What is Multiplex Universe Theory?
Reality is a process of change interpreted via multiplex representations.
Though our bodies extend into space and seem to obey physical laws, one can’t capture the entirety of reality — things like the mind — in the domain of physics alone. That would be like trying to empty a river with a bucket.
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity represents the blank slate of reality, prepped with invisible forces known as gravity. When knowledge of forces couples with the principles of the Standard Model, you get an irreducibly precise description of the known material universe.
These two types of phenomena (forces and matter) are preconditioned to be separate, yet are entangled in that they are “meta-formally coupled”.
Thinking in biconditional categories helps us remember and analyze our environment, yet it’s not necessary that such categories represent the material world alone. Up and down are always relative, for instance, dependent on inferences of invisible forces. Here, metaphysics and physics diverge in which invisible forces they accept as real, yet both aim to depict the world based on its natural laws….
The goal of this paper is to begin with a framework which is utterly bland, as close to a logical nothing as possible: something that helps us depict how the categories of nature interact on every level (with n-to-1 channel multiplexes).
Neutral monists posit a neutral base from which both the physical and mental arise, whereas Russellian monists imbue the intrinsic nature of matter with cognitive forms. The latter suggest that the known universe started as the very thought of a “mind”, which works towards absolute self-cognition. The essential idea is that the entire structure and dynamic of reality is a product of a generalized set of properties, such that a logical syntax encompasses everything which is real.
No matter what you behold, you’ll come to find synonymous underlying forms —i.e. fundamental patterns.
So, what must universal cognitive patterns look like?
The answer is logical language, involving syntax and grammar.
Our logical representation of the world lets us conceive of things like past and future, inner and outer, time and space, history and math, from which we can derive basic axiomatic expressions, like “a → b, a ∴ b”.
The patterns of phenomena which present themselves to our cognition are the catalyst of reality’s process toward absolute self-understanding. Each state is defined relative to neighboring states, which essentially means that everything ‘real’ is enclosed in a self-generative descriptive logical manifold, so that the syntax of our experience resides everywhere — even in the primordial architecture of our bodies and minds.
There are properties at many bodily levels which are not fundamental, which we can change and effect. Conversely, we cannot change what’s fundamental for the same reason we can’t change archetypes.
We can only conceive naïvely of that which is beyond our senses.
The process of any number of non-sensuous (metaphysical) elements becomes its own instance of change — a multiplex — which is capable of symbolizing anything in existence.
Once defined, objects of a binary relational multiplex (Fig. 1) can then be referred to respectively as redux and reduplux, referring directly to how the universe works towards absolute self-understanding.
For example, let redux be the past, and reduplux be the future. You now can derive axioms through a multiplex system of causality — a time map:
When two points converge, they assemble a multiplex, one which retains any and all prior structure but with the multiplication of something other. Any further difference lies in how these principles are differentiated by their respective effects upon the environment: effects including their impact on space-time itself, cognitive energy, and, depending on one’s own perspective, the subjective human experience.
A multiplex can be assembled in multiple dimensions, and many different ways.
There are an unlimited amount of properties which you can assign to a multiplex structure, i.e, if multiplexing is thought of as the fusion of principal elements, reverse multiplexing could be thought of as the fission of emergent wholes. If cognition itself is a multidirectional half-duplex which can both differentiate and categorize its data, then we have access to the “multiplex universe” through our cognitive medium: our nervous system, and our consciousness.
Though we’re fundamentally incapable of perceiving noumenal reality, human life is a way that ideas can take part in nature.
It’s vital to realize, if the redux or reduplux holds sway over the other, then the multiplex cannot retain its original position in terms of both nature and time simultaneously. This means in essence that the dominant mode will then be converted through reverse multiplexing, and each primary mode won’t retain the same status as before.
For our purposes, it’s important to consider that when mutual incoherence exists among primary multiplicative modes, the dominant mode diverges to become an elementary synthetic mode, which is isomorphic to primary authentic modes and can essentially remain stable throughout successive stages. No change occurs within the elementary synthetic modes, except during the transition from the first phase to the next stages of the process. The only change is the iterative principles of general causality.
In human words, it may be true that an object has changed overtime, but it was only in isolated moments that it’s structure had been transduced relative to the processes surrounding it.
If we use time as a multiplex, we’d not consider the passing of time as a dominant mode, but instead the separation between moments which is enslaving us to the present. So, the past and future are a non-local substrate (redux and reduplux) for the continuous present. In principle, the dominant mode remains biconditional to the primary modes.
There’s already a significant amount of information available about what’s real, such as the properties of objects which interact within the world.
We can easily imagine how a given representation could be manipulated in to achieve specific results, especially with the help of algorithmic logic.
A logical algorithm can determine the parameters of an interpretation itself, or even reduce entire fields to basic values in order to deduce high-level properties, i.e. methodological reductio-holism (to examine the whole and its parts).
Deriving self-generative logical forms is much like plotting a line, you need a unified field of reference, one which is minimally and maximally coupled.
Contemporary modal logics offer a way to re-read thinkers like Bertrand Russell — individuals dedicated to creating a unified field of ideas — as having formal meaning within a ‘modal theoretic identity’. This line of thinking suggests that fundamental states of existence are abstract, consisting of an infrastructure of discrete points which constantly evolve through what are known as — you guessed it — modes.
Modal types of Russellian logic are generally consistent with contemporary modal logics insofar as they’re both designed to serve as discrete formal pictures of the world, though it’s far-reaching for us to attempt to map these abstract forms in an ontological sense. Hence, the possibilities offered by this hypothesis raise many issues. Firstly, modal types serve only as crudely approximating representations of things which could potentially exist anywhere but here. It would seem that this should mean nothing more than that our conception of this dimension will never concern more than just a distorted portion of what exists beyond the boundaries of our understanding. Though, the intrinsic properties of our cognition are ultimately what points us to archetypal templates in nature, for which there exists a virtually unlimited amount of modal types.
There is little reason for us to doubt that multiplexes, in some sense, are the only real substance in the entire universe. However, we must also understand that the stages of multiplex systems are merely representations in terms of their effects upon each other; thus, they’re not representative of anything larger than the sum of their own values.
Are the multiplex valid modes of being?
Before answering this question, I must note that we do not currently possess a universal representation of any single object or idea.
There are always multiple interpretations for any impression, and each one has particular characteristics associated with the object in which it applies. For example, the color red is a quality. If something is red and big, this doesn’t conflate “big” with “red”: It’s simply an instance where both properties interact.
In fact, different colors of each hue are determined by their respective value: black is an absence of light, white is a continuum of all colors, all other colors are a continua from violet to red with an infinite amount of divisions in between. And although it doesn’t always make sense to describe a true representation in terms of any one entity alone, representations can be viewed as being unique while sharing some characteristic of one another.
There exists a continua of human thoughts. To measure this, we need to determine whether a given set of values is represented truly as both a subset and superset of real values, and if the notion of a “true representation” is actually valid in any domain.
It’s clear that the value of a representation varies throughout different fields of logic.
As is the case with most things, a representation may very well be based upon a distorted version of what’s real. In other words, perceptions might not correspond to the actuality they represent.
There are an unlimited number of representations, and each one has particular characteristics associated with it.
This leads to the question of whether there is true representation of any sort at all. It may be possible that we are not dealing with truth, in our minds, but merely approximations.
There are several implications to consider when looking at archetypal approximations. Perhaps in the absence of archetypes, then there exists nothing more than a collection of meaningless subclasses of what’s real, though, this would be inferring beyond what can be known.
My final point is especially relevant since it wields that despite the fact that this universe self-generates, we have very much a free will: We can choose who to trust, who to follow, and who to leave alone.
The choice of an individual is made freely, but we’re always inclined to trust that which remains unchanged through time — and those who maintain their integrity despite changing circumstances.
This is to say, we are always bound by invisible forces of nature, and it’s because of this connection that even if we felt “free”, we would continue to remain bound by laws. However, it’s true that our conception of freedom is imperfect — and cannot be explained as “absolute”.
When it comes to choice, it may be that some individuals are more capable of doing what it takes to attain the desired result than others.
Perhaps the future involves multiple realities that are completely different to all previous iterations of the present — worlds completely unrelated to one another — where abstract dimensional species exist in a tight ecological niche, in the same manner as our own ecosystems and so on. Of course, this assumes that time in this realm is equally applicable to any possible world, and therefore we can also assume that the future would be a relatively stable continuous series of events. However, in the event that one timeline becomes more unstable than another, the dominant mode slips, and then the outcome becomes drastically altered.
If we’re to expect that one timeline or dimension could be slightly more stable than another, then we might expect to see the dominant mode becoming significantly more unstable. We could then predict an eventual breakdown in temporal stability with increasing certainty through each cognitive iteration, matching our working memory to the rate of repeated cycles of the same events, until eventually the timelines will cease to be unstable.
Potential consequences of a temporal breakdown are not limited to this reality alone, as there are countless other world to which we might find ourselves subject to.
Even if all timelines in this time/space are equally compatible with our current reality, what if that of an alternate time/space suddenly becomes increasingly unstable? How long would it take until some version of that timeline collapses entirely into our world, and becomes so unstable as to no longer support human interaction?
If a version of this dimension collapses while another version maintains sufficient stability, there is no way to predict the probability and outcomes of such a collapse happening, which is why, although there’s a strong tendency to believe in a future which is stable, there is also a great amount of evidence supporting the contrary.
To a “multiplex determinist”, we’re the sum total of all our prior causes. And because our causes are us, they do not force us to make decisions. The price to pay for free-will is the consequence of our actions.
It’s important to decide what about the world we can trust without compromising who we are.
So far, we have shown that the above points do not necessarily imply that we have an unlimited supply of trustworthy representatives, for this does imply a limit in the amount of potential representations that we’re capable of obtaining across multiple fields of reality, and how accurate our senses could possibly be.
If we want to know whether or not the existence of true representations being in a state of flux is justified, we have to consider all alternatives. This means, of course, that a full spectrum of all possible representations we could ever hope to encounter is available. Alas, the existence of trustworthy representative states in a given environment is highly probable.
