Hawking's paper on Parallel Universes proves my point

I have been saying for years, that parallel universes exist and these universes are just like our universe or very similar. This is because of the fine tuned universe and the expansion of space.

British physicist Stephen Hawking may have died in March, but his legacy is still unfolding.

The prominent theoretical physicist and cosmologist co-authored a research paper about the existence of parallel universes similar to our own, which the Journal of High-Energy Physics posthumously published on Friday.

Here's the key:

Thomas Hertog, a co-author of the study, told the BBC that he and Hawking were wrestling with the idea that the Big Bang actually resulted in the creation of multiple “pocket universes” that exist throughout space. It was unclear to them whether the laws of physics that apply in our universe would also apply in these alternate universes.

“In the old theory there were all sorts of universes: some were empty, others were full of matter, some expanded too fast, others were too short-lived. There was huge variation,” said Hertog, a physics professor at the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium. “The mystery was why do we live in this special universe where everything is nicely balanced in order for complexity and life to emerge?”

Hertog and Hawking’s paper uses new mathematical techniques to restore order to previously chaotic views of the multiverse, suggesting that these different universes are subject to the same laws of physics as our own.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

THERE WAS HUGE VARIATION.

This has everything to with the fine tuned universe. The reason all of these theories seem to break down is because many of these Scientist are trying to escape fine tuning of the universe.

So you say, things like there's 10^500 false vacua so any value of the Cosmological Constant can occur. So you get every type of space and all sorts of different physics. So basically, we're just on setting on a dial of infinite values that can occur. This is just hogwash. There's no evidence at all to support the notion that all of these different spaces with all of these different physics can occur.

We know our universe can occur. Therefore, you have pocket universes that share the same physics as our universe expanding ad infinitum. Because the configurations of matter are limited by the laws of physics and the fine tuning of our universe there will be infinite earths with infinite versions of you.

There will be universes where you don't exist as well.

It would be like an infinite Poker universe. You would have space expanding faster than light, so pocket universes would form but it's limited as to what kind of universe you can have based on the laws of the game and the limit of 52 cards that can be dealt. So you will get two pair universes and full house universes ad infinitum. You would have more two pair universes over full house universe because there's more configurations that give you a full house unless there's FINE TUNING of the cards and you get more full house universes over time.

It's simple, space expands faster than light, so there's going to be pockets because we can't see all of expanding space. Objects just don't vanish because we can't see them. So you have pockets where you have enough of what we call matter to overcome the Cosmological Constant locally. So for a time, you will get universes like ours but eventually everything will be pulled apart.

So our pocket began with faster than light expansion of space but pockets formed where matter became concentrated. It's like riding a bike real fast and then you coast. Eventually you will come to a full stop, but with the universe it never comes to a full stop. So overtime, if you don't get more matter in the pocket, it will slowly pull everything apart in order to get back to fast expansion but the cycle will just start again and more pockets will form.

You don't need 10^500 false vacua and all of these other theories. Just based on what we know, pocket universes have to exist and most of them are just like ours. This means they share the same physics but this doesn't mean earth has to exist in every universe. IOt just means earth will exist in an infinity of these pocket universes if the expansion of space is infinite. You would have infinities, within infinities, within infinities in an infinte expansion of space.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I have been saying for years, that parallel universes exist and these universes are just like our universe or very similar. This is because of the fine tuned universe and the expansion of space.

British physicist Stephen Hawking may have died in March, but his legacy is still unfolding.

The prominent theoretical physicist and cosmologist co-authored a research paper about the existence of parallel universes similar to our own, which the Journal of High-Energy Physics posthumously published on Friday.

Here's the key:

Thomas Hertog, a co-author of the study, told the BBC that he and Hawking were wrestling with the idea that the Big Bang actually resulted in the creation of multiple “pocket universes” that exist throughout space. It was unclear to them whether the laws of physics that apply in our universe would also apply in these alternate universes.

“In the old theory there were all sorts of universes: some were empty, others were full of matter, some expanded too fast, others were too short-lived. There was huge variation,” said Hertog, a physics professor at the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium. “The mystery was why do we live in this special universe where everything is nicely balanced in order for complexity and life to emerge?”

Hertog and Hawking’s paper uses new mathematical techniques to restore order to previously chaotic views of the multiverse, suggesting that these different universes are subject to the same laws of physics as our own.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

THERE WAS HUGE VARIATION.

This has everything to with the fine tuned universe. The reason all of these theories seem to break down is because many of these Scientist are trying to escape fine tuning of the universe.

So you say, things like there's 10^500 false vacua so any value of the Cosmological Constant can occur. So you get every type of space and all sorts of different physics. So basically, we're just on setting on a dial of infinite values that can occur. This is just hogwash. There's no evidence at all to support the notion that all of these different spaces with all of these different physics can occur.

We know our universe can occur. Therefore, you have pocket universes that share the same physics as our universe expanding ad infinitum. Because the configurations of matter are limited by the laws of physics and the fine tuning of our universe there will be infinite earths with infinite versions of you.

There will be universes where you don't exist as well.

It would be like an infinite Poker universe. You would have space expanding faster than light, so pocket universes would form but it's limited as to what kind of universe you can have based on the laws of the game and the limit of 52 cards that can be dealt. So you will get two pair universes and full house universes ad infinitum. You would have more two pair universes over full house universe because there's more configurations that give you a full house unless there's FINE TUNING of the cards and you get more full house universes over time.

It's simple, space expands faster than light, so there's going to be pockets because we can't see all of expanding space. Objects just don't vanish because we can't see them. So you have pockets where you have enough of what we call matter to overcome the Cosmological Constant locally. So for a time, you will get universes like ours but eventually everything will be pulled apart.

So our pocket began with faster than light expansion of space but pockets formed where matter became concentrated. It's like riding a bike real fast and then you coast. Eventually you will come to a full stop, but with the universe it never comes to a full stop. So overtime, if you don't get more matter in the pocket, it will slowly pull everything apart in order to get back to fast expansion but the cycle will just start again and more pockets will form.

You don't need 10^500 false vacua and all of these other theories. Just based on what we know, pocket universes have to exist and most of them are just like ours. This means they share the same physics but this doesn't mean earth has to exist in every universe. IOt just means earth will exist in an infinity of these pocket universes if the expansion of space is infinite. You would have infinities, within infinities, within infinities in an infinte expansion of space.

Fine tuning is pretty well documented by cosmologists. There are thousands of papers on it.

It's usually engineers and applied scientists who relate the idea with william Craigs teleological argument and argue about the observation and importance in understanding the magnitude of chance it would take to be random.

Fine tuning is incredibly misunderstood. Here on at people have argued blue in the face it's total bs because of Craig.

Actually, I thought the paper ruled out the multiverse theory! Or at least cut out the infinity of it and the infinite variability. That was because they had used time as variable separate from the Big Bang. That created the fractal space-time model and the problem of the multiverse theory. There are no pocket universes. Probably just other ones in their own bubble that we may never know about!

Based on this we conjecture that the exit from eternal inflation does not produce an infinite fractal-like multiverse, but is finite and reasonably smooth.

arxiv.org (abstract) - A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation?

The title says this quite clearly! It is a smooth (flat) universe that is bound (their use of finite). Oh, if you read the abstract, this is a theory based on "toy model universe" where certain parameters are not included. They also say this idea needs more work.

Agreed , but let us all remember that each is just a Theory
Long time believer in the Multiverse and an infinite number of Parallel Universes that co-exist within the 12 dimensions.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Cutting out the infinity of it was his main goal of tweaking the theory. If I remember right, he was specifically striving for something that could be tested.

This newest work is beyond my mind, but just to start with it seems we would need a much better understanding gravity at the least.

Great stuff to ponder by all means.

Hawkins paper just says it is possible there are parrallel universes and there is a decent chance that they exist.

You cannot use a theory to prove your belief, only to show that some others believe it is possible too.

A parallel universe only means there are universes running in parallel, stacked on top of each other I think. Like leafs on a branch, the branches on the tree are layered. Or just like stacked oreo cookies in a package.

Your idea may be true, but Hawkins paper does not prove it is true. I doubt if we could ever jump the gap to a parallel universe, It might actually be dangerous to open a porthole if we could.

I have read a lot of evidence on the Big bang theory, even took a class on it. There are lots of other possible ways our universe formed, there is no possible way we could prove a big bang from where we are in space. But since nobody can contest their theory without great expense, these scientists are pushing pseudoscience with specially created evidence to show it is right. That evidence could be pertinent to multiple theories of how it was formed.

Hawkin was just trying to find answers and create a possible scenario to provide answers to a question.

How about- the basic carbon copy blueprint of the universe was formed with the Big Bang, but like genetic mutations, not all ended up equal...
You end up in the universe with too much matter, you might have 4 heads, or there's a dozen copies of you.
You were supposed to be in the universe with no matter, but, well, with no matter... no you.
You end up in the one expanding too fast, you watch the stars as they flee each other.
You end up in the short lived one, your life goes much quicker.

There's no fine tuning. We're here because we'd be there in each universe, just in altered forms, or non existent. It's not luck.

Doesn't this sort of support cosmic evolution and evolution as a whole?
Evolution is based off trial and error pretty much. The best fit for the job continues on. I guess our universe seems to fit the bill, well for our sake.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

That paper actually supports Hawking's new paper because the paper refutes eternal inflation and infinite variability. That has always bugged me about these theories. They don't just want infinite universes, they want infinite variability of the constants of nature which would give you every conceivable pocket universe with different laws of physics. That makes no sense. With this new theory, they have reduced infinite variability in these pocket universes to ones like ours and it gives them a way to test this in the not so distant future.

"The usual theory of eternal inflation predicts that globally our universe is like an infinite fractal, with a mosaic of different pocket universes, separated by an inflating ocean," Hawking explained.

"The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse. But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can't be tested."

www.sciencealert.com...

Again, if you have infinite variability, you have an Alice and Wonderland theory that can't be tested and you can pretty much get any universe with a gazillion different laws of physics. Hawking is correct about this problem.

Hawking and Hertog are now saying that the eternal inflation model is wrong. This is because Einstein's theory of general relativity breaks down on quantum scales.

"The problem with the usual account of eternal inflation is that it assumes an existing background universe that evolves according to Einstein's theory of general relativity and treats the quantum effects as small fluctuations around this," Hertog explained.

"However, the dynamics of eternal inflation wipes out the separation between classical and quantum physics. As a consequence, Einstein's theory breaks down in eternal inflation."

In string theory, the holographic principle proposes that a volume of space can be described on a lower-dimensional boundary; so the universe is like a hologram, in which physical reality in 3D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2D projections on their surfaces.

The researchers developed a variation of the holographic principle that projects the time dimension in eternal inflation, which allowed them to describe the concept without having to rely on general relativity.

This then allowed them to mathematically reduce eternal inflation to a timeless state on a spatial surface at the beginning of the Universe - a hologram of eternal inflation.

"When we trace the evolution of our universe backwards in time, at some point we arrive at the threshold of eternal inflation, where our familiar notion of time ceases to have any meaning," said Hertog.

According to the new theory, the early Universe did have a boundary, and that's allowed Hawking and Hertog to derive more reliable predictions about the structure of the Universe.

"We predict that our universe, on the largest scales, is reasonably smooth and globally finite. So it is not a fractal structure," Hawking said.

It's a result that doesn't disprove multiverses, but reduces them to a much smaller range - which means that multiverse theory may be easier to test in the future, if the work can be replicated and confirmed by other physicists.

POWERFUL STUFF!!!

They're saying eternal inflation is reduced to a timeless state on a spatial 2D surface area which limits the range of universes that can occur.

So like I said, if you have an infinite poker universe, you can have infinite expansion of space but limited infinities that can occur within this space.

Because the configurations of matter are limited by the laws of physics and the fine tuning of our universe there will be infinite earths with infinite versions of you.

This is actually not a unique thought, not by all means. It occured to me the second I was told the universe is thought to be infinite, at a very young age. It´s kind of a logic step.

It was proven again when I told my daughter and half an hour later she came back and basically said the same thing. Infinite versions of you with infinite small changes. After half an hour or maybe an hour she came back to me with a drawing, it was a circle full of circles(those were full of dots..) and then she told me that´s actually bubbles and not a circles. You could also make out the flower of life in the middle if you oversaw the misalignment.

That astonished me a bit and I then said the her, more as a joke than an actual thinking excercise: "What about the time? You know, everything could also happen in infinite steps of time" She looked at me like I´m an idiot, then at her drawing and walked slowly towards the house again, stopped for a second or two then ran inside. That evening (I was interrupted in my garden work and was not there when she finished drawing) before I kissed her goodnight she showed me her second drawing(s) that is really hard to explain.

She drew spirals inside the bubbles/circles and another one roughly 90° in perspective on top of to it. Then she took a few sheets of paper and (I noticed punch marks from her divider) basically did the same but with a single bubble/circle and the two spirals but the spirals had now dots on the lines.

I asked her what this means to her and she said (out of my memory and in another language): "This is time, I don´t know how to draw it but the spiral is spining and the dots are the steps in time."

So I asked something like "And what is the next dot?" She said it´s the same moment in the same but slightly different universe that is infinite but in another "world".

I think what she tried to tell me is that, time is not flowing, time itself is standing still in terms of what´s happening ad infinitum. There is only one "time" for everything infinite. We just move through the spirals line (space). Sort of like if you watch a counter that increases every second, the number that determines the second is actually the position in space for everything when it happens.

She was like in 3-4th grade, she could already write and do divisions in math from what I remember about the timeframe. She also came up with the concept of variables without even knowing that she did it.

I´m not saying she is super smart (of course she is ), my point is, when you challenge kids on their own thoughts it´s much better than stating X as fact and never mind to ask why.

That´s why I always say there are no dumb questions and the worst thing to say is something like "I don´t know". The sentence itself is not the problem, it´s okay to state you don´t know something. But then this sentence must follow "but let´s find out!".

This way you keep the fire alive inside their inquisitve minds!

Let this guy go already ok.....Hawkins this Hawkins that...what a bunch of propaganda....his theories are no different than yours or mine or anyone elses....but the levels of marketing used to fiscalise this guy are outstanding and I am tired of hearing about him...let him and his ideas rest now...history will recall him when and if it needs to...now its time to move on beyond his limited and censored perspectives.

The Universe is a pattern...we have the template....there are no secrets....only contrast....silence and sound....lack of motion and motion....balance....Nature seeks contrast and balance in equal quantities...patterns are formed...the majority learn the rules by observation not interaction....observation is limited...so unless you are a visual thinker your abiity to interact is severely limited and you must rely more and more on observations and educated guess stemming from these limited observations...while a visual thinker is interacting with the concepts in a 3-d manner and is gaining insights and knowledge and is able to observe patterns conventional thinkers cannot even imagine.

Hawking was forced to learn to become a low level visual thinker....he had to....but some of us are natural born visual thinkers and to us he is like a child....to the masses he is manifesting insights they cannot concieve of and this is marketted and profitted from...while all around us are visual thinkers who are unknown andnot marketed like a product who are doing a much much better job of explaining our Universe and identifying the patterns we must understand to gain this knowledge.

a reply to: neoholographic


The first thing is Dr. Hawking, Hertog, et. al. used a "math trick" that comes from string theorists.

Hawking and Hertog argue that, in fact, eternal inflation does not occur. To do that, they borrow a concept from string theory that enables them to equate two different types of theories with different dimensionalities. In 1997, Argentine-American theorist Juan Maldacena considered a volume of space in which gravity was at work. Maldacena, who is now at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, then demonstrated that theory was equivalent to an easier-to-work-with quantum theory on the boundary of the space that didn’t include gravity. It’s like saying whatever goes on inside a can of soda can be captured by a theory describing only what’s happening on the can’s surface.

Eternal inflation emerges because, in the very early universe, the quantum fluctuations in the field that drives inflation are as big as the field’s average value. But Hawking and Hertog argue that under those conditions one cannot simply carry on with Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but instead must use a maneuver like Maldacena’s to view the entire situation in a space with one less dimension. In that alternative space, things are more tractable, they claim, and the physics does not lead to eternal inflation. Instead, a single, well-behaved universe merges.

That’s where things get interesting—and tricky. The concept of equating one theory to another in a space with one fewer dimension is known to theoretical physicists as holography. In his work, Maldacena equated one theory to another in a space with one less spatial dimension. But, Hertog argues, the principle of holography allows theorists to jettison the dimension of time, instead. So in Hawking’s and Hertog’s theory, through the principle of holography, the very early universe should be described by a theory with just three spatial dimensions and no time.

sciencemag.org - Stephen Hawking’s (almost) last paper: putting an end to the beginning of the universe.

First, you have to have inflation which is a theory. Next, you need the universe just after the BB to behave with fluctuation and holes as it expands, yet another assumption that it is quantum in nature and follows our known quantum mechanics. The original SH idea treated time as a variable that did not shrink. That was back in the 1980s (IIRC). The problem there is that time, as a dimension in the equations is not fixed but can race out in front of the expanding universe causing the problems with a fractal multiverse. The new paper "rolls the movie backwards" and when it gets to the point where you have problems with time and an infinity of infinities of universes they argue that they can drop time as a "dimension" or mathematical variable! They did this to side-step Einstein and that usually doesn't work out too well.

I count 3 "Ifs" just to get to this point! And that is assuming string thoery! 4 Ifs. At some point you are just talking philosophy. If you can drop time as a variable what happens to "space-time"?? Yeah, it sounds good and gets you out of one set of problems while asking for even more!

Distance = time. It is like saying, "I did the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs"!!

Happy May the Fourth, btw!!

PS - That link was Hawking's paper!! Here is a bit more that helped me understand why, besides MSM hype, this paper is not a groundbreaking one. phys.org - Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Again, you need to read what the article you posted actually says.

The theory of eternal inflation that Hawking and Hertog put forward is based on string theory: a branch of theoretical physics that attempts to reconcile gravity and general relativity with quantum physics, in part by describing the fundamental constituents of the universe as tiny vibrating strings. Their approach uses the string theory concept of holography, which postulates that the universe is a large and complex hologram: physical reality in certain 3-D spaces can be mathematically reduced to 2-D projections on a surface.

The theory is based on the string theory concept of holography. The part of string theory that deals with holography can survive and does survive without string theory. A holographic universe shows up in the equations involved with string theory.

There's many people that accept a holographic universe without string theory. It then says this:

Hawking and Hertog developed a variation of this concept of holography to project out the time dimension in eternal inflation. This enabled them to describe eternal inflation without having to rely on Einstein' theory. In the new theory, eternal inflation is reduced to a timeless state defined on a spatial surface at the beginning of time.

So it's not based on string theory but a variation of the concept of holography that can be found in the equations of string theory.

This is very important because more and more scientist are accepting the universe as a hologram because science can't show that an objective physical universe exist as we experience it.

Here's a video with scientist saying the 3rd dimension might be an illusion.



So Hawking's final theory is very relevant because it does 2 major things. It reduces the range of universes that can occur. So it's like going from a 52 card deck to a 10 card deck. Secondly, this is based on holography not string theory. If you read the article, the writer of the article says it's based on string theory then it's based on a variation of the concept of holography which isn't being based on string theory.

You can have a holographic universe without physical vibrating strings. In fact, I would say evidence is growing for a holographic universe but not for other aspects of string theory.

Theory claims to offer the first 'evidence' our Universe is a hologram

Despite how extreme the idea sounds, theories about the Universe being an illusion or a hologram aren't new. Now, researchers claim to have found evidence towards proving this hypothesis.

A team of theoretical physicists at the University of Southampton believes it has found signs our Universe is an illusion by studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB) – radiation left over from the Big Bang.

The holographic Universe means information that makes up what we perceive as a 3D reality is stored on a 2D surface, including time. This means, essentially, everything you see and experience is an illusion.

"Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions, and your perception of time, in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field,” says Professor Kostas Skenderis from the University of Southampton.

“The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a 3D image is encoded in a 2D surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire Universe is encoded." Another way of simplifying this is through 3D films. Although not an example of a hologram, 3D films create the illusion of 3D objects from a flat 2D screen. The difference in our 3D Universe is that we can touch objects and the 'projection' is 'real', from our perspective.

www.wired.co.uk...

The idea is that vibrating strings give rise to gravity but the math works much better without gravity. So some say gravity is emergent from the entropy of entanglement. This is because you have General Relativity that describes gravity at large scales very well. It breaks down when you get to quantum scales. When you say gravity is emergent from something occurring on the 2D surface area, everything goes back to making sense.

I personally think, this is like being in the movie the Thirteenth Floor when they realized the world wasn't real.

This makes perfect sense if God or some advanced civilization created some sort of holographic internet. You have time, the laws of physics and all of the information needed to project the universe we see on this 2D computational device. There's just no way that we're in a real, objective physical universe.

That would be such a waste and take up vast amounts of computing power. This is also why space can expand faster than light because space isn't physical. Space is a projection of this 2D surface that creates boundaries around pockets or holographic universes.You could project a gazillion of these holographic universes on a computer the size of the moon or even a smaller quantum computer.

Think about it. Why would a real physical universe behave this way? You have some physical 2D structure that contains all the information to project holographic universes. This tells us that we live in a simulated holographic universe.

These universes might be used as some prison by an advanced civilization or recreation. This civilization can enter in and out of universes like we do with Facebook or Instagram in this holographic internet.

This makes way more sense to me rather than saying we live in an objective physical reality. There's no evidence to support such a notion.

a reply to: neoholographic

“Hologram” is not the laser thing. It is a mathematical construct that maps one space to another.

The 2D universe is a way to not not deal with the the nasty “dimensions” of reality. I should probably end my post here but please think about it,

Ignoring a “dimension” that is actually an intrinsic part of reality is so much a lazy approach to theory that I don’t even think this is worth even considering.

But that is is me.

I love you Neo! For pushing what we know about what we know! But what we know is so little that I feel bad about bragging about our ignorance!!

Peace out, my friend!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Lazy, LOL. This is lazy:

Ignoring a “dimension” that is actually an intrinsic part of reality is so much a lazy approach to theory that I don’t even think this is worth even considering.

That's lazy. These scientist have been debating this for years. People like Susskind and Hawkings or the work of Hooft and Maldacena. It's an intrinsic part of your PERCEPTION of reality and nothing more. There's no evidence that an objective physical reality exist.

When Scientist find that the information that can fit into a volume of space corresponds to the 2D surface area instead of it's volume, they can't just stick their heads in the sand and wish it away.

You haven't provided a shred of scientific evidence that your PERCEPTION of reality is an objective physical reality. All of the evidence points to the universe being a projection of a 3D universe or a holographic simulation of information. Here's a lecture by Susskind that goes into this deeper.



You have John Preskill and others talking about is the universe as a quantum error correcting code.



You have Theoretical Physicist James Gates who found error correcting codes in the equations of string theory. Again, why would a real physical universe need error correcting codes that we use with classical and quantum computers?



Error correcting codes allows you to preserve the data that's being transmitted. This would make perfect sense because space is a projection of this data from a 2D surface that projects these pocket holographic universes.

There's no evidence that some objective physical 3D world exists. It's just a holographic simulation of information which tells me we live in a simulation of either some real universe that existed or an intelligence just created these universes like we create video games.

When you just look at something like superposition it makes perfect sense in the context of processing information. Why render these "particles" when they're not being measured? It would be a was of processing power. This is why video games don't render the entire game at all times just parts of the game your interacting with. Look at the internet itself. Websites are stored on a server until accessed by a web address. So this website or a website like Facebook might be online all the time but a blog that gets 100 views a day isn't online all the time. The information is stored on a server until the web address is accessed. Again, the universe isn't an objective physical reality. Show us some evidence to support this beyond the cave mentality that thinks your PERCEPTION must correspond to reality because you wish it to be so.

Some had been saying for years around here that the universe waste no energy and parallel universes would likely only by necessity and not probability.

He sure did make it sound in that last paper that we may just all be cells of someones brain.

Close by proximity and design.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
He sure did make it sound in that last paper that we may just all be cells of someones brain.

Close by proximity and design.

I´m not familar with his work except for what the entry-level-nerd may know. Can you elaborate how you got that impression? I ask because the word "fractals" came to my mind while reading your post.