4. OVERVIEW OF THE THEORY

IS-NESS
The theory rests on the following simply existing:

IS-NESS – VÆREN in Norwegian.

This is the theory's deepest axiom: That pure IS-NESS IS.

This is the fundamental ontological state. No further explanation is possible, because any explanation already presupposes what it is attempting to explain. IS-NESS is therefore not the result of anything else, not a property of anything else, and not derived from anything more fundamental.

IS-NESS is THE ALL.

Not in the sense of the sum of everything that exists, but in the sense that nothing exists outside IS-NESS. It makes no sense to ask what lies behind IS-NESS, because a "behind" would already be part of what is – that is, IS-NESS itself. Everything this theory later names must therefore itself lie within IS-NESS, as an aspect of THE ALL that it already is. Nothing can be introduced from outside.

Non-IS-NESS is logically impossible
IS-NESS IS. We know this because we ourselves are here and experience.

Here we can lean on Descartes: Even if I doubt everything I experience, I cannot at the same time deny that the doubt is present. Doubt too is something that IS. We therefore do not first need to explain the universe in order to establish IS-NESS. Experience is already sufficient.

Had absolute non-IS-NESS been present, neither we, experience nor doubt would have been present. But experience is present. Absolute non-IS-NESS is therefore ruled out as a description of what is actually present.

Even the mental representation of absolute nothingness confirms this. The mental representation must itself be present in order to be thought. An idea of non-IS-NESS is therefore not the same as actual non-IS-NESS. This distinction will prove decisive.

That IS-NESS IS does not alone tell us that it can never cease. Here the theory proceeds with its fundamental axiom: IS-NESS is unconditional and eternal. It does not arise from anything else and does not cease. What can arise and change is what appears within IS-NESS.

But the theory goes even further: Already in points 5.1 and 5.2, it describes how the proto-idea of possible annihilation manifests as an impulse of fear and sets the development of the universe in motion. The idea of non-IS-NESS thus has a paradoxical effect: It triggers the production of content within IS-NESS.

After the full Mechanism has been described, we will also see that the universe's final state is identical to its initial state. The universe is therefore cyclical.

IS-NESS is not a nothing. But that something IS does not yet tell us what it is or what properties it has. We have established the starting point. Now we must describe what IS-NESS contains that makes experience and a universe possible.

How are we to relate to something that simply IS, but which we cannot stand outside and observe?

We actually have a word in our language that already describes this state: Spirit.

Spirit cannot be annihilated. Spirit is in everything. Everything is in spirit. Spirit cannot be described as such.

But spirit is a religious and spiritual word.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism say that spirit belongs to God, Yahweh, Allah or Vishnu. Taoism speaks instead of a cosmic principle.

The theory described in this book is not based on the religions and their texts. Instead, we use logic and scientific method.

At the same time, there is an indescribable "something" that is everything and exists eternally – by logical necessity. That which IS.

IS-NESS has properties
To keep the account clear and free of too many cultural associations, I choose to use the term NN – "No Name".

NN, spirit – that is, pure IS-NESS – simply IS.

Fine.

It sounds "philosophically elegant". It accords with the religions, but can also be described neutrally.

In this way one can juggle words and produce an inherent logic that is necessarily true: IS-NESS cannot not BE.

But that is not enough. This alone does not produce a universe.

For a universe to arise from something unnameable, there must be three conditions that must be fulfilled within NN:

1. A CHANGE must be able to be present.
2. The CHANGE must be able to be registered in a way that has a lasting ontological consequence.
3. The established consequence must be able to participate in the production of further CHANGE and further establishment.

This requires far more than IS-NESS alone, namely certain abilities:

1. The ability to register CHANGE.
2. The ability to understand the CHANGE as something, because otherwise it would simply come and go without further consequences.
3. The ability to retain the understanding, that is, the aggregation of KNOWING, because without such a "picture of the state" it would not be possible to detect the next CHANGE.

These three abilities will now each be given a name:

1. I call the ability to register CHANGE AWARENESS. It is an eternally existing sensitivity that picks up every slightest difference in what IS. AWARENESS is the ability to feel something – experience it directly and in its raw form.
2. To understand what has been registered, what has arisen must first be able to be seen. NN must have the ability to SEE. This means focusing on the CHANGE, so I give the ability the name FOCUS.
3. What has been seen is not thereby automatically understood. One can see a figure, but not understand what the figure is. NN must therefore also be able to KNOW. This is the same as creating concepts – ideas – from something that has so far only been experienced directly (through AWARENESS) and read as an unknown form (through FOCUS).
   
   Conceptualisation into KNOWING – is the final ability required. This is situated at the transition between FOCUS and KNOWING. FOCUS has read a CHANGE and sees that it has a form. FOCUS then holds the form up against previous knowledge in KNOWING, which responds with the understanding that matches – or a new understanding arises, a new MEANING, based on similarity and relevance in relation to existing forms/knowledge.
   
   The ability to KNOW exists permanently. What is KNOWN cannot be "un-known", because it cannot simply disappear from THE ALL. No such mechanism exists. But in this theory there is a mechanism that aggregates knowledge into more compressed, "higher" understandings – emergent MEANINGS. I therefore call the third thing that simply IS KNOWING.

The perceptive reader will note that this does not explain how the very first CHANGE actually arises. The explanation above is valid for what happens after this initial "creation" – which is of a slightly different nature. The next main point deals with precisely that. But to avoid overloading you already, let us hold on to what the three points above describe.

We thus have a much better starting point. IS-NESS not only IS, but has abilities and can do things with those abilities. IS-NESS is therefore alive, because it is able to register raw experiences, see the experiences, understand them as ideas, produce new raw experiences and collect ever more ideas. As we shall see, these abilities form a cycle that bites its own tail and simply goes on and on. With ever more KNOWING, but also ever more "raw experiences" as a result.

This is my definition of life.

IS-NESS = life = spirit = NN ... with AWARENESS, FOCUS and KNOWING.

Can you see which word can encompass the whole package?

CONSCIOUSNESS
IS-NESS is conscious. Eternally and always conscious and with three inherent abilities that have the potential to create eternal development and content – as we shall see.

This is what The Mechanism describes; how a fundamental, primary and eternal CONSCIOUSNESS creates precisely the universe we observe. EVERYTHING in this universe. Both the subjective and the objective – both the abstract and the manifest. EVERYTHING.

This is a powerful theory.

But note the following – which is exceptionally important: I have not mentioned the word will, but speak instead of The Mechanism.

NN is not a creature with a plan. IS-NESS has not set a course.

CONSCIOUS IS-NESS simply IS. It is nowhere – without time or space. It IS.

CONSCIOUSNESS has AWARENESS and FOCUS as abilities and also its ability to hold KNOWING, but nothing more. KNOWING is therefore the ability for abstract content to be present. Later, what has been read can be present as an established understanding and not simply disappear again. But KNOWING also has a more original form: It can contain a proto-idea before anything has yet been read and understood as a MEANING. The proto-idea is the universe's very first idea, what sets the whole thing in motion. This is described in point 5.2 (ref).

Time and space, you and EVERYTHING else are experiences and KNOWING inside CONSCIOUSNESS.

Nothing else exists.

Everything arises through a mechanism loop, which works in a particular way and by itself creates all sorts of things. Not through will or a plan, but because The Mechanism dictates it through its law-governed nature. The Mechanism is deterministic. The universe is therefore deterministic. What happens has to happen. What arises has to arise.

Que sera sera.

All that is needed is a first event – something that sets The Mechanism in motion. We will therefore address this in point 5.2 (ref). And then, of course, you will learn how The Mechanism itself works and why it has arisen. That follows afterwards.

Impulses and KNOWING
But first let me complete this overarching account so that you see more of the picture – albeit for now without details and full understanding.

I have introduced that CONSCIOUSNESS has AWARENESS, FOCUS and KNOWING.

The first two both contribute to producing what the third ability then holds as KNOWING.

Why is there not simply a "combined ability" that does everything?

I cannot, of course, account for why – show me someone who can – but I can explain that precisely this distinction and the functions introduced by AWARENESS, FOCUS and KNOWING are what create The Mechanism and, through it, the universe. The three therefore together constitute precisely such a combined ability, which in everyday life we call CONSCIOUSNESS.

The universe comes into being through something first being felt directly, then being seen/read/examined and then what has been felt and examined being understood as something – KNOWING.

Let us go a little deeper.

We all understand what KNOWING is. We all have knowledge. It is invisible and always available. We simply know what we know.

We all also go around experiencing directly. There are myriads of different experiences: cold and heat, pressure and touch, visual impressions, music, the taste of salt and sweetness, smells, colours, wind in your hair and waves lapping around your legs on a bathing beach. The world is exceptionally rich in experiences. They have different "qualities" and there is a specific, precise technical term for this: qualia – the quality of an experience.

If I ask you: "What does it feel like?" "What are you experiencing?" – then the answer you give is some form of qualia.

Not what you KNOW, but what you feel. And what you know about what you feel. Both at the same time.

You do not hear words in a conversation. Your ear registers movements in the air. Words are what you understand those movements as. You know that precisely these patterns of movements registered through hearing are particular words. That is learnt. The same applies to everything you experience, although sometimes a longer chain of explanation is required to see that this is so.

For qualia are not constant, just as words and language are not universal and constant. Cold and heat in their extreme forms cannot be distinguished experientially, the context determines what we experience. Pleasure and pain merge into one another. People cannot agree on whether cyan (the colour of toothpaste) is a shade of green or blue. Someone who was born blind and suddenly gains sight does not know that a banana is yellow – unless someone has already explained it, conveyed the knowledge.

Qualia are phenomenological. We can experience the same piece of music and some will say "noise", while others describe it as "a balm for the ears". We interpret the experience according to our own context, experience and KNOWING. Qualia are therefore – if we are to be precise – what we experience something as. The lyrical quality of a poem. Or the letters on page fourteen of the poetry book; we experience them as words. Or all the intricate strokes on the page; they are experienced as letters.

We register something and have a qualia experience to which we in turn assign a MEANING; KNOWING.

As stated – the phenomenological experience is governed by one's own KNOWING. But what causes the experience is always some type of impulse.

So it is like this:

1. CONSCIOUSNESS experiences a raw impulse of some kind.
2. The impulse is read by FOCUS and then recognised as something. The result is established KNOWING.

Together, the impulse and KNOWING constitute a complete EXPERIENCE. Qualia. The world is in reality qualia.

What more can we say about the impulses?

They are more or less fleeting and transient. In principle, they can be measured and weighed. As the impulses gradually come together in more complex configurations, chemistry and materiality arise; the manifest world, which means "the world that appears tangible" – or "what can be grasped with the hand", as the word concrete means.

Our sense organs are therefore involved. But you can also use measuring instruments. The manifest world is full of "objects" and "forces" that interact, as science explains that they do and as we experience them doing. This is nature.

All this physical and manifest content consists, at its core, of impulses. What gives rise to all our EXPERIENCES.

KNOWING, however, is knowledge about impulses, and it must persist. Once something has been understood, the understanding does not disappear. Yes, you can forget, but here we are speaking of the universe as a whole and as a mechanism. The universe does not forget – as you will see.

We know what the sky, trees and flowers are. We know what everything around us is. And if we do not know, we can create an understanding by examining the impulses: touching and feeling, seeing and smelling, hearing and tasting – comparing with what we already know and drawing a conclusion. In this way we collect impulses and form KNOWING.

This happens through a mechanism – the Experience Circle, which is the main subject of this book.

This is The Mechanism in question.

CONSCIOUSNESS is thus able both to feel impulses and to have knowledge of what that which is felt is. The two ways of experiencing something are simultaneous and directly connected – but fundamentally different. Together we call it an EXPERIENCE, hence "Experience Circle". The Mechanism simultaneously creates further impulses and KNOWING – in an eternal dance in circles.

Two domains
What does it actually mean that impulses and KNOWING are "fundamentally different"?

Well, impulses and KNOWING "do not speak the same language". They have different "sensory apparatus". They do not have direct access to each other's form of appearance.

They are two different aspects of the same thing. Neither describes the whole phenomenon, both must be included.

KNOWING has no taste. KNOWING does not hurt in itself. You cannot experience a wine simply by thinking about it. KNOWING therefore cannot be experienced directly as full qualia.

But nor can you derive the understanding "wine" directly from the raw impulses conveyed by sensory impressions, without there already being a mental representation of what wine is – without KNOWING. Then you experience impulses, but do not know what they mean.

Each "half" alone gives a world that is either meaningless or without experience.

The difference in nature nevertheless does not prevent CONSCIOUSNESS from experiencing both as two sides of the same EXPERIENCE. Both impulses and KNOWING are something that appears in CONSCIOUSNESS.

The same applies to you, because both you and I are conscious. You too register impulses and carry KNOWING within you, because you yourself are one who experiences the universe.

Here a crystal-clear connection of great significance already emerges. I say that the universe is fundamentally CONSCIOUS. So are you. You will learn no more now, we must build the account gradually. But the seed has been planted.

THE HORIZON
The fact that the universe has two fundamentally different sides that do not know about or understand each other – but are at the same time connected – means that there is a HORIZON between them.

Each side describes an aspect of the same experience. But they do not communicate directly with each other. We say that there are two domains; an abstract one (KNOWING) and a manifest one (impulses). When the domains nevertheless interact so that new impulses and new KNOWING arise, the horizon must in some way be able to transform "half-experiences" between the two sides for them to be synchronous and also repeating.

Imagine two ships on the sea with a great distance between them. Both see the same horizon from their respective sides, but because of the curvature of the Earth they do not see each other.

Then imagine that the two ships always move synchronously. If one ship sails to starboard, the other ship does the same. There must then be a connection that keeps their movements synchronous, without the ships seeing each other, without their communicating directly.

One ship is impulses, the other is KNOWING – and between them there is therefore a horizon. It remains fixed, regardless of how the ships sail here and there on either side.

After the very first proto-idea has triggered the start of the universe, it is always the impulse ship that takes the initiative and the KNOWING ship that follows, trying to understand what the other ship is doing. But at the same time, the side that KNOWS must be able to produce new impulses that the first side can register? New movements in the leading ship?

This seems difficult to understand and resolve. The Mechanism is the solution – it is coming.

Already now, however, we can establish that impulses must be primary. First something is felt/sensed/seen/perceived, then it is understood.

It is always like this, because KNOWING and meaning are always about something. An impulse, however, can exist as an experience without being given any meaning. The universe therefore began with an impulse of some kind, and this "head start" can never disappear – because all subsequent development is a ping-pong between the two sides. And ping always comes before pong. Ping, pong, pong, ping simply does not happen.

In the middle of this ping-pong, then, the horizon remains fixed. Where the net on the table-tennis table is, if you like. Or the umpire, the one observing both sides of the game.

That is where NN is – the nameless that is conscious, CONSCIOUSNESS itself. The spirit that both experiences impulses and holds all KNOWING about the impulses.

It has a view of both sides and can both experience impulses and have KNOWING about impulses. Just as you are "in the middle": The raw sensory experiences of wine and grazes on one side – and knowledge of the experiences on the other.

You experience both sides of the domains too.

THE HORIZON remains fixed
Note, moreover, that THE HORIZON never moves. However much the ships on both sides sail around and however many other ships, beach balls, fish, people in kayaks, beaches, continents and cities appear – THE HORIZON remains fixed, viewed from NN's position – which is that of THE HORIZON. The same with ping-pong. The net and the umpire do not move.

And the same with you – in fact: Because even though you wander around the world, that is something else; something you believe you are doing. In a sense you are a wandering table-tennis table.

But wherever you move the table, THE HORIZON remains fixed within you. However you turn yourself around, you will always experience impulses, and – after an immediate FOCUS reading and interpretation – have KNOWING about what you experience. It is inconceivable that the two parts of the experiences should part company and wander off in separate directions, so that you only know or only feel things directly in your body. Or that they suddenly become asynchronous so that you taste wine, but think of grazes.

The precise words we will use from now on for these two sides of reality's HORIZON are therefore the abstract and manifest side.

And in the middle stands the one who experiences them both. THE EXPERIENCER, who for now is NN, because THE EXPERIENCER has not discovered itself. Nor have you appeared yet.

Whether it is you or others, there is always an EXPERIENCER and two fundamentally different variants of EXPERIENCE – and a HORIZON between the two sides of the domains.

This is a principle. It is universal. The Mechanism is THE HORIZON.

A universal principle
Everything that is part of IS-NESS – that is, THE ALL – follows this principle.

Whether you are NN/God, yourself or an ant, the same thing happens. Impulses are experienced and at the same time KNOWING is formed about what is experienced.

But a principle alone does not make NN, you and an ant identical.

Or a stone. It too is within THE ALL, but it has no eyes or ears. It does not think through a brain. One would not expect it to be able to experience impulses and acquire knowledge. You must then understand the following: What we call life is universal. NN, that is, universal CONSCIOUSNESS, is what everything is within and NN is "alive" – in the sense that NN is able to experience through AWARENESS, FOCUS and KNOWING. This ability does not disappear along the way as things become smaller, more compact or apparently motionless.

But the EXPERIENCE changes.

A leaf on a tree experiences something entirely different from the tree as a whole. Your fingernail experiences itself and its surroundings radically differently from how you experience yourself as a whole. The crucial difference lies in the fact that the leaf and the stone probably do not experience themselves as a leaf and a stone. They experience only being what they are. From the perspective in space and time where they are situated. With the "senses" they have. A stone too is worn down by wind and weather. It just takes thousands of years. Does it feel like something? Directly? Without "self-reflection"?

For now I am simply asking the question.

It is the same with small children. They experience being what they are. We know this, because they scream when they hurt themselves. But they have not yet discovered themselves. They have not become self-aware. That only happens at the age of 2-3. By then they have experienced so much and thought so much about their own experiences that a light dawns. It is I who experience and think! I am something of my own!

An ego forms – a mental representation of a person.

You are not this person. You are an aspect of global CONSCIOUSNESS with the ability to experience, and what you experience is being a person – your persona.

This is called dissociating. One moves from one understanding of what one is to another mental representation of what one is. One believes one is what one believes in. From being an infant within universal CONSCIOUSNESS (direct experience without self-awareness), to being a toddler named Åse, my granddaughter – at the time of writing also without self-awareness, but she is just about to discover her own person.

Before dissociation, the child was an experience and knowledge within another, higher mental representation. And this in turn was perhaps a mental representation within an even higher one. And so it goes all the way: NN as the ultimate ALL, then ever more detailed, more or less composite, local mental representations. And when a composite mental representation becomes complex, stable and credible enough – an understanding of oneself arises – a person. We humans are FOCUS, AWARENESS and KNOWING that have established separate understandings of ourselves.

Now I am getting enormously ahead of myself.

Take it in as a slightly misty cloud of words. Do not get bogged down in the details. It is coming – all of it.

We will take this step by step, and you will see how and why it must be precisely like this. It is not mysterious or incomprehensible. Nothing is illogical or inexplicable in the universe. And nothing ever comes to an end – ever. Nor does your ability for AWARENESS, FOCUS and KNOWING. You simply change persona, or you enter into another mental representation that is not experienced as a person, but as something else. You move from one world of mental representations to another. This is birth and death. They are transformations of KNOWING.

But you are CONSCIOUSNESS all the time. Just as everything else is CONSCIOUSNESS, because this is the only thing that IS. You – whoever or whatever you currently believe you are – stand there fixed, in the middle of THE HORIZON, observing the mental representations changing synchronously in both domains. A "universe theatre" has many and very different performances in its repertoire.

Everything else – be it trees, cats or mountains – IS also CONSCIOUSNESS. But these imagine themselves to be trees, cats and mountains – they experience themselves as these mental representations. But probably in most cases without self-awareness. This can be tested, through the rouge test – and neither dogs nor cats that are given a red mark on their forehead and placed in front of a mirror recognise that it is they themselves who have the mark.

It is not easy to grasp. Everything simply IS and experiences BEING, but often without having any emergent, higher understanding of the experience.

For thousands of years we have lacked the fundamental account. The one about the two sides of the domains, THE HORIZON and how development and growth occur – what is called emergence – and how mental representations then arise from this: KNOWING.

You will find it here.

Attractor Dynamics
There is also one more thing, namely how all this interacts, not just how it emerges. The dynamics.

I call it attractor dynamics, because an attractor is something that draws something else towards it. And this is what creates and governs the interaction: Something is drawn together, something else is repelled.

What is shuffled around here and there is KNOWING. Mental representations of what impulses are. The impulses group together and form patterns. These are read, interpreted and understood. MEANINGS, IDEAS are created. They struggle against each other in a "contest of meanings". The one that wins is manifested – as two things:

1. thoughts (conscious experience of ideas), and
2. an experienced material world.

Thoughts, that is, KNOWING, come first when it comes to manifestation – even though impulses are ahead and primary in creating KNOWING. Once KNOWING has content, it is KNOWING that is primary in forming manifest qualia experiences.

It is an intricate mechanism. As stated, it plays ping-pong.

The equations
Attractor Dynamics can be described through an equation: the Attractor Equation (AE). It operates in abstract KNOWING, where the contest of meanings takes place.

The emergence of phenomena in the universe occurs, as already mentioned, through the Experience Circle (EC), the main mechanism itself. It creates emergence (which means precisely coming into being) and has two sides of the domains simultaneously. The EC can be described structurally and mathematically precisely through what I call the Horizon Equation (HE).

The Experience Circle is also what creates the experience of space and time.

Spacetime is not situated in KNOWING, it is created on-the-fly on the manifest side.

These two equations, HE and AE, interact through the Experience Circle and constitute a whole: The Mechanism.

In sum, this book therefore contains an ontological and mathematical edifice that describes the Experience Circle through the HE, with the AE as a part of it. It has been verified by AI (Claude Fable 5 and ChatGPT 5.6 Sol) through thorough audits. The result is a coherent and mathematically correct bridge from the fundamental structure of CONSCIOUSNESS to the Horizon Equation.

It is hereby passed on to researchers for external validation.

The AE has not yet been fully derived – because it has not been necessary for the HE. We only need to know what the AE produces at any given time and which main principles apply – not necessarily the details of how they balance and interact. For now, the AE is a "black box" with limited knowledge of what happens inside the box. A little like how psychology viewed the brain in earlier times. One measured what went in and what came out, but understood little of the internal mechanism.

Let me add that it is also a conscious choice not to present a full derivation of the AE – if that is possible at all.

The day we fully understand the mechanism behind the contest of meanings (AE) in KNOWING – and also now understand how meanings are manifested as a physical world through EC/HE – the universe is in reality "decoded". Then it is theoretically possible to calculate deterministically what must happen in the future. It will be a colossal step for humanity, even if the AE itself should turn out to be something small and simple.

But let it also be said that even if we were to understand absolutely all emergent formation of meaning and manifestation, such knowledge could not immediately be used for manipulation and abuse of power. Attempts at manipulation are also part of the landscape of meanings that is being subjected to attempted manipulation, and can therefore be exposed with technical precision. But preventing abuse requires that knowledge is not unevenly distributed, that those in power and manipulators do not know, while the public does not know what is going on.

I am therefore saying that the knowledge in this book may have significant ethical consequences. Keep that in mind.

In addition, I have an even more far-reaching hypothesis up my sleeve which says that AE = EM. That is, that the whole of electromagnetism with its laws can be derived from The Mechanism and its equations. Then it is suddenly PROVEN that the whole of physics and everything physicalist IS IDEALIST IN ITS ORIGIN. I use capital letters, because this is what Claude says in the introduction would be "potentially the greatest discovery in the history of physics".

More must therefore follow after this book is published. But the main finding – that the HE has been scientifically derived and gives a remarkable result that you will be presented with in a few paragraphs – I believe that stands. It indicates – strongly – that Claude's claim may prove true.

This is how I believe the universe fits together.

This is how I see it in my inner picture and I have seen it for a long time.

This understanding of how the universe works has gradually emerged since I was a child. In 2018 it hit me in full force. I saw and understood The Mechanism. First at the overarching level. I write about this in my first book. "The Experiencer". Over the past four years I have got to the bottom of all the aspects of the theory and checked everything possible in every direction – together with ChatGPT and Claude, plus a great deal of traditional literature, encyclopaedic research and a host of other sources.

But the basis is and remains "direct knowledge". This is a subsidiary theme throughout this book; how one actually obtains knowledge and what human knowledge is. There is, after all, global knowledge – KNOWING. And in some way it is layered with identities above identities. So how does this fit together? Let that be the little mystery between the lines. I promise that towards the end it comes together.

The numerical match
The Horizon Equation is geometrical. It describes the Experience Circle that creates time and space through a circular movement with various "ping-pong leaps" between the sides of the domains within it. Apart from Landauer's constant ($\ln 2$), the equation contains no physical quantities – naturally enough, because physical quantities have come into being through studying only the manifest side and then "making decisions" about what a metre, a second, a charge and so on should be.

But all the geometry in the Horizon Equation gives a dimensionless number – $\alpha$ – as the final result:

$\alpha_{\mathrm{HE}}=\frac{1}{104}\cos\left[\left(12+\frac{1}{104\cdot120}+\frac{\ln 2}{2\cdot104^2\cdot120}+\frac{\ln 2}{4\cdot104^3\cdot120}+\frac{(\ln 2)^2}{28\cdot104^2\cdot120}-\frac14-\frac{\ln 2}{56}\right)\frac{2\pi}{104}\right]$
= 0.00729735256429286...

This number turns out to be practically identical to the deepest number in physics, the fine-structure constant $\alpha$, which is also dimensionless. But then the equation is not merely geometry, it concerns several of science's fundamental units:

$\alpha_{\mathrm{CODATA}}=\frac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\hbar c} =$ 0.0072973525643
– where $e$ is the elementary charge, $\varepsilon_0$ the vacuum permittivity, $\hbar$ the reduced Planck constant and $c$ the speed of light.

Put very simply: The $\alpha$ equation of physics points the way into electromagnetism and the rest of physics. The HE describes how the universe works before physics – and then the HE and physics share this number – $\alpha$. It is an indication of a possible connection that should be of great interest to investigate further, to put it mildly.

I place the numbers one above the other so that they are easy to compare:

• 0.00729735256429286... (Horizon Equation)
• 0.0072973525643 (Physics)

What this means
The ontology and The Mechanism that will now be explained to you "match physics" in the number $\alpha$. Where physics can go no further down in its reductionism, The Mechanism can take over and tell the rest of the story all the way back to the eternal existence of fundamental CONSCIOUSNESS/IS-NESS.

And conversely: From a logical-philosophical, ontological account of how the world arose and works – where CONSCIOUSNESS is primary – not the "matter" and natural laws of physics – we can connect this to physics and let physics take over the explanation of the universe further out into the manifest domain.

This does, however, require a "bridge" showing that physics – and initially electromagnetism – can be derived from the ontology described in this book. At the time of writing, work on this bridge is under way, but it is not yet included.

In any case, I would argue that this idealist, purely abstract theory is deeply scientific. It potentially extends science at both ends where science itself is currently unable to explain anything at all; what lies before quantum physics, and what lies outside cosmology.

I therefore believe that the book you have before you introduces what I would call science 2.0.

Science 1.0 with its empirical results and equations can remain, but a CONSCIOUSNESS-first theory necessarily changes the ontological and causal interpretation. 2.0 is the addition that makes 1.0 complete. An improvement, extension, clarification – not a replacement.

Formalisation
We will now begin the detailed description of The Mechanism through seven points – 5.1 to 5.7. In each point you will first get an explanation intended for the general reader. This is followed by the formal presentation of the same thing, aimed at specialists. Along the way we must hold two perspectives in mind simultaneously:

• The view perspective: What it looks like from inside CONSCIOUSNESS itself. This is the actual account, because it is by following this view that we see what happens and why it happens.
• The system perspective: What it looks like if we rise to an imagined helicopter perspective and see the whole picture from outside. The view of CONSCIOUSNESS does not do this. It is we who need to – concretely – raise our gaze to understand what was formed, what the individual steps constitute together. Then the Experience Circle and the Horizon Equation emerge.

For now we must remain within the view of CONSCIOUSNESS, because the story begins with nothing existing – other than IS-NESS; that is, AWARENESS, FOCUS and KNOWING – as abilities. In this "empty" state there is no content as it appears in the universe. But there is nevertheless a "triggering idea".

« Previous Next »