Musings on the possibility of a CTMU boundary of the universe
Here is a thinking process I went through, which I hope is worthy of sharing…
NOTE: This isn’t a criticism of Chris, it’s commentary on an idea I’ve seen floating around the CTMU community.
This whole concept of a “boundary of the entire universe” seems to suggest that “reality” exists on one side of it and “non-reality” exists on the other side. This appears to not make any sense.
“Non-reality” isn’t real, so it can’t exist on the other side of the boundary. So it seems impossible for the primary quanta to have reality on the inside and non-reality on the outside, separated by a boundary.
But… syntax clearly has a topological property if the entire physical world is made out of physical syntactic operators. Every one of those operators has physical boundaries which distinguish the inside of them from the outside of them.
And the topological literally defines the descriptive, and vice versa, through the MU form. Doesn’t this suggest that the global syntax has a physical boundary too?
Not quite. Global syntax is not “state” (which is what we call “physical matter”), it just sets up the rules. The primary counterpart of telic recursion includes within it the very initial stages of the physical universe, and so if there is a physical “boundary” of the universe that we can point to, it would be precisely demarcated there, in the past. One Planck second after the Big Bang or whatever.
As we established at the beginning: if global syntax is the global invariant, it can’t have a boundary which separates it from any tangible “something else.” It necessarily is special in this way. Non-reality, as a so-called substance that we may posit is outside of the global syntax, cannot even be considered at a physical level. It’s not real.
There’s a glut of other issues that come along with this, including that the boundary definitionally must be dually defined by both the outside medium and the inside medium. If non-reality has no way to effect reality in the first place, it can’t assist in shaping the physical boundary between it and non-reality.
Sidenote: But that’s all set theory and logic that I’m using to communicate these ideas… and those kinds of distinctions are made within reality itself. Meaning, inside that ovular blob above… Which, as we’ve shown, isn’t really a blob when we zoom out as far as possible...
So in short, the above diagram is just wrong!
Here’s another way to think about this. Let’s look at a completely new “state” of the universe and talk about it. Then, since dual containment is the foundational form of reality, let’s “dualize” the description by saying the exact opposite and refer to global syntax. Let’s try it:
All state is also syntax, but newly requantized state itself isn’t really syntax as we think of it in the MU form because it doesn’t have state within it… and syntax needs to have state inside of it.
That newly requantized state, in a sense, is the “purest” state that can exist.
Its physicality is defined by all of the syntax surrounding it. That state also contains all of that syntax, which is a real mind-bender.
Now let’s dualize it, with some extra words in parentheses for the sake of clarity:
All syntax is also state (because it has topological extent), but the old global syntax isn’t really a state (topological object) in the MU form because it doesn’t have syntax to contain it… and state (a given object) needs to be inside syntax.
That global syntax, in a sense, is the “purest” syntax that can exist.
Its syntactical quality is defined by all of the states inside of it. That syntax also contains all of those states, which is a real mind-bender.
Okay, great. Another way of putting it: global syntax can’t have a metasyntax. So there’s no bigger container for it. Therefore, no physical boundary.
Besides, a boundary is what creates some kind of a geometric shape, and a “shape” as we define it day-to-day is defined by perceptual syntax being projected onto something else. Global syntax doesn’t have anything outside of it which could possibly be its equal which is perceiving it and giving it a “shape” under some perceptual syntax. Reality’s existence completely depends on its constituents, and it simply does not have a visual representation except for its own “visual”/perceptual representation of itself, which it is constantly engaging in.
So to perceive God completely, just as we could perceive a regular 2D blob drawn on a computer completely, is to literally enter the mind of God, which we cannot do, given our internal telic roles. We can only process agentive infocognition, not global infocognition. He does have a descriptive “boundary,” but not a topological one that we could possibly conceive of. The closest we could get to perceiving God is imagining pure light and energy at the moment of the Big Bang. Alternatively, since God is everywhere, we could also just stare at a tree.
Good idea to write on Substack. The more people do these kinds of things, the better. Just saw that there is a new Substack post from Chris that refers to your question. I haven't read it yet, will do so later.
Hey Patrick, This is Bishop (from the ctmu discussion group) I’m just a priest (so my logic rules and formulation isn’t completely up to date) but I believe I understand what you are asking and I believe your problem in the above was that outside of reality is not non-reality but is UBT I quote: In CTMU cosmogony, “nothingness” is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. (p. 27)
I take your non-reality to be equivocal to Langans “nothingness” and this makes sense to me. Let me know what you think. As I love working on thought processes with you guys. Thanks..