implies that indeed, in the perspective of time at least, there are multiple alternative universes available to us at some point. The critical question is to ask how the universe is changing in terms of its observable past states and its inferable current states--in otherwords, what are the relational dynamics of its universal field?

As a field theory, I am particularly interested in the unification of covering law models relating to gravitation and electromagnetic energy, on the one hand, and both these forms of energy with models of mass-based matter, on the other hand. I express these relations in terms of their interactions with and within a fourth construct, and that is with space-time itself, and this provides the fundamental foundation for their relativistic unification. Furthermore, this accounting must be carried both to the very largest and the very smallest of scales in a consistent and coherent manner in keeping with quantum mechanics.

Understanding of the integration of the universe concomittantly implies understanding the inherent stratification of the universe at the same time. This is an important consideration. I have proposed, as an inherent part of our empirical and theoretical description of the total universe based upon prinicples of universal relativity, that there is a natural well system of the ordering of natural phenomena at different levels, largely conditioned by relative size, determinancy and inherent energetic properties. Generally, I would claim that basic intrinsic properties, like time, space, change, energy, are fundamentally relative to the level at which they are measured and analyzed. Thus such properties take on fundamentally different dimensionalities and characteristics depending upon the level at which we are working. The entire universe looks very differently at the level of the subatomic particle, or at the hypothetical level of spime and strings, than at the level of our own everyday world, or, on a grander scale, at the galactic level. In general, the emergent principles and properties that are relevant at one level are not relevant at another level.

This issue leaves us with a profound dilemma that if the total universe is in fact infinite and non-zero state, then the number of possible levels that the universe incorporates as a total system, either extensively or intensively in relation to ourselves, is also fundamentally infinite. I find this an incredibly beguiling concept to try to imagine. Science seeks simplification in the long run. Hence it is prone to accept conservative models and reject those models which defy our attempts at theoretical generalization and simplification. But it appears as if reality and the universe may be handing to us, in the intrinsic characteristics of its most fundamental properties, a fundamentally and infinitely complex set of things to wonder about.

This leads to another paradox about the ultimate relativity of our knowledge. No matter what kinds of universal principles we may posit for our inferable universe based upon our observational sphere, we can never be sure ultimately if these same principles will hold for the entire system of the total universe, or are at some level limited in some way that we do not realize. In a universe that is universally relative to itself, even its most basic and universal laws of order are liable to be constrained to a relative context that represents a subset of the total system of relations that might be possible.

Only one set of things we can be sure of, and that is no matter how large, infinite, complex and chaotic the total universe may be, it must be founded upon some principles of minimal order and integrity as a comprehensive system. It must be minimally integrated somehow. If it is not, then we must talk about n-possible state universes that are fundamentally disconnected. We cannot talk scientifically about such alternative disconnected state universes, as we could never be sure that they existed or not. Hence, they are irrelevant to a scientific view of our reality. We are only left with a conundrum of having to pose a fundamental structure of reality even if we cannot ultimately know what this fundamental structure may really be.

*****

Where did it all come from in the ultimate sense? I can only say it all arose by chance, a kind of strange chance defined by possibilistics which states that because there cannot be nothing in non-relative sense, there was therefore always something in a relative sense. A derivation of this kind of possibilistics is to state that there was no beginning and will be no end to things--things are and happen because they are. Another way of looking at this is perhaps to state that differentiation is naturally preferred over homogeneity, complexity over simplicity, and chaos over order. A perfectly and absolutely ordered universe would logically be a changeless, static, and totally homogenous affair. In other words, there would be nothing interesting or distinguishing about it. It would be absolutely flat and devoid of any characteristics or properties. It would be the equivalent of nothing at all.

The scientific origin myth of the grand circle of the universe is to state that perhaps the sphere of reality, in the total sense, is like a huge lion that is always chasing itself about its own tail, never catching up with itself. If it caught up with itself, then it would swallow itself up and then everything would suddenly stop and return to nothingness once again.