corollaries and implications regarding the origin and emergence of life, the evolution of semiotic properties like language, mathematics, music, art, science etc.,
and in general extending the recognition to society, ecology and culture.
In addition to the ontological question about nature as an organisation subordinate to evolution, lie fundamental questions of a microscopic understanding of
Darwinian evolution. For instance, when referring to natural phenomena we include
the physical laws of nature, implying interactions between the constituents of
matter. These interactions become gradually more complex for biological systems
constituting nature’s self-organisation with intrinsic modes of communication
between life forms. The extended notion of communication, containing features like
function, reception, submission, transmission, regulation and adaptation, starts
already on the molecular intra-cell level and develops between cells, cellular
aggregates, amongst protein segments, in 3D arrangements of folding and multisubunit complexes, mapping concepts, perceptions and possibly thoughts on the
neurological level in e.g. the teleodynamic development of the human brain.
There are several ways to provide a taxonomy for universes, e.g. observable
universes and beyond, ending up with the Ultimate Ensemble or the mathematical
universe hypothesis of the highest level according to Tegmark [1], or in the socalled parallel universe classification from branes and strings via Everett’s Many
Worlds interpretation to holographic multiverses, complex computer simulated
multiverses culminating with the ultimate multiverse containing any mathematically
possible universe that is commensurate with the appropriate physical laws, Greene
[2]. While many models predict infinite universes, repeating themselves into parallel worlds, others connect with one of the many interpretations of quantum
mechanics. Abstract mathematics defining any conceivable Theory of Everything
(never mind that self-referential authentications seem to rule out the possibility of
ToE’s), will bring together hierarchies of multiverses to the highest category.
It goes beyond the focus of this article to examine the various pros and cons in
support of the various arguments. Suffice it to say that a non-contradictory universe
scenario should account for consistent size boundaries, commensurate with known
quantum-classical physical laws, comprising a realistic evolution package from
beginning to end, where the mental- and the physical parts are ontologically
entangled. This portrayal should have built-in accounts of some of the currently
most inexplicable paradoxes, such as the dark energy enigma responsible for the
puzzling expansion of the universe, the abundance of particles over antiparticles
and the commensuration between evolution, self-organization and the second law.
In advancing ZEUS, the Zero-Energy Universe Scenario,
1 we will build on
earlier work on operator arrays of momentum-energy and their space-time conjugates to recover Einstein’s law of general relativity. We will focus on the following
questions: the Schwarzschild metric for a non-rotating black hole and extensions to
rotational degrees of freedom (Kerr metric), the arrow of time, the gravitational
matrix formulation and Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. In particular the Paradigm
1 The notion of “zero-energy universe” has been coined before, see note added in proof.
248
E.J. Brändas
and in general extending the recognition to society, ecology and culture.
In addition to the ontological question about nature as an organisation subordinate to evolution, lie fundamental questions of a microscopic understanding of
Darwinian evolution. For instance, when referring to natural phenomena we include
the physical laws of nature, implying interactions between the constituents of
matter. These interactions become gradually more complex for biological systems
constituting nature’s self-organisation with intrinsic modes of communication
between life forms. The extended notion of communication, containing features like
function, reception, submission, transmission, regulation and adaptation, starts
already on the molecular intra-cell level and develops between cells, cellular
aggregates, amongst protein segments, in 3D arrangements of folding and multisubunit complexes, mapping concepts, perceptions and possibly thoughts on the
neurological level in e.g. the teleodynamic development of the human brain.
There are several ways to provide a taxonomy for universes, e.g. observable
universes and beyond, ending up with the Ultimate Ensemble or the mathematical
universe hypothesis of the highest level according to Tegmark [1], or in the socalled parallel universe classification from branes and strings via Everett’s Many
Worlds interpretation to holographic multiverses, complex computer simulated
multiverses culminating with the ultimate multiverse containing any mathematically
possible universe that is commensurate with the appropriate physical laws, Greene
[2]. While many models predict infinite universes, repeating themselves into parallel worlds, others connect with one of the many interpretations of quantum
mechanics. Abstract mathematics defining any conceivable Theory of Everything
(never mind that self-referential authentications seem to rule out the possibility of
ToE’s), will bring together hierarchies of multiverses to the highest category.
It goes beyond the focus of this article to examine the various pros and cons in
support of the various arguments. Suffice it to say that a non-contradictory universe
scenario should account for consistent size boundaries, commensurate with known
quantum-classical physical laws, comprising a realistic evolution package from
beginning to end, where the mental- and the physical parts are ontologically
entangled. This portrayal should have built-in accounts of some of the currently
most inexplicable paradoxes, such as the dark energy enigma responsible for the
puzzling expansion of the universe, the abundance of particles over antiparticles
and the commensuration between evolution, self-organization and the second law.
In advancing ZEUS, the Zero-Energy Universe Scenario,
1 we will build on
earlier work on operator arrays of momentum-energy and their space-time conjugates to recover Einstein’s law of general relativity. We will focus on the following
questions: the Schwarzschild metric for a non-rotating black hole and extensions to
rotational degrees of freedom (Kerr metric), the arrow of time, the gravitational
matrix formulation and Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. In particular the Paradigm
1 The notion of “zero-energy universe” has been coined before, see note added in proof.
248
E.J. Brändas