# Is our universe recursive?

What if the four (and the rest to be discovered) basic forces do not have to be regarded as discreet, but are connected in a Matryoshka-like way.The strong interaction is in the weak interaction, which in turn is in the electromagnetic interaction and the in turn in gravity (and gravity in…?). Each (definable) interaction is different from the other, no interaction can and will be the same. The idea of elementary particles is thus distorted, there is probably no “end” or a judgment. Another exciting aspect of the “Matryoshka idea” is the reference to the theory of information. Interestingly, it takes a theory of information, information. So when reading information theory I read (the subject which physically also consists of information) how the theory describes itself, so the gain of knowledge or knowledge would have to be. question/reinterpret the validity of information theory (and everything associated with it) (and the description of physical phenomena by means of it).

A recursive universe?

One could describe it as a recursive universe, but one usually means by recursion the mathematical concept behind it and the associated equivalence relations.Generally or physically speaking: Interactions describe interaction between gnor sets thus physics can be formulified as a recursion of opposites (analog: actio reactio, Absolute Relative, Matter Antimatter, strong weak interaction, transversal longitudinal, wave particles, proton electron, also mathematically this is described by boolsch 0 1, + -, /*, differential integral etc. By the way, the idea of dualism is an attempt to combine the opposite –> quantum computers) and in its setting there is a further recursion of the gegesatz etc ad inf… (so the opposite itself could be interpreted as a “ur algorithm”) Where there are only sentences there can be nothing the same [it’s all just similar. a mathematical principle that describes the universe quite elegantly is the self-similarity (or fractal geometry). Note the contrast in the word “self-similarity” (also scale invariance): Logically speaking: What resembles is not immediately (implicatively) different. So it resembles (self) must still be different/bar, which seems contradictory? In fact, it follows that everything is just similar, nothing is the same. Intriguingly, Heraclitus of Ephesus has already described something like self-similarity with the term “logo”, it seems to permeate itself as a basic concept. The consequence would be that the concept of singularity must be more precisely defined/interpreted or the idea of singularity and absoluteness must be thrown completely over Baord. Where is the device for gravity?

The universe is structured in a self-similar way (self-similarity also as a synonym for the infinite).The universe could also be called “fraktal”, but with the Hausdorff dimension (in the form of absolute (even if they are reel) instead of self-like dimensions) the self-similarity is contradicted. Figuratively speaking: The opposite is the algorithm in self-similarity, equivalent (i.e. something that corresponds exactly to the other) objects, subjects, entities are illusory. In which I mathematically, for example, I equate two expressions, I create (spiritually) a gegesatz to the real, since in reality nothing is the same. As mentioned, objects & appearances are similar only; paradoxical it sounds but the method of ‘equalising’ represents an approximation that will never (diversify so to speak/inauthentic convergence) reach the state of the same (in infinity perhaps but then the infinite would be finite in infinity), and this also raises the problem with the Urkilo, the elementary particles, etc. I avoid the term “recursive” because recursion works with n objects/elements of a set and these n objects/elements are considered equivalent to each other (which explains today’s impasses of science). Self-similarity, on the other hand, works with n of n different (i.e. similar) elements –> panta rhei. Recursion is rather a “subset” of self-similarity [and self-similarity is a subset of itself. It sounds banal but in my opinion it’s fundamental.

So physics is physics or physics.Information describes information (Matryoshka doll is also information/physics)or Self-similarity is similar to itself? A general definition is difficult in so far, since it is also possible to recursively define recursively. Therefore, it is better to explain recursion by example. Hofstadter himself defients recursion as follows: nesting and variants of nestings,(stories within stories, films within films, paintings within paintings, Russian dolls within Russian dolls (even comments in parentheses within comments in parentheses)) An object is called recursive if it is defined by itself or contains itself (in whole or in part). The best way to define being or reality is to recursively contrasts –> Self-similarity.

The theory is that the universe is in the innermost self-similar (fractal or recursive), fulfills exactly all given requirements for a (self-explanatory) theory.For this, one only needs to look into reality to recognize the self-like (in the self-similarity) patterns. We are all in the middle of being self-like. Numbers, symbols, states, etc… are never the same! They are all (self-)similar. It sounds banal but creates a more intuitive perspective on the above and also unnamed and to be mentioned theories! Infinitely self-like properties in the self-like being ofPatterns in nature – WikipediaString Theory is also a (self-like) metaphor to describe the self-similarity in which one finds oneself.But there is no “dead-end”, these ominous dimensionless strings are in my opinion haneb眉chen. Everyone can say this, in fact there are more strings in the strings and in which more strings etc…. ad infinitum. There are self-similar dimensions in self-similar dimension ad inf… The “original algorithm” is, so to speak, the opposite, because for a contrast it always needs a contrast and for this contrast in turn a contrast, etc…. Where there are only opposites, there can never be the same and thus never absolute. Q.E.D.

A general definition is difficult in that the definition itself is recursive orself-similar and since it is also possible to recursively define recursively. Therefore, it is better to recursion by means of recursion or recursive examples.

Hofstadter himself defines recursion as follows: nesting and variants of nestings,(stories within stories, films within films, paintings within paintings, Russian dolls within Russian dolls (even comments in parentheses within comments in parentheses)) An object is called recursive if it is defined by itself or contains itself.