M. DAVIDOV

STACKED UNIVERSE or

Where Does the Castle Go?

2017

2

"If you build a sandcastle at the beach and then

knock it down—where does the castle go?"

Amanda Gefter, “Trespassing the Einstein Lawn”

3

“When God created space

– he created a lot of it!”

An old Irish proverb

slightly modified.

4

“Say what you will,

Professor, but you have

thought up something that

makes no sense. It may be

clever, but it altogether is

too abstruse. People will

laugh at you…”.

M. Bulgakov, Master and

Margarita

5

PART 1. Rebus

1. World – exists.

2. By “world” (depending on the context) we understand either 1) the

grand total of spatial extension, material entities and forces

(energies) presented at every singular state of the world, or, 2) the

grand total of all the states of the world as a whole.

3. Thus (in a sense of 1)), a state of the world is a singular grand total

of spatial extension, material entities and forces (energies)

altogether confined by and presented within a respective

(dimensional) space – before it is “replaced” by the next, following

state of the world. It is a material entity.

4. Thus, each state of the world, starting from Number 1 – precedes

one and only one next (following) state of the world (Numbers 2, 3,

etc.) and is the only, so called, “internal” cause of the

aforementioned state of the world.

5. Here, a diminisher “so called” is just a marker, indicating that the

“cause-effect” implementation is not homogeneous, but is an

aggregate of more than one “participant” (see further).

6. The trinity of the absolute fundamentals of the world is Space,

Energy, and Matter. (“Information” is, for now, not included in the

fundamentals because, ultimately, it is a derivative (possibly,

reversible) of Matter and/or Energy, see 167.).

6

7. Though Energy and Matter are, strictly speakin g, can be viewed as

correlates, it is methodologically justified (see further) to award them

the statuses of independent entities.

8. The modus operandi of the world is a perpetual motion.

7

PART 2. Progressionem et Mutationem

9. The manifestation of the matter in any form and substance – is a

material entity, or a material object (elementary, or composite).

Material entities (objects) are imperatively spatially shaped, defined

– they have borders, contours – in all, generally, external material

boundaries (EMB).

10. “Growing” is an increase of the numeric value of the parameter

characterizing the “quantity” of space occupied by an object/entity

within the “dimensionally” respective “container”.

11. Accordingly, “shrinking” is a decrease of the said parameter.

12. Growing and shrinking are called the “external developments”.

13. That what does not grow or shrink may, still , undertake changes.

14. The changes that do not implement growth or shrinkage are called

“ internal developments”.

15. Thus, what does not grow or shrink stil l may develop.

16. All developments may occur only within the respective existing

EMB.

17. A development that stipulates an increase or decrease of the EMB

of a given material entity/object may, also, along with spatial

alterations, cause changes of the essence of a given entity/object, or

– it may not (see further).

8

18. A development that affects spatia l localization and/or spatial

parameters within the limits of the said entity is a spatial

development.

19. Developments (structural, ‘localizational”, force - or energy

related, etc.) that may alter the “essence” of the “hosting” material

entities are “essence” developments.

20. Each material entity exists (as minimum) in the space of a

respective dimension.

21. The only material entity that does not have “space” to exist in – is

an Absolute Space, an Absolute Infinite Container (AIC). For the

purposes of our further introspections we assume that AIC is a

material entity (though not exactly – and intuitively – of the same

kind as all other material entities. Perhaps, we can look at it as at an

entity of “material potentiality” – whatever it might mean…)

22. Everything else that exists, or might exist – does exist in AIC,

within its unlimited spatial extension.

23. It is not clear how many dimensions (or, more precise, what we

call dimensions) AIC has, but, based on reasonable assumptions and

the ultimate objective of this treatise, it is needed (and plausible)

that it would have more than three dimensions.

24. All that exists, or may exist in AIC – are material entities of

several kinds.

9

25. Thus, all material entities (besides AIC) are finite.

26. The material entities might differ in their nature and in the ways

they develop and change, “under the supervision” of the different

“laws of Nature” - with one exception of a paramount significance.

Namely, starting from the state of the world Number 1 and further on

– all material entities are an absolute subject to the “cause -effect”

law: the origin and the essence of every following state of the world is

determined by each preceding state of the world – where

“determined” does not at all mean “pre-determined”, or “predicted”.

27. One of the examples of such spatial entity – is our Universe. Yes,

it is finite.

10

PART 3. Magnum et Parvum

28. Changes and developments are the processes that never stop

unless a material entity they manifest themselves through, and in,

and are tied to – seizes to exist (ergo, seizes to have its

“boundaries”).

29. All material entities may seize to exist at some point. The only

exception from this – is AIC.

30. All material entities (besides AIC) at some point came into

existence.

31. It means, that at the point of an emergence, they “started” to

occupy some space within a hierarchy of spaces; they “started” to

acquire (or preserve) spatial dimensions.

32. An important pragmatic (and, again, methodological) dist inction

between space, energy and matter should be introduced.

33. Here are the preliminary “kitchen definitions”.

34. Everything that “reasonably” can be addressed, treated or

interpreted as not space is matter.

35. Every material entity that has boundaries within an “enveloping”

space is matter.

36. That what prompts changes and developments in matter – is

energy.

11

37. There are two fundamental levels of existence and performance

with regards to matter and energy. Those are, respectively, “macro”-

level and “micro”-level.

38. Each material entity that can unequivocally be “treated” as an

entity with material “boundaries” – is a macro-entity.

39. A macro-entity always has a certain “localization” status.

40. A macro-entity with a localization status (actual or potential) is

called “an object”.

41. A potential localization status is not a probabilistic status. It is a

fixed (or, calculable) range of localizations of an object respectively

correlated to the possible affecting forces applied.

42. All material entities that do not fall under the aforementioned

descriptions and definitions are – micro-entities.

43. The nature of micro-entities (of the micro-world) may be very

complex and of a paramount importance for the functioning of the

macro-world. But for the goals and objectives of these introspections

– they are not relevant. The current discourse is focused on macro-

world only .

44. It would be invaluable to fully understand how micro-world

affects the macro-world. But this knowledge will not add anything

significant to the problematics of our treatise.

12

PART 4. Statūs de Mundi

45. The process of the successions of the states of the wor ld is a

continuous one at the micro-level and discrete (denumerable) at the

macro-level.

46. The “distance” between two successive states of the world on a

macro-level has a real value , admeasurement, which is a constant by

default.

47. The said value, i.e. the physical admeasurement of the “distance”

that separates each two successive states of the world is rather

speculative and instrumental (which does not imply that it may not,

at some point, be objectively discovered and calculated), and thus, as

such, can be established rather arbi trary, or pragmatically.

48. Each following state of the world, “normally”, should be different

from the preceding one in, at least, one “displaced” , or, “deformed”

entity of a macro-dimensional level, or of its part or element

(“belonging” to it).

49. Of a minor significance, though still worth of mentioning, a

chance exists that a certain n+1 state of the world would happen to

be an exact copy of a certain “prior” state of the world. That does not

mean that the world “returned” into the “past” (th is treatise

absolutely denies the concept of “time”, as such; the world does not

have “past” – only “passed”). It just means that the world

13

“accidentally” produced an exact “replica” of one of the previous

states of the world.

14

Potissimus

50. The central point of this work is a statement (declaration) that all

the states of the world are material entities which – being once

implemented – do not “disappear”, but remain (are preserved),

somewhat1, intact in the unceasingly growing “body” of the Universe.

We cal l this phenomenon a “Preservation Principle” (PP) .

1 In a sense addressed below, especially in Part 5 and 6.

15

PART 5. Rex Extensa

51. With respect to a material spatial entity which we call (our)

Universe – does (and did) not exist any material spatial entity

preceding it in AIC.

52. In other words, the Universe did not exist in AIC before the first

state of the world (which is the first state of our Universe) emerged

somewhere in AIC.

53. This state of the world Number 1 – equaled our Universe, it was

our Universe, because there were no any states of the world

preceding it.

54. We suggest honoring this state of the world Number 1 – the

beginning of our Universe – by a special designation: α-Point.

55. From α-Point all changes and developments of the Universe

started and continue to be.

56. Now, on a macro-level, for all further introspections – we have to

accept two notion (or, axioms), namely that

- space is a dimensional entity, and

- everything that exists – exists in the realm of the “next” respective

dimension.

57. To exist – is, indeed, to exist sometimes –on, but, mainly, to exist-

in.

16

58. A dot “exists” on a line (one -dimensional space), or, on a plane

(two-dimensional space), or, in space (three-dimensional space), etc.

59. A line “exists” on a plane, or in space, etc.

60. A plane “exists” in space, etc.

61. A solid “exists” in the “space” of the “next” dimension, etc. (we

can assume, or, even, accept, or – put it this way - that: dimensions

are associated with the whole numbers ; whether it is so in reality – is

not of relevance. Thus, let them (dimensions) be a “whole numbers

succession”).

62. It is generally acknowledged that our world has three spatial

dimensions.

63. The Universe exists in AIC.

64. Since we determined that for the “solids”, material macro-entities

(including our Universe) to “exist” means to “exist- in”– it, also,

means that the absolute, “supreme” container, the AIC, has,

inevitably, to be, at least, one dimension “further” than three -

dimensional.

65. Thus, by our assumption, it has to be, as minimum, four-

dimensional.

66. Due to an extreme difficulty for us to “visualize” the processes

within a three-dimensional world sub specia of the four-dimensional

17

vantage point – we are turning now to the analyses and

introspections with regards to the processes in our Universe (on a

macro-level!) using as a model a two-dimensional Universe in a three-

dimensional AIC.

67. We are absolutely convinced that this dimens ional “reduction” ,

performed as a methodological apparatus for the convenience of

“visualization”, will not corrupt anything important and/or

fundamental with respect to the presentation, description and

analysis of the processes that occur in our “real”, three-dimensional

Universe.

68. We will be referring (depending on what we need to see or show)

to a singular state of the world through a palette of memes – “a

sheet”, or “a slice”, or “an integument”, or “a pellicle”, or “a shawl”,

or “a mantle”, or “a cape”, or “a blanket”, or “a shell”.

69. Along with the word “growing” we will be using, as synonyms, the

“terms” “piling up” and “adding up”.

70. We will be using “terms” “ layer” and “stratum” to define a finite

integral totality of continuously successive “sheets”, “pellicles”, etc.

71. So, we start with a scenario within which the first state of the

world, the α-Point , is a “sheet”, a “two-dimensional” (as an ideal

object; in “reality” it has “thickness”) material entity of a certain

configuration and size.

18

72. It is the beginning of our Universe.

73. Starting from the emergence of the α-Point, the first state of the

world - our Universe is in an unceasing “business” of fabrication of

the – following one after another – states of the world.

74. For understanding and describing the said process – it is of a

paramount importance to look at the creation of the states of the

world Number 2 and Number 3. What’s happening there sets forth a

template of what and how takes place further on - as a manifestation

and replication of an established pattern.

19

PART 6. Ad Arbitrium

75. So, let’s , first, analyze what happens (or, might happen) in the

process of the appearance of – following α-Point - the state of the

world Number 2.

76. A priori, two scenarios seem plausible. Though caused by

different “prompters” – they will implement and result in an identical

outcome, namely: the same state of the world Number 2 would be

“generated” by α-Point and come into existence.

Let’s call these scenarios “internal” and “internal -external”.

77. The “internal” scenario implies that after its emergence – the

state of the world Number 1, α-Point, our new-born Universe – is no

further on and whatsoever a subject to any impact or effect from the

AIC. In other words – all that is needed for our Universe to continue

to be and evolve (matter in whatever form, energy – in whatever

state, space – in whatever potentiality), everything, should we

repeat, contains inside it, within its limits, “borders”.

78. In this case α-Point is the sole and only cause of the following

state of the world Number 2. Energies, forces and matter set in

motion and interdependence by, possibly, fundamental “rules of the

game”, i.e. physical laws - plus an abundance of external. AIC’s space

available – produce the state of the world Number 2 different from α-

Point in one detail .

20

79. The last italics points out to an interesting and important problem

of the arbitrariness in defining what state of the world actually is.

The answer to the problem lays in the plane of distinction between

macro- and micro worlds (see 43. and 44.).

80. Thus, following the guidelines we set for ourselves, a change of

“one detail” constitutes a new “object”.

81. Let us remind that a material object is an object of the macro

world, and as such it is determined by the matter (substance) and

energy it contains, “consists” of - within its unalienable borders . Since

the idea (and a problem) of the “border” is of a crucial importance for

us – some clarifications should be introduced.

82. For the material objects in macro-world the existence of a border

is absolutely “binary” , it is 1/0, “there is” , or ”there is not”

dichotomy. The border is a part of the object’s matter . It belongs to

the object and to the object only.

83. The nature of the object’s matter (depending on the

forces/processes associated with and within it) may, eventually ,

constitute “altered” variables of the given object, but those should be

treated (pending on the methods and criteria of calibration) as

formally independent other objects.

84. Let’s look in this connection and just for an example at two

objects - a “flower” and a “fragrant flower”.

21

85. The difference lays in the “bordered” matter and matter’s

“distribution”.

86. Let’s make a drawing of a flower and agree that it is a flower,

indeed. Here it is.

87. In a spacey “room” of the three-dimensional AIC – “floats” and

constantly grows a ream of paper (say, A4 format), representing,

conditionally, our growing Universe. Let’s “freeze” the process. On

the top sheet - we have a “drawn” image of an object of a certain

configuration – a flower. It is contoured – in a sense that all macro-

world elements and substances of this particular flower that

determine and constitute it - occupy a certain “space” on the sheet

and has definite unequivocal borders.

22

88. Now, let’s make on the “next” sheet a drawing of the same

flower, but “enrich” it with a “smell”, which we’ll depict (in a comics -

like way) by putting dots around its head.

23

Here it is.

89. The object here is the same flower with additional 20 dots

(disregard the face with the nose) intended to show that the flower

“smells”; those are micro -elements (“micro” here stands for “very

small”, but they are still macro-elements!), the material (corporeal)

entities which will affect in a due way the respective centers in the

nose, will be registered, will reach through the respective “conduits”

the brain, etc.

90. Sure, it is a pretty complex “object”, and some important issues

here should be addressed. But, f irst, a point should be made (or,

rather, a reminder). A flower with 20 dots is the gradually obtained

24

state of the world which is the result of the huge number of the

preceding states (“sheets”) of the world (again, with respect to the

chosen modus of calibration), including the “bearing” states with 19

dots, 18 dots, and so on.

91. It’s obvious, that the “final”, exemplary state of the world with 20

dots differs from the “final”, exemplary state of the world with 19

dots in “one” detail. Now, we put “one” in quote marks for a reason,

for, strictly speaking, it is not quite true. It is, if we can put it this

way, a dynamic truth with an arbitrary determination. The problem

here is of the same nature as the “zenonian” problem of determining

how one can reach natural number 20 moving to it from natural

number 19 considering an infinite set of rational and real numbers

between them.

92. Our response, then, is very simple, though a little bit rude – “let

the dead bury their own dead”.

93. For the purposes of pursuing the core objectives of the given

treatise (see 50.) and its crucial implications – we will frivolously

ignore (at least, for now) all the plethora of challenging issues tied to

whatever “zenonian” problems inherent to the continuously

developing Universe of ours. We will stick to the arbitrary solution

with respect to dynamic truth – as long as we deal with a macro-

world palimpsest of the – originally and actually – micro-world

prompted and sustained incunabula .

25

94. The contour of the object “a flower with 20 dots” is, certainly, not

as obvious as a contour of an object “a flower”. It is a composite

entity with elements detached from the “main” body and dispersed in

space. Thus, it is, strictly speaking, not a “soli d” material object , but

one with “gaps”, with “empty” spaces “inside” it.

95. Naturally, the word “empty” refers only to the graphic

representation of the whole situation, namely, to the fact that we see

untouched and unspotted white (if our paper is white, indeed) space

on a part of our untouched and unspotted (besides a drawing of a

flower and 20 dots surrounding its head) sheet of paper. In reality –

these “empty” gaps are filled with forces, energies, fields ( and,

actually, by other non-related to our “fragrant flower” object,

elements of different nature and sizes - a bee, for example) – i.e.

filled with whatever is/are the essence/-es of each and every state of

the Universe (our Sheet of Paper). How, then, the contour of our

composite object can be established?

96. To address this problem - we suggest a rather simple solution –

again, remembering that we are “working” with the macro -world and

in full accord with the core principle and our fundamental objective.

It is a “spatial solution”, or, more precise and, if possible, a

“minimum space” solution.

97. We, reasonably, assume that our drawing (a flower with 20 dots)

can be cut out with the help of scissors. Let’s, then, do it by moving

our scissors along the edges of the flower and along the “shortest”

26

lines connecting all the “external” dots (there always will be

“external” dots ) of the “fragrance”. The result will be an intricately

contoured piece of paper with a drawing of our fragrant flower.

98. We have now our object. Let’s call it F20.

99. In a similar way we can make a flower with 19 dots (cutting it out

from the “previous” sheet of paper) . Let’s call this object F19.

100. Then, in the light of all we’ve just established – F20 differs from

F19 in just one detail.

101. There are several important questions to be answered and

several important implications to be considered in this connection.

Let’s look at those.

102. First of all, let us remind ourselves that F19 and F20 are two

different macro-objects, and as such they should have their

respective borders. In the most simplistic way it should not be

difficult to grasp – in the end, they are two different configurations

on two different sheets of paper. But from what was pointed to in 82.

and in connection with the dynamic truth concept (91.) – our sheets

of paper (and they are States of the World!) – are unlike the “real”

ones – they are (sorry, for this horrible term) “post -bordered”.

103. In other words – each state of the world (sheet) is “squeezed”

between two borders. One border belongs to the given state of the

world (for example, F19), it is a previous border, a “page”, a state of

27

the world, and the other one, the following one, which it creates –

belongs to the next “page”, state of the world.

104. The stack of individual, singular – but, still, continuously flowing

from the previous to the following - sheets called Universe is piling

up.

105. Now we have to look at why and how each following state of the

world comes into being.

106. In 78. it was established that “α-Point is the sole and only cause

of the following state of the world Number 2. Energies, forces and

matter set in motion and interdependence by, possibly, fundamental

“rules of the game”, i.e. physical laws - plus an abundance of space

available – produce the state of the world Number 2…”

107. We just presume that α-Point has its border separating it from

the AIC. Otherwise, it would not be the α -Point. It contains all the

energy and substance that would prompt the process of the Univer se

growth. This Grand Total of whatever α-Point contains will -

“through” the respective (and very specially “designed” – see about it

further) borders – “flows”, “fuses” through and into each and every

following state of the world being consequently generated – till the

focus of our attention, a first macro-object comes into existence. The

macro-world – The Machina Mundi, the Celestial Mechanics - starts.

With its sequence of the states of the world and with a fundamental

law launched with emergence of α -Point still being intact: the state of

28

the world Number N is the sole and only cause of the following state

of the world Number N+1.

108. On a macro- level, in the first, “internal”, scenario (which we are

looking at now) - the emergence of each following state of the world

is caused by the forces (energies) inherent in each preceding state of

the world only. Their “grand total” is comprised of the three “types”

of energy - presented at every state (on every sheet): the preserved

“supplying” energy that “entered” into our world along with

emergence of α-Point, “kinetic” energy of each object of the given

state of the world and, respectively, its “potential” energy.

109. While the last two types of energy are somewhat (but not

without certain reservations) obvious – the first one, the “supplying”

energy, needs some scrutiny.

110. And the principle thing that should be discussed in this

connection – is a) whether we need this concept at all, b) whether

this energy is finite, and, if so, c) how heavy are the stocks of it - if it

is finite.

111. It is with a deep regret that we have to admit that at this stage

we do not have an answer to either one of those three questions.

112. But.

113. This treatise is not on cosmology (though it touches, or

scratches, here and there, on the surface of it).

29

114. It is a treatise on Preservation Principle for the macro-world.

115. And it is only with this objective in mind that we have to and can

accept the fact that any answers to the posed questions would

change nothing (well, almost nothing) with respect to the final

conclusions.

116. Regardless of the actual nature of the prompting forces and the

manner of their manifestation – the fundamental outcome is all the

same: the state of the world N+1 is created by the grand total of the

forces contained in and affecting all elements of the state of the

world number N.

117. Before moving to the second, “internal -external” scenario, we

have to relate on the fundamental nature of the AIC “substance”.

Presumably, there are two options here. Either AIC lacks any qualities

whatsoever, it “contains” an absolute “nothingness”, a really “empty”

container – or, it is “filled” (uniformly, non -uniformly, in a “patch-

like” manner, etc.) with something that we can call in “familiar”

terms as – energy, power field, “Aethereal Medium”, cosmic “wind”,

etc.

118. The “absolute nothing” does not feel good and proper to our

reason (no matter how grandeur or limited we are). “Nothing comes

from nothing” leaves no possibilities to come into existence to

anything which is “something”.

30

119. Thus, let us assume that AIC is a sort of a Leiden Jar, meaning

that it is a container ““filled” (uniformly, non-uniformly, in a “patch-

like” manner, etc.) with something that we can call in “familiar”

terms as – energy, power field (-s), “Aethereal Medium”, cosmic

“wind”, etc.” (117.)

120. What, then, would it mean in terms of supplying with “energy”

our Universe and the latter’s development?

31

PART 7. Membranae

121. By the very core of what we had postulated in the beginning of

our treatise – our Universe, starting with α-Point, is “covered” with

some kind of an integument .

122. This integument is an external boundary of the “supreme”

material entity which we call Universe. It encases our Universe - thus

distinguishing it and spatially defining, shaping it from and within the

unfathomable infinite realms of the AIC.

123. From this follows that it inherently belongs to the Universe, is a

“part” of it, and is a material entity – subject to developments and

changes.

124. It also follows that each state of the world (in the system of our

concepts) is a “one-sided coin” , it has one (and only one) integument

of its own separating it from the previous state of the world (see

below).

125. For the three-dimensional world we can imagine this integument

as indefinitely spatially stretchable “film”, “mantle” that came into

existence with the emerged Universe, constantly growing and/or

dynamically changing - thus reflecting the “shape” of the Universe,

and subject to evanescence along with the Universe if it seizes to

exist.

32

126. Unlike Universe’s – the integuments separating the consequent

states of the worlds, one from another, are, in a sense, not

“stretchable”, and, moreover, are not changeable in any way like the

whole “content” (to which they belong) of any given state of the

world after it occurs (see below).

127. The counterpart of the integument in the two -dimensional

world, the world of our “analogical” analyses, is a sort of

“lamination” .

128. We established, as a fundamental principle, that the

development of the Universe (in whatever form) is the unceasing

process of transitions of the preceding states of the world to the

following states of the world. For this process to take place – it has to

be, respectively, sustained through and by the unceasingly acting

forces that stipulate the said development.

129. The most challenging problem for understanding (or assuming)

how these forces “work” (for the “internal -external” scenario)

concerns the substance, level of, and, especially, speed and the

ways/means by which the external energy , the “energy” of AIC, enters

each following state of the world without affecting whatsoever the

previous state (-s) of the world.

130. Our vision is that it “sips” through the “laminates” which, in

reality, are semi-permeable membranes.

33

131. Yet before we move further with our introspections – we have to

put (and to answer) a “simple” question: what necessity (in the

broadest possible sense) drives the material entit ies to manifest

themselves in respective actions – be it an emittance of a wave, or a

particle, gravitation, or repulsion, and so on… Basically, “out of what

does ether feed the stars?...” (De Rerum Natura, Lucretius).

132. Everything looks pretty simple w ithin a realm of “sheets of

paper” analogy. Every new state of the world is just nothing but a

new “individual” sheet of paper with a drawing “slightly” (in a

described before sense – Part V and beyond) different than the

preceding one in a growing pile.

133. But here, though, we have a, somewhat, tricky problem of

assessing of what, in reality, is a “drawing”, especially, a drawing

called Universe.

134. The “drawing” called Universe is a grand total of all its existing

“drawings” (contours) within a given sheet of paper (state of the

world) on the background of the “empty” (actual ly, of a micro-world’s

nature) spaces (gaps, blanks) spreading throughout and covering all

the space circumscribed by the current contour of the Universe.

135. Let’s turn , first, to one heresy, and, second, to one craziness.

136. The “heresy” will sound as the “law of energy conservation for a

singular state of the world” .

34

137. The “craziness” does not have a “physical” ground at all, it is just

a liberty, a whim of a pure imagination when we will endow the

subjects and entities of our principle actors – sheets of paper and

drawings on them – with various “real” manifesting forces and

qualities.

138. As it was established earlier – the state of the world is the state

of the grand total of all its entities. It was, also, assumed that the

grand total of the “energy” of a given state of the world (being a

grand total, or a sum energy of all its components) is “transferred” to

the next state of the world minus the amount of dissipated energy

“lost’” by the entities involved in a processes of their respective

activities.

139. Is there, really, a “minus”?

140. First, here is a reminder (see 45, and, respectively, 46 -48): “The

process of the successions of the states of the world is a contin uous

one at the micro-level and discrete (denumerable) at the macro -

level”.

141. It, then, means, besides other things, that all “energy” of the

preceding state of the world is “delivered” to the next state of the

world - in and by the process of the world modus operandi - leaving

the previous state totally and absolutely void of what we will try to

describe and determine below as a purposeful (teleological), or

principal “energy” of intended (or, un - intendent) “Zilverfolgung”

35

(apologies for the German word, but could not find any more

adequate in English).

142. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of

an isolated system remains constant. While not arguing (for now)

with the “Holy Cow” of physics – let’s look at whether what we are

describing is inconsistent with this mantra.

143. Indeed, what we are trying to convey here (in a most simplistic

and not, at all, strict way) is an idea that energy -wise each material

body in the world can be viewed from a double perspective . On one

side – it is a “reservoir” of all energies per se associated with it. On

the other side – it is the same “reservoir” of the same “energies”

needed for the performance, acting, work of the said body in

accordance with its core intended, purposeful, teleological f unction –

Zilverfolgung. To illustrate this distinction – let’s look at three

random examples.

144. Let’s turn first, to an alkaline battery.

145. Here is just one of the possible descriptions of our object:

“Primary (single-use or "disposable") batteries are used once and

discarded; the electrode materials are irreversibly changed during

discharge. Common example is an alkaline battery used for flashlights

and a multitude of portable electronic devices”.

146. It’s pretty obvious, that the Zilverfolgung of the battery is to

supply energy, say, to a flashlight. It’s, also, obvious, that at each

36

new state of the world the battery has less energy to carry on its

“mission” and purpose – and, at a certain point (at a certain stage of

the world) our battery “dies”. Which means that, while still remaining

a battery by its appearance, size, weight, inherent “internal” “micro-

world’ish” energy it contains (huge! – as any correlated energy of

mass of any material object), etc. – it seizes to be a battery by

Zilverfolgung criteria. All respective and relevant energy was given

away.

147. Because of the irreversibility of changes during discharge

(starting from the first state of the world with our battery in action) -

this battery can not be teleologically “resurrected” after its “death”.

(But what is of a paramount importance in this case – and in all other

cases of this kind, with respect to each, any , and all objects of all,

each and any state of the world – is the fact that they can be

“resurrected” (though, in a “reduced” capacity) if “treated” for this -

prior to their respective “terminal” state of the world, within a

“layer” of their life-span).

148. If we would have, instead, a rechargeable battery (“Secondary

(rechargeable) batteries can be discharged and recharged multiple

times; the original composition of the electrodes can be restored by

reverse current”) – we could bring it back to “ life” from any state of

the world it belonged to during the process of its purposeful

functioning.

37

149. So, as we see, our first object would have a significant (well,

relatively) discrepancy between its “purposeful” life and its existence

just as a certain object which looks exactly as an alkaline battery, but

incapable of “living” (i.e. functioning) the way it was (intentionally)

designed for. In other words, as a “dead” object it will be present in

the multiple successive states of the world as a “naturally” changing

“useless” object only – til l it seizes to exist as such and won’t be

found anymore starting from a certain, pretty definite state of the

world.

150. We turn to our second object, eventually, just for the reason to

emphasize and to give one more illustration to the – though minor,

but still mattering – observation on a discrepancy between the

“purposeful” and “idle” life-spans of our object.

151. So, “pet water feeder is a device that provides a flow of water

from a container in desired portions - using gravity to drop water

from the tank”. Sure, it’s very similar to the rechargeable battery –

but the difference (if we have the simplest device of this kind) is that

there is no electro-chemical processes (ultimately leading to an

“irreversibility”) are involved, and the “purposeful” and “idle” life -

spans of our object become comparable, and, even, almost identical.

What is interesting here – is the fact that if, say, a container was

made of glass and was broken, or the receptacle, made of plastic,

gave a crack – our object, in a sense, will “die” in both ways -

“purposeful” and “idle”- in the same state of the world. Yes, both

38

components can be replaced by the new ones, but what would

emerge at a certain state of the world will be, formally, a new object

(though, an old one, as well, again, in a sense…). It is noteworthy to

mention here, also, that “ irreversible” process with respect to some

“vital” components of an object should be distinct from

“irreplaceable” components of an object - implying that in the first

case the Zilverfolgung function can not be restored – period, while in

the second case there is a hope that it can be restored provided that

the “replacement parts”, still , can be, somehow, found , or newly

created. This little remark might turn out handy with our musings

over our next object.

152. Here it is, f inally, the most interesting (at least, for the author)

and the most complex and challenging object. Below - just again,

randomly – one of its definitions (from an incredible multitude):

153. “Human being - any living or extinct member of the family

Hominidae characterized by superior intell igence, articulate speech,

and erect carriage”.

154. Technically, our third object would not be so much different

from the previous two – if not one dramatic feature: superior

intelligence. So, leaving aside the taxonomical accommodations

(Hominidae), physical material essence and design (erect carriage,

etc.), and, even, articulate speech (the, so called, “second signal

system”) – let’s focus on something really fundamentally unique.

39

155. Let’s define superior intelligence through its three core

interrelated components – consciousness, reason, memory.

156. A small digression is necessary here.

157. For the final picture of the world we are trying to convey and

depict, for the world shaped and sustained by the suggested modus

operandi and its core fundamental principle, Preservation Principle,

being implemented – it would be helpful to have a special term for

describing and distinguishing the entities with regards to their per se

and Zilverfolgung functions.

158. To this end - we have chosen the idea and the concept of

“Golem”. And, more specifically, the famous Prague Golem, created

by the Maharal of Prague, Judah Loew ben Bezalel.

159. As it is known, this famous Golem was created to protect the

Jewish community of Prague from pogroms . That was this Golem’s

Zilverfolgung mission. The said Golem (as, generally all Golems

through the history) was inactive until the scroll with the word

“emet” (“truth”) was put in the hole of the clay monster’s forehead

(or, written on it) – after which process he was becoming active and

capable of carrying on his mission. The removal of the scroll (or

erasing the first letter of the word turning it into the “met”, “death”)

– deactivated the creature, leaving him waiting for the next

“recharge” when needed.

40

160. Thus, we suggest, that all entities being Zilverfolgung active –

we would call “Active Golem Objects”, or AG-objects. The same

objects which (in the full accord with the Preservation Principle) are

“left behind” in the previous sta tes of the world, possessing the per

se energy and, stil l, potentially Zilverfolgung active - we would call

“Dormant Golem Objects”, or DG -objects. And for the object not

potentially Zilverfolgung active any more, we will reserve the term

“Expired Golem Objects”, or, for the routine uniformity, EG-objects.

161. With this, a really challenging question arises: what kind of

objects (eventually, DG- and EG-objects) are in general, and, among

them, specifically , the human beings “left behind” and preserved i n

all relevant preceding states of the world?

162. We dear to suggest that – unlike AG-objects, which -

conditionally and “metaphorically” speaking – are the “actual”, “ live”,

material objects of each “actual”, “allotted” state of the macro-world

- DG- and EG-objects “turn into” and become, if we could say this, a

kind of “after”- or “post”-objects, of a sorts, and are not the subjects

to the macro-changes and macro- developments any more.

163. If some analogy would help – here is the reference to a certain

concept of thermodynamics (all italics are mine, M.D.): “A system in

thermodynamic equilibrium may, or, may not move with uniform

acceleration through space but must not change its shape or s ize

while doing so; thus it is defined by a rigid volume in space.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium )

41

164. Thus, continuing our last analogy – all the “previous”, preserved

states of the world (containing all respective DG- and EG- objects) – is

the grand total of their respective adiabatic thermodynamic systems

(see next entry).

165. First – original (in Russian), then – translation into English:

"...термодинамической системой называется макроскопическая

система, которая каким-то образом (например, с помощью

реальной или воображаемой оболочки) выделена из окружающей

среды и способна взаимодействовать с ней. Если оболочка не

допускает обмен ни веществом, ни энергией между системой и

окружающей средой, то такая оболочка называется

адиабатической , а соответствующая система - изолированной или

замкнутой. Системы, у которых оболочка не препятствует обмену

веществом и энергией, называются открытыми".

"Адиабатическая термодинамическая система - изолированная

термодинамическая система, в которой отсутствует теплообмен с

внешней средой".

"Тепловое или термодинамическое равновесие - такое состояние

термодинамической системы, при котором все ее

макроскопические параметры остаются неизменными: не

меняются объем, давление, не происходит теплообмен,

отсутствуют переходы из одного агрегатного состояния в другое и

т.д. При неизменных внешних условиях любая термодинамическая

42

система самопроизвольно переходит в состояние теплового

равновесия".

"...a thermodynamic system is a macroscopic system that in some way

(for example, using a real or imaginary integument) is isolated from

the environment and is able to interact with it. If the integument

does not allow the exchange of matter or energy between the system

and the environment - then such an integument is called adiabatic ,

and the corresponding system is isolated or closed. Systems in which

the integument does not interfere with the exchange of matter and

energy are called open. "

"The adiabatic thermodynamic system is an isolated thermodynamic

system in which there is no heat exchange with the external

environment."

"Thermal or thermodynamic equilibrium is a state of a

thermodynamic system in which all its macroscopic parameters

remain unchanged: volume, pressure, heat exchange do not change,

there are no transitions from one aggregate state to another, etc.

Under constant external conditions, any thermodynamic system

spontaneously passes into a state of thermal equil ibrium".

From: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=5597

166. “Consciousness, reason, memory” (155.) – characterize the core

of the human identity. Actually , altogether, they are us . And as such,

within us, their material bearers (and our “design” , a propos, and it

43

should be noted – is not of such an importance , it can be replaced,

changed, altered, etc.) – they would remain as an essential

unalienable part of the preserved DG-objects (in particular) through

and within the respective layers of the piling up Universe. They can

be “resurrected” .

167. Now, this core of the human identity, “consciousness, reason,

memory”, might well be nothing more than an “information . But we

did notinclude Information in the “fundamentals” of the world along

with Space, Matter and Energy. This omission is not accidental.

Though I do believe that the World as a whole and each state of the

world in particular can be “isomorphically” represen ted by the grand

total of all their respective “data”, I wanted to avoid all the mind -

traps of profound philosophical controversies surrounding the

problems of “reality”, “representation”, etc. Besides, in light of the

core idea I pursue - of how the World operates – I suggest that the

World’s modus operandi will remain the same – whether we are

dealing with material entities, or “informational” ones. Speaking of

the latter ones metaphorically - each new “copy” (“text”) of the Book

of the Universe (i.e. each new state of the world) will gain (or, lose) a

“bit” of information – an existential equivalent of a comma added, or

a comma deleted… - in a sense of a dynamic “Library of Babel” (J. L.

Borges) …

168. But here I have to stop.

44

169. With the inevitable iron-clad necessity - all the logic of our

reflections brings us closer and closer to the most inconceivable

picture of the continuously up-building “stratiform” Universe seen as

a growing concatenation of the states of the world comprised,

mostly, of the “void” scarcely embedded with various macro- AG, -DG

and -EG-objects…

What one should do with this incomprehensive, constantly growing

and changing its form monstrous “boulder” of the Universe, where

everything is preserved, nothing disappears… a phantasmagoric

depositary of the all things passed – almost identically replicated

through the respective layers , within “Cavalieri’s planes” - through

this murky recondite Universe of ours?

170. Well, first of all nothing tells us, so far, that this construction -

true, or false - is impossible. Secondly, at least, one thing is, indeed,

undoubtful – there is enough room in the AIC to accommodate our

Universe (and countless others). Remember? “When God created

space – He created a lot of it!”

171. And, finally, the grand process of the perpetual changes and

preservation, this established “how” of ours – brings us (OK, not “us”,

but me) to the point of the ultimate frustration. It turns out that –

following again the iron-clad logic of the model - nothing can

"detach" and "leave" the Universe for the simple reason: any action

and its result in the world presented is nothing but just adding

following states of the world (the effects) preceded by the states that

45

were their generators (the causes). Detaching, leaving – those are

just newly emerging states of the same “body” of our Universe , a new

“ornament” on the “new” skin of the same old snake… “leaving” is

nothing but “leaving behind” . (And speaking of snakes - an attempt to

reach any of the previous states of the world is possible only via

spatial extension and the "deformational" generation of the growing,

"bending" pile of our stack of paper sheets (2 -dimensional analogy)

spearheaded (with its “edge”) to the "location" of the desired

previous state or layer. A sort of unfathomable Ouroboros in the

process of becoming a true Ouroboros... )

172. With all that said, what remains in the end? What is the answer

to the crucial questions: “Is the model true? Is Preservation Principle

– true?”

173. I, stil l, do not have a plausible answer to the question - in what

form and essence the entities “left behind” remain contained and

preserved in the constantly growing body of our stratiform Universe?

And, even more important – I do not have an answer to the heart of

it all: how the “previous” layers can be reached and how the desired

entities they contain can possibly be “extracted” from them and

incorporated into the “current” state of the world?

174. But it is me , who, so far, cannot answer these two questions.

And so, the entire rationale behind me presenting this open-ended

opus to the public is grounded in the desperate hope that somebody,

46

with the knowledge, intellect and capabilities stretching far beyond

my humble and limited ones, will discover the truth. It is my hope

that somebody will see what I do not see . That the flame of

somebody’s powerful imagination will reveal on a random page of my

manuscript a hidden message, written with invisible ink , containing

the answers which I myself is not aware of . In that hope, a possibility

exists that the truth might be revealed…

I want to finish with a quote from a great poet, Joseph Brodsky,

who knew nothing about the Preservation Principle, but wrote, as if

for me, these lines:

"The fire and the page, the hewed hairs and the swords, The grains

and the millstone, the whispers and the latter - God saves all that..."

(“Страницу и огонь, зерно и жернова, секиры острие и

усеченный волос - Бог сохраняет всё…”)

The End