WE AND THE INFINITY E-Book

Christian Hermenau

• Herausgeber: neobooks
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Deutsch

Seitenzahl: 364

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

We only know the mechanistic world, i.e., the world held together by electricity, which leads us to mathematics or the corresponding systems of order. But apart from the global theory of gravity, there is another world in which particles interact in large numbers and build a complex, intelligent architecture that is much more important than that of curved spaces. But none of this would work, not even in the smallest way, without something we call virtual information, which forms the basis for the narrative, the story of life and stability. And this applies not only to large, complex beings such as ourselves, but also to the smallest elementary particles, which are only ready to join together to form a multi-layered cohesion, a special whole.

Leseprobe

We and the infinity

by

Christian Hermenau

Table of contents:

Table of contents:

1. Introduction

2. Consciousness

3. Just an experience

4. A short leap to the edge of the universe

5. The time machine

6. Black holes

7. Self-life and unity

8. Time bubbles

9. Instantaneous

10. Time paradox

11. Free but not alive

12. The DNA

13. The foundations of quantum theory

14. Thinking and travelling by train

15. Water again and again

16. Clever particles

17. Are universes really closed

18. Alive and yet not alive

19. They are not gods

20. Where are all the souls

21. A unique universe

22. Too fixated on formulae

23. Information

24. Universes as filters

25. Virtual information

26. Scratching the surface of infinity

27. Just how extraordinary are we?

28. Ever higher levels

29. Can you ask everything?

30. Continuum of virtual information

31. Nothing but pure computing power

32. Entanglement

33. Analytical intelligence overrated

34. Significant mechanistic information

35. Pure fiction

36. Stories and thoughts

37. The wild stories of gravity

38. Mathematical universes

39. A gimmick of possibilities

40. Stories that hold everything together

41. What if all universes are constructed

42. Concentrated matter

43. Reference/Index

1. Introduction

This book has turned out very differently than we intended. Originally, we only wanted to write about things like consciousness, mind and body. Instead, at a certain point in the book, we start thinking about the value of stories, why they might be even more important than the mechanics of particles or the importance of networks. And all because the questions of where from and where to always led us to a dead end, but we weren't satisfied with that. Of course there is no solution for a mechanical universe, certainly not for any mechanistic universe. If there is something there, then it has to come from somewhere. Or to put it more generally, if something is meaningful, who gave it meaningfulness?

We are used to simply accepting these kinds of questions. Because, we can't question them without feeling the creepiness of triggering the infinities in our thinking, something that is already quite unsettling. We humans cannot stand this genuine and very profound eeriness for long and prefer to turn our gaze away again. Unless we look at this stable, hard world not from a physical point of view, nor from the point of view of a divine, omnipotent being, but instead see it all as a story that we are told, that we tell ourselves. Then suddenly things become possible that were previously unthinkable and then perhaps we have it, this key to what unlocks a seemingly unreal world for us that is only imagined and yet allows us to experience something that fluidly jumps back and forth between apparent harshness and dream-like stories.

There are many things in our everyday lives that are strange. The way we hear, the way we see, the way children are born and much more. There is more to all of this than just a vague divinity or a few sober formulae and the corresponding particles. But we have long since ceased to sense all this greatness. The world is full of enigmatic, mysterious things, both big and small, and we can read a lot from them if we want to. Yes, it may even be that these very puzzles show us a way forward in areas that are based on maths but are not mathematical.

We didn't expect all this and of course all this speculation could be completely different. We are happy to be convinced otherwise, and even surprised. But at least we still believe that we have opened the right door with the right key that actually fits and pushed it wide open - something that, as I said, amazed us in the end.

2. Consciousness

What is consciousness, what is its nature, its essence, who creates it, does it come from somewhere, does it disappear again at some point? These are questions that cannot be answered so easily, unless you make it easy for yourself and pretend to be a god or see man more like a giant machine.

Richard David Precht wrote a book entitled "Who am I and if so, how many?" With this strange title, he very aptly summarised the real problem of consciousness. Each and every one of us is an individual personality. We are one self and yet there is no one self. We are unique, without a doubt, and we see a world that is alive, but seemingly always the same. We wake up in the morning and are still in the same room in the same place where we went to sleep, although the room and with it the house, the earth, the solar system, everything is moving together at very high speeds in the most diverse directions. This constancy of things, which perceive nothing of the many forces and changes, creates a unity within us. Our physical world is stable and everything that is not noticeably different stabilises our spirit, our one spirit - so what's the problem?

The disconcerting thing is that we experience unity, we feel like one person, but we are made up of so many things. Sigmund Freud divided this one mind into three instances: the ego, the self and the superego. Three parts thus influence our mind from now on, which is already a big difference to the Christian religion, in which people are only determined by their body, their soul and the Trinity. The spirit is indivisible. Whereas with Freud we have the ego, which represents reality, which is influenced by lust and drives on the one hand and moral principles, commandments and prohibitions on the other. All three together lead to a reaction.

In religion, it is only the soul that not only makes something living out of the body lump, but also produces the spirit. And just this one spirit, not many! Only God knows how this works in detail. Religious faith is not characterised by overly rational logic but, as the name "faith" implies, by a deep belief in the greatness and omniscience of God. You don't question something like that.

When Precht wrote the title of his book, he was probably not just thinking of one ego or Freud's three, but of many different personalities that all exist in one brain. He was certainly thinking of many, but countably many, not an infinite number of egos. The title was probably intended to draw attention to the fact that our one ego consists of many different personalities, some of which can be very contradictory.

In religions, there is always something non-material, something higher that can create and control a world, indeed an entire universe, despite its incorporeality. How exactly such a being, such a god, does this is completely mysterious and remains deliberately open.

From a scientific point of view, something can only exert influence if there are points of contact with the world. A neutrino that flies through the entire earth, or even half a universe, is therefore also nothing for the earth. We only know of their existence because neutrinos occur in such large numbers and therefore occasionally get stuck. However, if a spiritual world or an immortal soul does not get stuck at all, then it cannot have any effect. Then it is also without consciousness for us, because we do not notice it. If such a soul also makes up our spirit, our consciousness, then it must be very strongly connected to our physicality, which in turn makes it vulnerable and dependent on it, just like the body. From the point of view of science, there is no way out.

In our imagination, a free spirit that nevertheless exerts influence would be easily conceivable, which is why religions have no difficulty with this. On the contrary, they even like such contradictions because they can differentiate themselves from science in this way and become extraordinary. However, a person can only look past unrealistic fairy tales without inner conflict for as long as they do not go into depth and perhaps do not really grasp the problem. They remain at the level of a child's belief and do not become mature and adult. Conversely, as a logical and rational person, you can fall into the error of thinking that you can easily detach yourself from reality by thinking abstractly. The idea that there is a system of logic or abstract thinking that can do without reality only shows that you have not understood the depth of the thought.

Maths only brings order to complexity through abstraction. But if it has no connection to reality, then it too is like a neutrino that doesn't stick. It can't achieve anything either, it may be beautiful in its own way, but it is meaningless. This is more important than we think, because maths exerts such a great attraction precisely because of its universality. Mathematics is boundless, not bound to anything specific, not even to anything physical, which, as I said, we can imagine very well, but which cannot function in this way. If we add something incorporeal, then one and one do not equal two. Adding a nothing with a nothing remains a nothing. It doesn't matter what objects we add together, but it has to be something, it has to have an essence.

Nevertheless, physicists are now doing something interesting. Similar to religious people, they take the results of a coherent, closed mathematical solution and apply them to reality. Sometimes you can check the result later and find something new, but often it can't be verified, yet they stick to the idea that you can in principle use the soul of maths independently of the body and thereby change reality, simply because it seems plausible to them and we all have a great respect for maths.

Spiritual people are very resourceful in ignoring the contradictory and unrealistic explanations of reality. Scientists think they are on the safe side. However, it is hard to believe how researchers also manage to use their imagination to make results fit or to mathematically substantiate them. Imagination, our exuberant power of imagination, does not suddenly stop just because we are scientists. A very rational, very sober-minded mathematician, who only immerses herself in her equations, may be immune to this and only limits herself to the logic of the equations, interpreting nothing into them, but all non-specialised talents, all normally functioning people are not. Probably only we humans can think so deeply and abstractly, yet it is not a strength of the mathematician, but a weakness that helps her to find her way around the symbolic language so easily. It is much more difficult for us, but it is our good fortune because we can easily cope with what is really important, namely finding our way in our environment and the most difficult thing of all: being able to cope with other people.

3. Just an experience

Unfortunately, this also means that we can rely on the abstract logic of maths with its axioms and laws, but not on the great scientific theories about the world. They work. In some cases, they even work extremely well. They make predictions that are later tested and confirmed, but it is similar to a smartphone, all of which also work wonderfully, but nobody really knows why they do so. You take the right components, link them all together appropriately and, lo and behold, with a little skill and a bit of luck, the whole thing works. Then you just have to make identical copies and so on. It seems that simple, but it's not. In fact, it's just a matter of experience. With a lot of patience and many attempts, we manage to get more and more complicated devices to work. These devices then serve as the basis for even larger and more sophisticated devices. One builds on the other and we gradually reach higher and higher levels. The functioning of the devices also appears to be proof that our thinking is correct and that we know exactly how to do it. A fallacy?

How do we know what we have to do, what in us shows us the way? Is it consciousness, can we recognise things correctly from our mind alone and solve a problem? Build a machine and try it out until it works? What is it in us that allows us to see the solution in such a somnambulistic way, how do images arise in us, how can we watch films and listen to music? What if the same thing that shapes and controls proteins and nucleic acids without the brain also captures and animates our mind?

We can experience ourselves as a conscious awake entity and yet it may be that life and our minds are incredibly more complex than we can imagine. A world behind the world, which may not even be limited to our body, but has its centre somewhere else, far away from us.

We now know, for example, that a number that briefly lights up on a screen has to be displayed for around 200 milliseconds to be processed in the visual areas of the brain. The brain processes and analyses the signal from the number without us being aware of it. Only after a further 100 ms does the object penetrate further into the frontal and parietal cortex, there is a synchronisation of these brain functions, which must agree that it is a known number and only then is the number consciously perceived. Many systems in the brain are specialised in storing certain information. The task of consciousness is to share this information and make it visible to everyone. It also turned out that five to fifteen-month-old babies show the same signatures of consciousness as adults, except that they take about three to four times as long to do so. Babies seem to be aware of themselves at the age of 5 months, they have a vague idea that they are there. However, being aware of information or a body does not yet mean being aware of oneself. Conscious self-awareness also only begins later, from around 24 months. It seems that development takes place in ever new shells. We slowly develop an image of ourselves, with the corresponding values and characteristics, also in order to be able to fulfil expectations and be loved. Consciousness is a kind of constant self-reflection n. We are constantly telling ourselves a story. According to Nancy Huston, we are a fabulating species and create the fiction of our lives in a childlike way. In the course of a day, we repeatedly interrupt our inner story, digress and then start again. Our consciousness switches effortlessly from one state to another. But consciousness also exists without language or images, free of subject and object and, according to the latest research, there even seems to be something in us that all humans have in common, regardless of age and culture.

4. A short leap to the edge of the universe

But let's take a brief, unauthorised leap to the edge of the universe. Here, too, it is striking how quickly and how many structures and galaxies, including their black holes at the centre, are created. Some of the particularly contradictory, extremely large structures can probably be attributed to the faulty redshift, which does not reliably indicate the distance according to our model. Nevertheless, it remains the case that far too large structures are formed far too quickly. The only scientific explanation for this is the presence of dark, unknown matter. But even this pattern reaches its limits when galaxies, each containing a galactic black hole, are said to have formed in just a few hundred million years and have such large dimensions. It remains mysterious and rather shows that we have not really understood this dark matter, for example, if not that the whole idea of it is wrong. How can sober matter build up so quickly into complicated structures? A heavy core of structureless dark matter is certainly not enough. However, there are processes in the realm of living beings where this is exactly what happens. When a baby is created from an egg cell and sperm, a completely new human being develops at breathtaking speed from just two initial cells. After just 9 1/2 months, there is a centre, the brain, from which all the body cells around it are controlled.

If you like, you could transfer this to a black hole in which the controlling spirit is located and a star system around it, which forms the body. It works and, like a human baby, it develops in an exponential process without getting out of step. In life, we can follow it almost in real time, but even at the edge of the universe, where we suspect the beginning of new particles, this dizzying pace can only be explained if conscious networks have a hand in it. Although complex networks this far out are not enough to create life according to our ideas, a central mind in the form of an apparent black hole and matter around it, which does not simply disappear into the centre, is enough to do so even after a few hundred million years if this is done in a planned manner. This is precisely what characterises life, among other things; we don't have to wait millions of years for something to emerge by pure chance, but the processes can be processed mentally and then executed against all entropy within a very short time. When a mind wants to roughly organise matter, it does so very quickly.

Let's also not forget that according to the Big Bang model, very far out means very young. According to our theory, all of the matter that we observe in over 13 billion light years has only recently been created from scratch. In contrast, the Big Bang idea twists our thinking, because far away does not mean huge, but tiny. According to our approach, far away also means far out and the further away the younger. New matter is created at the very edge, but only in this wafer-thin transitional sphere. Further inwards, there are always older, much more interconnected particles, which now act quickly on the newly created particles. The old knowledge from the deep layers within flows outwards to the new ignorance, resulting in an enormous acceleration process. The ancient knowledge from within flows through and influences the new matter on the periphery. This is why the development processes on the outside are much faster today, because there is now older and more knowledgeable matter on the inside. When the universe was still young and small, with much less matter, it took much longer for something knowledgeable to form from the newly formed particles. Back then, it took a great deal of exchange and a lot of experimentation before the first consciousness at particle level developed in one of the large mass concentrations. Today, the new particles on the outside are flooded directly with structured knowledge from the inside and the appropriate networks are initiated immediately. No time is wasted, but matter is consciously controlled immediately, so that spirit is quickly created there too. However, it is then a spirit or some consciousnesses that exert influence and thus also control over the new matter. Just as babies cannot develop freely, but grow into our modern world from the very beginning.

5. The time machine

In physics, there is the concept of space and time. And because physics is a very conservative science, a precise idea of space was first developed and its length precisely determined before thoughts were also given to time and its precise measurement much later. Our thinking developed gradually. Although the discovery of the wheel or the printing press was a milestone in the history of mankind, it did not come out of the blue, but was an expression of the development of the brain at that time. Only when we have mentally detached ourselves sufficiently from our environment and are able to view it with sufficient distance will we be able to recognise how we can transport heavy bodies more easily with the help of a wheel. As long as we are still one with our environment, moving deeply through the continuum of the now, we would not recognise its value. We would touch, sniff, bite into or lift something round, but all this without recognising it. Just an object, like other objects, nothing special. Without a corresponding inner world within us, in which we can only mentally imagine something, in which we see, for example, two wheels coupled with an axle that move through space, we would not understand what potential it harbours. Waiting for s two wheel-shaped objects that are connected to each other to be created by chance and for us to then move something on them by chance that is apparently much easier and faster to move is an illusion. Because even if we encounter this by chance, there would be no recognition. If something moves in front of our eyes on two wheels, but we don't have a suitable inner world of imagination for it, even such a random event would have no effect at all. In us modern humans, on the other hand, it would not only trigger an immediate realisation, but it would also excite us so emotionally that psychedelic drugs would be released, which would make us perceive the significance even more intensely and lead us to spend a lot of time examining and improving the wheel more closely.

There is no leap in the development of mankind. First the wheel and then the printing press. We first have to move through space with increasing speed and independence before we can read and write. And first we have to develop a written language within us before we can invent a process that enables us to accelerate the dissemination of knowledge beyond belief.

The classical concepts of space and time in physics are extremely simple. Space is what is between objects, it can be organised and measured with a scale. But what is even more astonishing is that there are three independent dimensions, which are probably Cartesian. Classically, time also has a very simple structure. It is always the same, initially only theoretically defined. Time is actually a scalar, but it could also be described as one-dimensional, whereby it is always directed from the past to the future; it cannot run backwards. At least this applies to our process time. This is the time with which the processes here in the universe progress. There are also many natural timers here, such as the rotation of the earth or the seasons, but we can only indirectly deduce time from a cyclical movement in space.

The rotation of the earth does not make time, it is only an arbitrary measure. While the elementary particles, e.g. in radioactivity, actually seem to be influenced by an internal time, we do not know exactly. We have introduced the weak interaction force as the fourth elementary force specifically for this arbitrariness of radioactivity, but to define something mathematically/physically means to integrate it into the overall context, to categorise it better, not to have understood it. Knowing how to calculate something does not mean knowing why it is so. We can calculate exactly how long a journey to grandma's house will take, but we don't know why the granddaughter is travelling to her grandma's house in the first place. This question seems to be irrelevant for particles, because particles are isolated and without a mind, but what if the particles also belong to a network and one or other particle even has important information in its luggage?

But let's stay with our time. According to our understanding of the world, in our modified structure, what is unique and probably even an absolute clock generator is the spin or the three cycles of the particle levels of elementary particles. According to our approach, the particles are constantly exchanging in time with the universe, depending on their age. In the beginning, the contacts were less frequent, but today there are an incredible number of them in relation to one second. This timing now appears to be absolute, because what arrives at the edge of the universe in exact, always identical signals is always the same with mathematical precision, because here on the outside the universe is a boring, unchanging place. Seen from the edge, everything inside seems to be in order, as if nothing had ever happened. Of course, looking inwards towards the centre, reality looks completely different, because time can expand and the signals can spread out more and more. They don't always have to come from the same particle, they can also just appear to come from it. And then there is also something so special about time that we should perhaps sacrifice three-dimensional space in order to focus entirely on time. Time is perhaps created in the elementary particles. Perhaps even absolute, except that it can be stretched and changed. But due to the permanent electrically stable cohesion, we have a world divided into many smaller and larger open time bubbles.

In these time bubbles, a time runs that remains manageable in terms of information. When we move through space, we do not travel to a new location, but leave a complex time bubble with a three-dimensional time machine in order to arrive at a new time bubble, where we synchronise our time machine again. Space is then just a dimensionless void between the masses. Time, on the other hand, has three dimensions and we can stretch it in every dimension. This leads us to other time bubbles. So, either we keep our three-dimensional space, in which case time is a directionless scalar quantity, or we distribute lots of super-precise clocks in a coherent system and observe every change in the time field. If we set the system in motion, we can use the distribution of the time field to calculate how fast and where we are moving. If we turn the entire universe into a coherent collection of larger and smaller time bubbles, each of which has its own time according to its position, then we can turn the movement in space into a movement in time.

So if we want to get from the time bubble Bremen to the time bubble Essen by train, we have to make a suitable time dilation in the x-y plane. For a certain time within a dimension, we have to make time run slower at the front of the train than at the back, then it will accelerate. When the train has reached its maximum speed and is travelling at a constant speed, the clocks run at the same speed again, but with a shift compared to Bremen station. At some point when the train brakes, the time dilation reverses, then the clock at the rear runs slower than at the front until the train stops and the clocks show no time difference and tick at the same frequency as those at Essen main station. But if we have a global timepiece, the clocks are running behind in comparison. If we travel back to Bremen, we have to reverse everything. Here, too, the time difference would be greater compared to the start of the journey, but we would not be able to recognise from the difference that the train is coming from Essen. To do this, we would have to record and analyse the entire time field in the train system with its time dilation and in which direction and for how long, then we would know where on earth the train had been. This all sounds incredibly complicated and one wonders why we should take such a complicated approach when the old concept of space and time and the movements within them is so much simpler.

The first thing you notice is that although the train at the end of the journey has the same frequency as in Bremen, it is phase-shifted. The people who get off there are slightly younger and this is information that is completely lost in the old concept. With the old concept of spacetime, you can't tell that the system has been somewhere else in between. Even if we recorded the movement in space, we would know that the train was in Essen, but we would have no reason for the phase shift in time. Especially not in such detail, and at which location. Of course, we could also include relativistic time dilation in our calculations, but then the focus would be much more on time and pure movement in space would become spatial time dilation. The question here is not which concept is easier to realise, but only which is better suited to reality. And in reality, a system consists of many small particles, all of which are also small clocks. These clocks are also intrinsic, which means that they generate time absolutely, at least according to our model, which makes them significant. The electrical charges keep the clocks at a stable distance and separate the different systems from each other. Interrelated process times always occur in the same time bubble.

Every person has their own time bubble with which they can move independently, but even if they are travelling by car or bicycle, they are still part of the car or bicycle bubble. We can only move through space if we have fewer and fewer points of contact. The faster we go, the less we are allowed to touch our passing surroundings, the more encapsulated and protected we have to remain in the time bubble. In large cities, there are countless independent time bubbles. Every person has their own, but also every building, every space within it has its own process time, its time sequences that are not connected to us. The space in between is nothing. The significance of the space also lies more in the size of the entire universe and the distance between the two levels. This distance is now also extremely significant, but here the importance lies more in the ability to store information. The gravitational exchange changes the distance between the planes and also has something to do with the foreign particle. The change step happens after two particles have been together for a tiny moment, have had contact. Each particle then leaves a small shift in the other particle. The particles fragment and simultaneously memorise what was from whom. At some point, when time runs backwards again, all this small information is returned. The world, the universe, then reorganises itself piece by piece back to the less and less interconnected. It is in a state of dissolution of all the connections that have ever been made.

Physicists always stick to the simple, they seek order, clarity in the confusion. However, the world around us, given the current direction of time, is multi-layered, complex and always chaotic. The best system of organisation we know is mathematics. If we succeed in describing complex, multi-layered problems, at least in an idealised way, using mathematical formulas, then we have brought order to the world. With order also comes control, because then we can predict the future and make changes. However, mathematical order is always a highly simplified process. If we idealise the processes in nature, then the laws within it fit very well. We can see the patterns better, the regularity in the confusion. However, if we not only want to organise things, but also understand them, if we want to know why something is the way it is, then we have to abandon the far too simple organisational approach of mathematics and engage with the uncontrollable complexity. The bodies can be combined into a centre of mass and this centre of mass then moves almost perfectly on the wonderful, beautiful and elegant equations of physicists, but this centre of mass is purely virtual, we have made it up, it does not exist in reality.

The only thing that exists are the many gravitational exchange connections between the mass particles and the rest of the matter in the universe, these infinite contacts between all the countless particles. The individual exchange is actually quite simple, but the many makes it complex and unpredictable in detail. This is why the analytical absolute equations of physics are so fascinating. They make calculation possible in a simple way, except that they are wrong in their approach and should therefore not be overestimated. If, on the other hand, we want to get a sense of the meaning behind everything, we have to look at the environment the way our mind does. We also see the movements in space and can estimate them. We don't have numbers in our heads, we only sense the processes, we don't control them, but we can also skillfully influence our environment and reach the desired goal in this way. And, we sense something in the process, we feel the vitality within us.

So if we want to understand something, it is better not to describe uniform movement through space in terms of the three spatial dimensions and the velocity vector of the centre of gravity, but instead to imagine time bubbles and time machines. In the first case, it makes sense to describe the movements in space as linear and only include the theory of relativity at very high speeds. The fact that time is also stretched during slow movements can be safely neglected. The effect is so tiny that hardly any atomic clock can detect it. However, if you not only want to calculate the world, but also understand it, then it is important to work with time bubbles in which you live and which you can only leave if you manage to stretch time for your body in such a way that time passes a little more slowly in this coherent system. And that applies to every movement, even the extremely slow ones.

Space is something abstract that only becomes real because masses are distributed in it. But each mass has its own time field. There are no bodies that do not tick and this ticking does not have to be the same in all three dimensions. At the lowest level, we have elementary particles, atoms and molecules, then come the large and small inanimate bodies, stones, rocks, mountains and then a few steps higher, the various time systems of living beings. We humans in particular develop all kinds of infrastructure. There are process time systems on the smallest scale that are interconnected, but also huge, complex systems based on them, such as our earth. We need to focus on these different types of time systems, even if it quickly becomes confusing and complicated. Because reality is never mass points that can be compared with numbers, but always an endless number of extended objects that all have a life of their own.

We also think that not only quantum mechanically connected particles or photons can be entangled, but that this is the standard for all primordial particles such as protons and electrons. None of these particles move continuously through space and none of these particles exchange each other via interaction particles. It is they themselves that are together for a short time, no matter how far away the exchanging particles are, only to jump back again in the next time interval with a slight shift. This process is also so tiny in terms of time that we will probably never be able to measure it. If we can, then it only works with entangled particles, because this happens via charges. Charges are aligned with certain countercharges. If we manage to move two aligned bodies away from each other for a longer full stop of time without them having contact with others, the signals are extremely strong because there is a lot of exchange between the two. If you make contact with one of them, this is also transmitted to the other, immediately. Only here it is measurable because there are many of them, yet nothing else happens with all the others. Two particles that have an exchange with each other always know everything about the other for the moment because they are together for a short time.

From the point of view of the particles, there is no distance or time in between every exchange; the exchange always takes place at the speed of light, i.e. space and timeless. However, this is different for complex connected bodies. Stable charges make it possible to hold bodies of enormous dimensions firmly together. Due to gravity, all individual particles are still in permanent contact with other particles that are far away. This cannot be cut off. All electrically bound particles belong to the same process time system and they jump wildly within their possible limits. The system as a whole can now be set in motion, in which case time expands for everyone. This movement is continuous and slow and can be described using simple mathematical formulae.

However, one should not see any deeper meaning in the aesthetics of the formulae. Certainly not that the mathematical equations could have anything to do with the structure of the universe - that the universe is perhaps a mathematical one - that is definitely not the case. We cannot take a large body of matter that moves as a whole with a continuous motion through a fixed mathematical space in a physical time clearly and unambiguously. The movement in it is continuous and stable, but it is something that is made up of parts. For us, the whole seems to be reality. We cannot grasp the individual with our senses, it is too small. But it is precisely this inner world that cannot be continuously and firmly assigned to one place. However, as the world is made of particles, we must first understand them before we can understand and correctly describe the structure of the world. The organisational system of mathematics fits our view of the world perfectly. We then have control over the large bodies. We can leave our place and shape and change objects according to our ideas. However, if we want to use it to describe the universe as a whole, the where from and the where to, then it becomes clear that both our idea of the bodies and that of mathematics are just an illusion. Although they are an extremely well-functioning illusion, they cannot correctly describe the true reality and, like the circles of the ancient philosophers, they are all just beautiful and perfect, but as equations of motion for the planets, despite their mathematical divinity, they are in their deepest essence false.

The great mathematical equations do not show us how the world is constructed in its deepest depths. They do not show us any truths that we simply cannot see because too much is superimposed, but they are only beautiful, closed, mathematical logic systems that have an enchanting divine order and actually fit the movements of the large bodies perfectly, but nothing more. We have learnt a lot about nature through these processes. In particular, that they cannot be described by simple formulae and certainly not by a single world formula. The world may appear to be simple at first glance. What quickly developed from this simple approach is incredibly complicated. And just as we cannot grasp the essence of a thought, the world of elementary particles cannot be understood with just a few formulae. We have to engage with the difficult.

6. Black holes

Let's assume that what makes our brain and our body truly alive and knowledgeable is located in the centre of the Milky Way in an almost black hole. So how can it be that we are controlled by something 27,000 light years away? And aren't there also contradictions?

Yes, there are contradictions, but only if we take our macroscopic world too seriously. And we do, how could it be otherwise? We see things as stable and constant or moving slowly in space. It is a world of closed large bodies. Our time flows in seconds, minutes and hours or in days, months and years. So very slow and finite. Nevertheless, we maintain that this tangible world is only virtual and that the bouncing timeless atoms and exchange particles represent reality, if there is such a thing as reality at all and it is not just in our heads. Just as an image in a mirror looks deceptively real, but is also only created virtually in our brain.

Together with the communicative exchange, the elementary particles determine our universe, they are the actual substance, they determine where it could go and they mould and shape everything. So if we perceive the world to be so solid and stable, calm and slow, and even feel an awareness of our environment and ourselves, it is only because the elementary particles have succeeded in creating spirit.

We have already written repeatedly that we suspect that the actual mind is located in the supposedly supermassive black holes at the centre of a galaxy. In order to be able to shape and mold these vast amounts of ordered matter, which is constantly being created at the edge, from the very beginning, it is not enough for thought to be concentrated somewhere in the universe. In order to create something as complicated as our Earth, we need the periodic table of elements, we need very specific suns that orbit in very specific places in a galaxy and are of a certain size with a specific planetary system within them. Such galactic preconditions cannot be influenced if the mind is only the size of a sun or even smaller.

Suns are also very active places and we may also find stable thinking in stable places, such as in supposed black holes. If the intuitively controlled thinking emanates from all these supermassive black holes in every galaxy, then these brains are truly gigantic, but they must also influence an enormous amount of matter around them. This means that, as with living beings, a large animal also needs a large brain, if only because many more muscles have to be controlled. Interestingly, thinking does not have to be even bigger. Each galaxy can be a self-contained area, even if the gravitationally bound areas are much larger. From this point of view, it is quite possible that the different galaxies exchange information. It is also interesting to note that we do not need a universal spirit, a centralised mind or a God who directs and manages the entire universe. Supermassive black holes in the centres of galaxies are quite sufficient. Galaxies would then be the largest complex thinking places where matter is controlled from the centre.

But let's take a closer look at these galactic black holes. It may sound insane that matter has collected here in a structured way and that there should be an extremely massive body instead of a void. We even believe that the area there is thinking or even has consciousness. Conversely, the idea that a black hole is really a void where there is nothing and that something is so hairless that only three parameters are sufficient to describe it is also insane. None of the infinite amount of individual information should still exist there, everything has been lost. This kind of excess is even crazier than the idea that there is also local centralised thinking in a living universe. Physicists have also recognised that all this lost information in the theory of black holes is a much bigger problem than one might think and are now trying to find an explanation for where all the collected information remains. However, they would not go so far as to say that it is not lost because a singularity does not occur. Although some physicists recognise that a singularity is physical nonsense and therefore something cannot be right with the mathematics used, they would not go that far to change the entire structure of the universe again.