B. DESCRIPTION OF THE MECHANISMS INVOLVED
The basic tenet of Duplication Theory is to show that as two separate structures become increasingly similar, there would come a point when there would be almost impossible to decipher which one was which. As the degrees of similarity increase then there is an accompanying increase in the potential for them to resonate or interact across time and space. They start to interact simply because they are almost one and the same, although due to reasons connected with the Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible for the two separate structures to ever be absolutely identical. This does not prevent very close approaches being made to be perfect duplication, and when such very close approaches are made then this resonance effect transferring action across time and space becomes quite pronounced. Further, the more the complex the structure, the greater is this effect.
In its shortest from Duplication Theory it can be stated as follows:
2. Equal intervals in space -similar structures- tend to duplicate themselves though all time in one location
The first sentence is no more and no less than a description of what happens when electromagnetic energy is radiated out from a source of an oscillating charged particle, which is a very familiar effect although the reasons I posit for the transmission of action across space differ from those currently accepted. Repetition of similar structures in time or similar actions causes the transfer of action electromagnetically: that is half the theory. I will deal with this in the next paragraph bar one but before doing so will give a brief initial and probably unintelligible description at this juncture of the second sentence, the other contentious half of the theory.
The statement that similar structures resonate through time is something new to modern science, and therefore objectionable. It at once raises problems since it does away with the notion of cause followed by effect (causality) on which modern science and philosophy are based. Nevertheless it can be described briefly in general terms as follows, just so the reader has a preview of what is to come. It is impossible for two similar structures to be perfectly identical to near quantum levels due to the operation of the Uncertainty Principle, but as close approaches are made to near perfect duplication, they will increase their potential to interact or resonate with each other across both time and space. As the two separate structures come increasingly close to becoming one and the same, even though this is not possible, they will start to interact, and the more complex the structure the more this tendency or potential is enhanced, so that the degrees of exact repetition required are diminished by increased complexity.
One result is that if the earlier structure in time changes its form, this action will be duplicated by the later version, provided the external surrounding circumstances on relatively the same scale remain the same for both, so that are no varying external forces of to disturb such continued repetition. Such a mechanism provides a possible mechanism for perfect recall or eidetic memory, but now I first examine in a little more detail the more familiar action of Electromagnetic transmission.
1. The resonance of time or action duplication through space
The first part of the definition indicates that electromagnetic action radiated out from a source of oscillating charged particles (electrons) does not require photons or particles of any sort to be transmitted across space, so that there is no physical exchange particle or even a physical wave as such. Rather it is the repetition of the identical actions of billions of similar particles at source which causes a potential for these oscillations to be duplicated whenever any similar free particle is encountered at a later time across space. But since this front of potential moves out at light velocity (a wave front if you like) it is effectively the same as saying this duplication of action is created everywhere else at the same moment relatively speaking, so this fits with the definition: 'at one time'. Further the greater the degree of duplication, then the stronger the radiative effect of the action will be: in other words, as the frequency of the AC source increases so will more action be transferred across space and this is what is born out by experiment and observation of EM waves in practice.
Equal intervals in time can only be created by the repetition of similar events and the about the simplest regular event imaginable event that I can visualise is that of a single electron passing a point in space and then decelerating back until it passes it again the opposite direction and so on and so forth. If the degree of acceleration and deceleration and the distances travelled are the same in every case then the degree of duplication of action will be increased. If huge large numbers of electrons, identical to the point of indecipherability in dimension and charge are involved, all duplicating the actions of each other as they will be in a source of alternating current, then here is perfect embodiment of what is required by the subject at issue. What cannot be denied is that it produces a similar effect on all other free electrons at the same time everywhere in space. Two hundred years ago we might have thought this was an astonishing and singular hypothesis but now it is taken as a basic given of existence. The reason why it should happen is all I am querying here, and not its existence, as is necessary for its corollary effect for structure resonating through time.
A more precise example of the required duplication of billions of identical events is the creation of laser light by placing the gas particles of a laser medium, such as argon, in an excited quantum state from an external energy source. When an electron surrounding a proton jumps from an excited energy level to one at a lower level, this is an instantaneous event which creates a photon emitted at light velocity. This creation of laser light is effected by the duplication of billions of identical such actions at the source, and it is crucial that each such action will be almost indecipherable one from another.
The reason why this is so and why the element of duplication is instrumental in the creation of photons emitted at light velocity has to wait for the further explanation for structure duplication in 2, and the reason why this front moves at light velocity has a surprisingly simple answer but is explained under the heading of the Further Implications for Cosmology, and will not become intelligible until the mechanism behind proposition 2 has been examined further.
There is no doubt that Electromagnetic radiation and induction exist, but there are still many questions remaining to be fully resolved of how this can be rationalised within Quantum theory and general relativity. Current explanations for the mechanism of EM action are not entirely satisfactory, especially those requiring it to be time symmetric, leaving some enquirers the feeling that something is missing.
2. The resonance of structures or space intervals through time
Compared to the proposition in 1. above, the action of structure duplication across time is certainly nowhere acknowledged by established science except as a possibility in one or two esoteric sections of quantum physics, but even so, it transpired that I was initially able to derive a possible mechanism for this before applying the same principles to give an insight into the transmission of EM action further to that which is already accepted. Propositions 1 and 2 also turn out to be exact corollaries of each other in the most reduced form of definition: the words time and space are interchangeable as can be seen below.
"Equal intervals in time tend to duplicate themselves through all space at the same time. Equal intervals in space tend to duplicate themselves though all time in the same space". Quite what the significance of this equivalence might be I hesitate to comment at this stage except that if something is remarkably simple then in my experience it is likely to be closer the truth than an alternative far more complex answer.
A more comprehendible and qualified version of the second much reduced sentence of the definition above is to say that similar structures will tend to resonate on through all time at one specific location in space (or one specific location relative to the rest of its surroundings in that particular scale), and the more complex the structure is, then the stronger the resonance or duplication effect will be. There is a large 'but' at this point, and that is that for the effect to be effectively perceptible, the similarities have to be accurate down to almost quantum levels, or the components particles of the structures have to be in the high billions. So if this effect is to be as prevalent as is electromagnetism, where certainly billions of identical electrons are instrumental, then why do not we experience it in everyday life? Why are we not instantly aware of it? The answer is that we do, and we are, everywhere, and it is so much part of our thinking that we have not been able to separate ourselves from it so that we recognise it as such. It is the main spring behind memory and thought itself, the mechanism which manifests itself as reason in the brain, but this is an application of the theory and will be enlarged on in the relevant following section below. An analysis of the concept of structure is necessary before delving into further implications.
First, there is an assumption that a structure has to have component particles (assuming we do not take things down to the level of string theory), and if we take this down to the level of molecules, then that will suffice for the sake of example, even though the theory can be equally well applied in principle to swarms of migrating birds or insects or collections of far flung astral bodies. If a swarm of molecules in a gas cloud in random Brownian motion are considered, it will be impossible for an observer to decipher any form or order despite hours of study. But, if suddenly a number of particles where to move into a formation where they were all equal intervals apart, or harmonics of intervals maybe, then at once form and order are created and a perceivable structure capable of being recorded (duplicated) can be observed. In other words, the moment that particles take up equal intervals in space, they become observable: a structure manifest itself out of the former chaos, and it is entirely due to this fact of repetition of equal intervals in space. In my early twenties on a sleepless night failing to fall into sleep I considered for many restive hours why some shapes should be inherently beautiful and some not. Although I failed to resolve this large aesthetic problem to any degree, I concluded that there could be no perception of anything unless order, in the form of equal intervals in space, was involved. Further more this did not just apply to visual effects bit too all thought and activity and information taken in through the senses. Without the ability to decipher structure, form and order out of what was formerly a random mass of information, the fundamental ability of constructive and logical thought, and indeed memory, was impossible.
I was struck by the significance in this duplication process in the very notion of perception, form and order. Just why this should be, I could not tell, but it was a thought that occurred to me in my early twenties and something that kept popping up whenever I started to reflect on the point of existence and other similar concerns of imponderable speculation. This subject is discussed below in more detail but mentioned only briefly here in order that the flow of explanation of the overall theory is not too laboured.
The Uncertainty Principle
About a decade after I first was puzzled by this significance of form and order, I had suddenly had plenty of time with little else to do during a bout of voluntary unemployment, and I was able to ally this fixation with form repetition and order with a simplistic interpretation of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as follows. As is well enough known Heisenberg realised that for very small and active particles, it was impossible to be sure of both the location of a single particle and its momentum (a more descriptive and meaningful term for of velocity). It was possible to be sure of one or the other but not both at the same time. Heisenberg was able to fit this observation into a mathematical formula which was to become one of the staple elements of quantum theory, but I found it easy enough to grasp in basic terms if it were viewed as a matter of scale. For instance on the astro scale we can never be sure if another star is in existence as we view it, let alone be sure of where its precise location is, simply because the light takes many years to reach us. On the scale of atoms and electrons, small particles move so fast that by the time the light from one has reached an observer, which will be astronomical relative to its dimensions, the particle will have moved on. If it were stationary, then we could be sure of its location, but no particle can ever be stationary: it always has some element of motion about it except at absolute zero which temperature can never be achieved.
There are other ways of demonstrating why the Uncertainty Principle operates and how but this is simple enough to visualise. It can be defined even more succinctly and briefly: If a small particle is in motion, we can never be entirely sure of its location, but since all small particles are by definition always in motion, then we can never know the precise location of anything. Similarly if a structure is comprised of a large number of small particles, and since although relatively fixed, they will be in motion of some sort, if only a vibration, so we can never be exactly sure how far apart each component particles is distant from its neighbour. Even if the structure is a very precise crystalline structure, with each molecule identical distances apart, this identical quality will be flawed. The resulting implication is that no two structures can ever be identical, even though they might appear so, on a relatively gross scale.
This was a crucial point in the development of the theory. It occurred to me that it might be that although it was impossible along these lines ever to have two identical structures (either in different places, or for that matter in that same place at different times) it was certainly possible to have increasing close approaches to perfect duplication. Maybe as such a close approach was made, to perhaps very precise quantum tolerances, then might there not come into effect some sort of resonance as the two separate identities almost became one and the same, and then start to resonate across both time and space? There might be a stage when the two were so nearly exactly identical that it would be difficult to decipher which was which: the one in the present of the one in the past. It did not seem to be so unreasonable to me and no great rules of logic seemed to me to have been broken in the process, other than it was merely a conjecture. The problem was to consider why this might be so, and clothe the possibility in more reason, for if it were the case then all sorts of anomalies to do with the passage of time might become capable of explanation.
I managed to resolve the problem to a fair degree of subjective satisfaction after much reflection by invoking perhaps the most speculative device in the explanation thus far, and which will no doubt cause some disapprobation. But the argument did not then seem subjectively to outrageous to me, and the implications of the results turned out to be very wide reaching, and a mechanism for eidetic memory or perfect recall. The device was an argument of equivalence: might there not be an effect at play here directly equivalent to what happens in the somewhat similar circumstances when two very small particles, two protons, are pushed together to nearly occupy the same location?
Without going into a precise description of what happens inside two separate molecules of hydrogen fusing into one of helium, it is a familiar enough effect in the form of the fusion bomb or the nuclear reactors to liberate large amounts of radiation energy. In general terms, if two separate protons of hydrogen are pushed hard enough together to overcome their electrostatic repulsion, then there comes a stage when they suddenly fuse together into one single molecule of helium. Because the structure of the latter is more stable than that of hydrogen, not so much energy is required to bind the helium molecule together, and some of its former mass as two separate entities is released in the form of radiation energy according to the well known formula devised by Einstein of Energy being equal to the sum of the mass times the velocity of light squared: a considerable amount. But it could be argued that the reason that two particles can never occupy the same location is just the same as why two separate structures can never be identical. It is because we can never be sure of their precise location rather than any notions that we might have of material solidity presented to us by our senses. If we cannot be sure exactly where the two protons are, then by definition they can never occupy the same space at the same time, but they can of course make increasingly close approaches to that singular state.
Singularity States
At this stage my use of the word singular ought to be defined. A singularity state as I define it, is something that can never be attained in nature, although close approaches may be made. I also noted that whenever a close approach was made to a singularity state, then laws of nature in their form familiar to us start to alter. Indeed, it effectively part of my definition of whenever a new singularity state is discerned, then it is not singular if such unanticipated fail to manifest themselves when a close approaches is made. Some may argue with my point that identical positioning can never happen, but it is for the same reasoning in fundamental terms that nothing can ever achieve light velocity, which is another singularity state. I will return later in this paper to singularity states but here is one example.
One way of understanding the unattainability of light speed is to see that such a state could not be detected by an external observer. If the object was travelling at or above light velocity no signal from it could reach the observer. As a result, I conclude that light velocity for a particle can therefore never happen. If it did actually exceed this critical figure, one could never be aware it happened, and thus so far as we are concerned it never can. What actually happens beyond light velocity in another continuum might well be a question for another more advanced age, but as far as we are concerned, since we cannot witness such a thing, for us it cannot happen. The same applies to the reason behind impenetrability or why two particles can never occupy the same space at the same or at different times. Such an instance would be incapable of accurate detection and therefore it cannot happen, and is a singularity state. Since this was my own subjective development of Heisenberg's Principle, the point will be expounded in a little more detail in the following example.
The fusion of two hydrogen atoms into one of helium in the example mentioned above, and the large amounts of radiation energy liberated thereby is familiar in the form of the hydrogen bomb and the fusion process. The two nuclei of two separate hydrogen atoms can be pushed together in spite of their electrostatic repulsion caused by the positive charges, to a point where they suddenly fuse together into the more stable state of a single helium nucleus, which has less mass than the two separate entities, and this surplus mass is transformed into radiation energy according to the formula E= MC squared. Perfect penetration of one particle into the space of another is not possible and is therefore under my definition a singularity state, but in the example here, when a close approach is made and fusion takes place, then the laws of Nature, as they were familiar 100 years ago, suddenly had to be revised. Mass was converted into radiation as a result of this close approach, a fact which was not expected by the then scientific knowledge of the day, although late justified in theory by Einstein and others.
The Equivalence of impenetrability & Structure Duplication
It occurred to me that the two instances of two particles nearly being able to occupy the same location, and two structures nearly being identical (but not quite) were directly equivalent. They are both impossible for the same reason. It would not be illogical to describe them both as equivalent singularity states. But, and it is an exciting 'but', we observe in the case of hydrogen fusion that mass is converted to energy as a result of this close approach, so it might seem not unreasonable to speculate that the same effect might occur if two similar structures were identical to very near singularity state. What is more, this would presumably not only occur if two similar structures were to approach this state at the same time, so that the mass of both might start to convert to energy, but also if the two structures approached this state at different times then presumably it would be the later version in time that would be effected.
So far so good in that there were no ridiculous assumptions made thus far, other than the major flaw that in every day life we do not observe similar structures bursting into vast amounts of flame and radiation energy for no apparent reason. However, we do observe resonance in Nature, a great deal of it, and it occurred to me that resonance might be a sublimation of a potential for similar structures to evaporate, but which for some other unknown reason never went through to final completion, in much the same way that the created helium nucleus never dropped below a certain specific mass in hydrogen fusion.
The Principle of Least Action
Another fundamental principle of physics needs to be invoked in order to develop some possible justification of the theory (more accurately conjecture) thus far, and that is the Least Action Principle. This shows that systems tend towards their most stable state, that of the least energy. Helium was one of the inert gases and hydrogen was able to fuse into helium because the molecular structure of the latter was much more stable than that of the former. Thus, less inherent energy in its mass was necessary to hold the structure of helium together and some of its mass in the form of excess binding energy could be radiated off.
If this process was also to be applied to structures, then as near singular duplication was approached it might be a reasonable to assume that the same effect might be detectable, and that the two near identical structures were together more stable and needed a minuscule less amount of mass in their identical structures for them to continue to exist. In simplistic terms, the more they became the same article the less they would need two separate identities: they would become the same. By this argument ultimately all the mass of one could be shed, which again we never see happen, but which is a justifiable extrapolation and should occur under perfect circumstances, however it is far too early to consider such extreme possibilities. Nevertheless, it is consistent with the basic tenet of Duplication Theory described above that there can never be two identical structures in the universe, either at the same time or any other.
So according to this rationale, the two near identical structures have the potential to dispose of surplus mass in the form of energy, but as already mentioned surely this is never seen in Nature. Right, but we also know that the component particles of a structure never cease motion, and that therefore a structure is never fixed on the micro level. If we take the case of a specific structure at an early time, and then later another becomes similar to near enough singularity state, so that they start to demonstrate this potential to interact (resonate), what happens? The earlier in time has to move on a moment later to vary its structure and in order to keep the energy level of the two separate systems to a minimum, the later in time (which has its own inherent energy of particles in motion: an implication of the third law of thermodynamics) will alter its structure to emulate that of the original in time. In short, if there are no external forces at play to disturb the second structure, it will automatically move to duplicate the action of the first structure due to the dictates of the Least Action principle, rather than bursting into spontaneous combustion. If there was not this inherent activity in all small micro particles then there would maybe be a little more instant conversion of similar structures across time and space interacting and evaporation into energy, and perhaps this is why everything has to keep moving and even part of the reason why energy is neither destroyed or created (first Law of Thermodynamics).
When I had developed the second part of the definition to this stage without having made (in my view) too many unrealistic assumptions, here was at least a palimpsest of a system for eidetic memory or perfect recall under trance. According to the theory it seemed possible that a certain sequence of thoughts in one individual's brain might possibly be perfectly duplicated, at a later time in the same person, given an accurate enough trigger to instigate a flow from a certain specific moment. There were many difficulties of detail yet to be resolved, but the principle of the system seemed viable, and so a great deal of reading about components of the brain had to be undertaken.
Holographic Function of the Brain
A striking fact about the brain is that it is the most complex system of micro circuitry that has ever been encountered. Its nerve ends or synapses continually fire at astonishing rates to connect up huge networks of the neurons of which the brain has 10 thousand million (10 to the power of 9): a very large figure. A number of neuroscientists consider there are good grounds for some holographic function in the way the brain operates, and this seems quite likely. If so then for visual images at least, the highly complex patterns set up by the electrochemical currents between the synapses might well create through some form of interference pattern holograms that would be interpreted as sight. How this hologram, which I term a holocept, is viewed could not at that time be answered although a very simple solution will be offered later in the text. But at this stage, it does not matter: it is enough to consider that stimuli from the senses come into the brain to be processed into highly structured patterns of firing synapses. If it is assumed that if there is perfect recall of a certain thought sequence, then what happened in the brain was that the original structure of firing synapses was duplicated in high degrees of accuracy through this resonance effect later. It seems reasonable to assume that this concept of the holocept applied across the board to thought in general, and not just sight, although the latter is the strongest of experiences and easiest to invoke. The notion of the holocept is highly conjectural and will be revisited later.
Although it seems there is no definitive proof for the existence of perfect or eidetic recall, there is certainly much evidence that it happens, especially under trance conditions, when tranches of earlier existence can be recalled and effectively lived through again. Assuming this to be so, here then is an example of a structure being duplicated through time, in a great deal of accurate detail, possibly even down to a molecular level, and certainly involving great complexity. If the resonance effect was additive then as a structure became more regularly complex with increasing repetition of space intervals, as it certainly is with time intervals (EM radiation) then the tendency to transfer action through time should also increase. The interconnected nerve cells of the brain represent the most complex system imaginable and should therefore be an excellent candidate for demonstration of such an effect.
The freedom of motion of a second later structure would have to be very well lubricated indeed and not disturbed in any way by external forces. With respect to eidetic memory, this seems to appear naturally most often in children before adolescence, when their minds have not yet been too cluttered with too many inculcated behaviour patterns, and prejudicial beliefs. As already mentioned, most subjects under hypnotic trance appear to be capable of regression to relive in perfect detail episodes of their earlier life.
Trance state & Randomicity
The nerve cells in the brain never stop firing: obviously all the functions of the body have to be continued and regulated for the body to remain alive. But if under trance instructions to exclude all external stimuli from the senses and to relax the mind completely to think of nothing (almost impossible to do when conscious) then it is reasonable to consider that those brain cells that contain conscious thought have synapses firing randomly. If somehow, into this random system of electrochemical currents is imposed a single thought structure, which closely duplicates an earlier observation of the external world, then there will be an increasing potential, however small, for the later thought structure to have the potential to convert an infinitesimal fraction of its rest mass to energy. This seems to be a workable explanation for total recall, which raises the question perhaps it could be developed into every day working memory.
It is conjectured that ordinary conscious memory must work along the lines of an abbreviated form of total recall, a sort of synopsis, with just those parts retained that might be useful for increasing an individual's chances of survival (further considered in a section below). Any mechanism that allows resonance through both time and space must also contain a basis of possible explanation for fringe phenomena such as telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, and clairvoyance, as well as a few more familiar other phenomena such as coincidence, crowd behaviour, religious ritual and theories of the universal unconscious. Some of these are considered briefly below.