>>14247343Regarding the energy to constitute the first wave (or the existence of this specific universe in general), I think it was a lottery of sorts in the cardinal "hypergraph" (which I only just learned already had a name before my "noograph" --pronounced new graph, personally defined as the "now graph" or "non-zero graph").
This lottery was essentially a "brane" it stumbled upon simply through it's non-zero flux, of which this state of flux will always exist, and has always existed as the diatribic value to zero (however with zero, or nothing, being ultimately cardinal to this infinite series). Nothing persists, as does its opposite.
Anyways, this brane, I surmise, allowed for the first pattern to exist (in this universe anyways) which itself interacted with the rules of the brane, yielding more particles and fields. I can go into detail about my thoughts regarding how the rules formed if anyone is curious.
As for if the fields always existing, I think at this moment that's something we can only speculate. My thoughts are that the fields occurred in the progenitorial order by which particles yield ordinal, larger descendants. This could help explain why light is observed as both a particle and a wave (ultimately all things rest on the existence of waves, but particles are a more stable/complex conglomerate of waves that manifest as a corporeal structure when observed. Light may be in a special position regarding its order.)
A bit non sequitur, but I think that gravity is an emergent phenomena that is the result of the rules followed at the smallest unit of space. Probing gravitational relationships in space with ever more precise measurements can help us reverse engineer the rules that these smallest "tetrahedrons", or what I call "pixons", follow. Once we figure out the rules we'd have to then learn to use them, creating a brane-based computer.
Please read everything I say with a grain of salt. I just find this stuff to be a thought experiment.
