The Universal Theory

I very well recall that day when I formulated starting statements of this theory. I was sitting in the morning bus heading to the high school, thinking about different scientific and pseudo-scientific things. I thought that this theory is just a hypothesis, but I decided that it is good hypothesis, and it made me feel well. It was about 25 years ago.

Since that time much things have changed in science and in society. Main question I want to formulate answer for is where are we - as human society - heading? As an engineer and curious person I see the patterns that we are currently sliding the top verge of our developmental curve down, the matter is how low we will fall, and if there will be any idea, or movement, which will pick us up for the next rise of the curve.

With the theory I describe below I do not pretend to be original, nor scientifically or religiously correct. I do not pretend to be right. I am not going to challenge ToE. I feel, and actually see in the latest developments of the science, that its elements could be correct. Theory makes me feel good, and I hope it will make you feel good - at least in the sense that knowledge and plan, even if they appear totally wrong at the end, make our life purposeful. And finally, I do not talk theory for its sake - I talk it for the practice.

Please bear with me, I do not want to offend or infuriate scientists, or anyone serving religion. If you do not like what I write - just do not read it. However if you are going to adopt and use ideas I explain here, please ensure you quote me as an author and leader of these ideas.

Initially theory had only one, first part, but then it expanded to the two parts.

Part 1: Hardware - the Substance

When child is conceived, it carries no more information than from the merged spermatozoid and ovicell. In modern science we believe that DNAs of both merged substances are forming new DNA of the future child. New information is created using two separate information quanta. The information is in presence or absense of specific molecules in specific places of DNA - the initial structure of the specific substance - the initial hardware configuration.

Embryo is held in favorable conditions, and it attached to mother's internals, starting getting information and further substance for its growth. Mother is a source of information and substance for the child in its first 9 months before its birth, and embryo's knowledge of the outer world is rather limited by its own feelings and mother's knowledge and experiences.

Birth is a milestone when both mother's and child's substances decide that it is a ready time for child to detach from the Mother, and continue its own growth outside. From this time child starts getting his or her own experiences, building its own relatively independent substance and inside structures from what it gained from previous stage.

Humans are curious by their nature, and in addition to acceptance of information of what they physically perceive by their senses, are seeing patterns and similarities in what is happening and are able to think in abstracto, building models of what they believe is happening around them.

Two obvious directions humanity is researching in its reality are microlevel and macrolevel. What is happening inside us and other substance? What is happening outside of us and other things? Most of the times it was easy, because we are simply able to see and feel the boundaries between inner and outer of the things.

These ideas of microlevel and macrolevel are very old ones - first mentions were found in ancient scientific and philosophic works. Microlevel currently for us is nanotechnologies. We have built smart microscopes able to see extremely small parts of the substance. Macrolevel currently for us is our universe. We have built Hubble which is seeing most distant object from us. We are striving for building even smarter eye which will see even farther in wide spectrum scale than our eye can. We are learning.

I make bold assumption #1: our macrolevel is designed the same way as microlevel.

If it is the case, taking our knowledge about atomic design, with Sun having 8 planets it should be, in our understanding, huge atom of Oxygen having eight electrons-planets attached to the core. Any other planetary system is an atom of specific element from Mendeleev's periodic table. All the stuff within our Solar system is designed to keep it stable, conforming to the law of growth and development. For example, Moon is attached to the Earth, Deimos and Phobos to Mars in order to support their rotational speed - and their other properties on the solar system scale.

You wonder that in our current understanding there's unified electron with specific calculated weight, while Solar system's planets have very different masses and consistencies. I would say that if you take specific volume with various atoms in it, you may be able to calculate the average mass and charge of particle, and as volume or density increases, average will level. I ask - do we really know mass and change of every electron in every type of atom so that we can differentiate "different" electrons?

Let's consider contemporary research findings. Stable O-16 oxygen atom's nucleus contains 8 protons and 8 neutrons, and 8 electrons, allocated as 1s2 2s2 2p4. This means that on the first energy level there're 2 electrons, and on the second energy level there're 6 electrons - 2 at the s sublevel and 4 at the p sublevel. It is depicted on the schematic of the oxygen atom on the picture above. The model of atom still remains in the theoretical space.

Now look at the Solar system design:

Let's assume Mercury and Venus to be first energy level planets, Earth and Mars being second energy level's sublevel s planets, and others second level's sublevel p planets. "Energy" sublevels seem to be separated by the asteroid belt, as claimed having formed because by the influence of Jupiter's gravitation.

The schematic of the oxygen's atom drastically differs with our knowledge about Solar system - on the schematic representation of the atom using refined Bohr model we see clearly differentiated energy levels, and second level's sublevels are located very close to each other. However it is explicitly stated in the models' definition that it is schematic, and the real scale is not observed. I personally have issues with Bohr model - to function properly all the electrons in same sublevel should move with same speed not to collide with each other - and it can only be in case all the components of the atom are "ideal" and all the electrons are exactly the same. But our experience shows that there's no such thing as two absolutely same objects... This gives rise to the idea that orbits of the electrons are different, and electrons may be different in their size, mass, and thus their charge. I think that stability of the atomic structure depends on the correlation of these measures - size/weight of the "electrons", their distance from the nucleus, their charge/gravity, and their orbital movement speed, and orbit's shape. It seems to be really complex. That's why I propose to return back to planetary model of the atom. Revisiting it we may be able to find some answers on how Solar system functions and how atomic structure may function. And eventual purpose of understanding gravitation and the ways how to overcome it - to take off the Earth easier and move with the speed of the light and above.

Let's make another small exercise about particle masses (see table above for source information). Taking relative neutron's mass to be 1, proton's mass to be 0.99862349 of the neutron's mass, and electron's mass to be 0.00054386734 of the neutron's mass, we get mass of Oxygen's nucleus is 8+8*0.99862349 = 15.98898792 of mass of neutron. If we suppose Sun to be a nucleus with its mass of 332900 masses of Earth, and all planets (including asteroid belt) mass to be 445.978 of Earth mass, we get average mass of Solar system's average "electron" to be 0.002677507 of the Solar system's "neutron". Comparing to atomic-scale size of the electron (0.00054386734) we see that in Solar system scale the average "electron" is bigger than on atomic scale by 4.92308856 times. I say - only 5 times, given we scale from less than yocto (9.10938291E-31 kg mass of atomic electron) to Yotta (5.97219E24 kg mass of Earth) measures. This is unbelievable.

I make bold assumption #2: our system is a part of the bigger system, and similar different scale parts are designed the same way.

We have a number of star systems around us. They are also atoms on the macro scale, performing specific functions within the universe. They all constitute higher-level, larger substance. Let's dream - our solar system is an atom of Oxygen, and Milky Way is artery filled with fusion of various systems, which provide some higher level service to the larger substance. They all move, interact and transform - according to some very specific rules we do not know exactly yet. Can we look around and find any similarities at the level of our scale?

Next, why solar system and galaxy are expanding? They are growing. Like our children. They develop. Imagine that all we see around is internals of some huge living being, and we play the role in its life, extremely small for that being, but very important for us. We were "born" together with this huge living being, from reaction between spermatozoid and ovicell, which created the phenomenon we call "big bang", and it is currently growing. As we are, human being, it will grow, mature, and die, together with us and our solar system. If we will understand the scope of our human being, we may be able to prolong our living, the question is will it prolong the living of huge living being, or serve as a cancer causing premature death to this creature.

I support professor Wun-Yi Shu in his statement that there's no singularity state in our universe. Beginning of anything is a logical event, preceded by the fusion of vital substance holding information giving birth to new structures. These structures then grow, learn and change, colliding with each other giving birth to new structures in specific circumstances. At the end of its lifecycle structures and substance dissolve, and this logical event we call the death. But death is just the beginning... of life in different state.

We should expect events which can transform us and space between us. Like human being, when sick, takes a pill, consumes antibiotics, something unknown may come from the outer space. And we should be ready for this... Higher-order antibiotics may kill us or make us stronger, and we would better be prepared.

I make bold assumption #3: our world consists of smaller parts, and similar different scale parts are designed the same way.

We are, by ourselves, consist of small parts. We operate at sizes comparable to us, and modern science now goes in both directions - trying to understand what is inside us and what is outside us. I claim that we consist of smaller parts, and those smaller parts consist of even smaller parts - smaller Solar systems and Milky Ways.

I make bold assumption #4: the consistency of Universe is unlimited.

We will not be able to learn unlimited nature of ourselves - in both micro and macro directions, and we should be aware about it. In applied science we should strive with utilitarian approach - being able to operate substances at the different levels achieving tolerable performance level with defined probability. Non est finis perfectionis.

Our hardware - substance - is what we can sense, and what we are able to cognize. One human being may do many useful things for self, but many human beings - society - will be able to do much more. The only matter is if human race will be considered by the universe as a normal development, or a cancer which should be eliminated. If we will continue killing our planet by technology transformations without renewing its environment - by keeping our current mindset and behavior and moving without strategic thinking towards higher level order, if we will not get out of the Earth to other planets and systems in time, we will either kill ourselves or die from externally coming antibiotics.

So now we come from the hard part to the soft part describing the informational nature of the structures of our substance, and principles of social existence.

Part 2: Software - the Spirit

In general, I define software as deliberately structured pieces of hardware at the designated level, which is given initial impulse for structural development.

How we live, our culture and religion are constituents of the software executing within our human hardware (substance-body). We may call this software as Spirit or Soul.

There're several important aspects of the software execution - or Spirit development:

• As we grow, our human substance develops and changes, and software changes with it. If we look at the individual doing something useful, we can see him acquiring skills in what he does - and it is exactly the development of his hardware and software - altogether. An example could be child who learns to walk. His legs - hardware - grow, adapting for the standing up and walking, and then child and his parents change the software by making attempts to stand up and walk. It changes the life of the child. We do not appreciate it much simply because it is considered as normal process of child development.
• During development, software, or Spirit, can change itself, creating new thoughts and functionalities of our internal and external substance. We operate rewritable memory, and are able to modify our data space as well as code space. Creativity is then an ability to continually synthesize new executable code from the patterns of data detected, and extension of the hardware in order to run new code.
• Every human individual lives in the socium, and has by default pieces of software installed to operate in this group. There're several levels of default software - family microlevel and religious macrolevel. Childhood is the most important time for the human individual's development, because family environment uploads vital operating software to the child's substance - all the child fears, aspirations, and sense of the relationship between family members will practically last throughout the life of human. Religious macrolevel is a set of executable code providing operational support for the human in wider socium and in the ambiguous situations. These are guiding principles, or Values, helping individual to distinguish between harmful and useful developments in the hardware and software - internal and external to him. In Christianity Eucharist is an action of confirmation of individual having genuine Holy software installed, and Confession is software anti-viral checking, and process of application of the patches.
• Clergymen - those who are representatives of the God for believers - serve important role within the society and human development in general. They provide external arbitration and judgment for the situations individual is having problems qualifying using his internal Holy software. Thus clergymen hold very significant power over the individuals and society in overall. In my opinion, movement for God denial is partially targeting for removal of this power from the clergymen in belief that they are also human beings, and may adopt harmful software (or devilish code) and start using their power in their own interests, or, in wider sense, against interests of the local and global socium and single human being checked for software installed during the audience.

Let me tell you a story. Some time at the beginning of 2000s I was flying for the technical training from Moscow to Geneva. I used to do it often that time, but there was one flight which changed me. I got to plane, sat down, waiting for other passengers putting their baggage and sitting down preparing for takeoff. I was sitting in aisle, and was wondering who will be sitting with me. The old man with a child approached me, asking to let him pass to the seats near me. We all afraid of unknown and different things, including me; this man was different. The difference was very noticeable. I think he was Dagestan of Chechen nationality, and he was Muslim. I am not Muslim, and was very afraid of talking about sensitive matters with "different" people. I was sitting kind of fearing what will happen next. I will not tell you in detail what have happened during the flight. We had long and deep talk about Muslim religion, and I left the plane with clear understanding that this different man was actually very like me. His religion has the same values and set of behaviors which I conform. He was very wise. He knew his religion, and touched me with it. I thank God, Allah and divine intent that I have met him.

My logical conclusion was that the religion is an important integral piece of our behavior towards our substance targeted to keep the balance of it. It is extremely important piece of our software, loaded shortly after our birth. All religions are originally based on the same principles of avoiding conflict and prolonging life and happiness.

It is noticeable that religious institutes, following contemporary non-believers' trends, start operating as for-profit businesses, and it leads to losing their societal functions, and to deterioration of the Values in overall. This is destructive trend, and not only for society, but also to clergy itself. At some point of time human beings will decide that clergy does not support their purpose and well-being, and change to non-believers, or Atheists, or turn to another religious code. It may partially explain why we have increased religious conversion rates in last decades.

Current attempts of some groups of people to distort religious rules and Value caused by the competition. We start competing with each other, because our substance goes scarce, and what is also extremely important - genuine Holy software running in humanity mutates and deteriorates. It happens because of globalization, when religious programs clash, and we, as global society, fail to reconcile the Values and behaviors of individuals and groups running different versions of Holy software. There're three fields in which we may seek a solution - (a) in the sanation of the clergy and its consumer services (role in the society), (b) in deep analysis of major religions and finding similarities and differences for society to unite and have clear points of toleration - and teaching them to the human, and (c) expanding our field of resources by developing the space around us.

I strongly believe that while initially all religions look different, they have same core. Like different programming languages - they may look totally different in semantics, but perform same functions. Whatever programming language we are programmed with, there should be an application interface reconciling behavior of various believers at the core level.

Let me elaborate on one separate operating mode, called Atheism. It is said that atheistic people deny the existence of theos, even thinking that it is not their task to prove that there's no theos, but it is theists' task to prove that theos exists. Or atheistic people just do not know about the notion of God. Theos, or God, is a regulating authority, setting rules of the behavior of the individual and monitoring their execution (for example see 1 Corinthians 4, Paul's Appeal and Warning). The rules are supported by the Values, which goal, as I mentioned earlier, to support existence of the individual and society, and their development. Believers are ruled and monitored remotely by the God, and by self believing in the God's occasional and unexpected checks of what they think, say, and how responsibly they use their powers. Atheists are ruled and monitored by themselves, other individuals and nature, but that absolutely does not mean that atheists equate themselves to Gods. Simply because if we would consider every atheist to be the god (for self and for society), notion of God would just be meaningless for society of atheists - if everyone is god, then none is god neither.

Thus my conclusion is that for believers and atheists mechanism of external regulation of their execution differs - for believers it is powerful and rightful notion of imperceptible God, for atheists it is everything they can sense and cognize. And both have one important similarity - believers put their cognition boundary too far away from their cognition abilities, and atheists limit their cognition only by what they can sense and imagine basing on their senses.

Here we see again - macro and micro spiritual and cognition attempt levels of the development and regulation. They are just two extremes of the cognition scale. As farther we stretch our knowledge and understanding into the unlimited nature of the substance - inside and outside of us, the closer these views will be - not in the sense of making unlimited limited or making limited unlimited, but in the sense of clearer understanding how religious Values and behaviors support our being, and why they have definitive right to exist.

Conclusions

Here're my current conclusions from the theory, I would call them The Goals:

• There're planetary systems like ours in the universe. We should keep searching, and developing advanced technologies which would bring us there. Probably it is rightful goal for current humanity stretching itself to the space rather than conflicting with each other on the Earth;
• There should be specific level of particle miniaturization when we should be able to reproduce our substance with specific probability of its continuing reliable operation. The primary application of it could be substance transmission. Note that information is an Order of the substance;
• We should strive to maintaining status quo, and plan to die naturally. If we will destabilize the overall system our Solar system may collapse by itself (e.g. by becoming unstable isotope), or external event will kill us unprepared;
• We should acquire new resources as soon as possible otherwise humanity will destroy itself. We should keep those resources renewable as much as possible. At the same time keep human being allocation structure ready for disaster recovery given our researched macro scope;
• We should connect all the "Holy software versions" - all religions - around the globe, finding similarities and differences. Religions should unite and help human beings interact in positive and constructive way rather than differentiate and create oppositions;
• We should stop indicating our presence in the universe in hope finding some other civilizations. If we are a virus, we risk attracting anti-viruses. If we are anti-virus, we risk of not accomplishing our task by the external virus taking over us while we are not ready in our knowledge and technological development. We should otherwise watch the universe, because we are not yet ready and not prepared for planetary disaster recovery.

Some closing words

Every human being should have a right to have a reason and purpose to exist. If we do not have any purpose - we do not have a right to exist. Always remember it.

Our educational system is deteriorating - partially because it is now run as a business, not primarily for societal benefit. This situation will lead to less educated talent able to lead technological breakthroughs in order to achieve our Goals I listed above. We should be quick and firm.

Sources and information for further reading

• Jefferson Lab (2014) How are electrons placed in shells around the nucleus?, available online at https://education.jlab.org/qa/atomicstructure_06.html, accessed on 09-Jan-2015.
• Jefferson Lab (2014) What are the exact relative masses of protons, neutrons and electrons?, available online at https://education.jlab.org/qa/particlemass_02.html, accessed on 09-Jan-2015.
• Wun-Yi Shu/許文郁 (2010) Cosmological Models with No Big Bang, available online at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf, accessed on 13-Jan-2015.
• Wikipedia (2014) Theory of everything, available online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything, accessed on 09-Jan-2015.
• Wikipedia (2014) Solar system, available online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System, accessed on 09-Jan-2015.

Title image credit: ESO, European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere

The article initially appeared at the GR8BIT website (dated 09 Jan 2015).

Constructive and/or fact-based comments are welcome!