Nobody said the universe had to be palatable!

It is most important, when modeling in cosmology, to step back (so much as we can) from our own feelings, and take a hard look at the problems we must "solve" with our model.

The universe in 4-D is a fine description of what we immediately observe, but fine tuned observations of the universe indicate there is a lot more to reality than what we casually observe at first glance.

What we are willing to "buy" and what really "is" can be uncomfortably different.

I'm not all that thrilled with a deterministic universe, but it is a model of this kind which seems to be getting the observational verification in GR and even (counterintuitively from 4-D) in QM.

The failure of reductionism at quantum levels interestingly is the same failure we describe (completely correctly) when we talk about the fact that complex biological organisms are greater than the sum of their parts. When parts must work together to achieve an extra given result, we get 1+1=3 from an entropy standpoint.

Aristotle took a gander at the complexity of life and came to the conclusion that we live in an eternal universe without the benefit of the Hubble telescope.

He understood that such complexity demanded mechanisms to conserve, protect and further extend itself.

I FIRMLY believe that a finite universe DEMANDS change, and I think, no, I know that Ernst Mach would agree with me. Nevertheless, change in a massive finite universe, since it inherently has the potential for catastrophe as well as improvement, must be controlled...and therefore proceed slowly.

The assembly of any low entropy object must occur in a given sequence, and there must be dimensional positioning involved. An internal combustion engine will not assemble itself from a pile of parts shaken randomly.

I point out to my Algebra students the similarity of mathematics to this concept. An equation is a matter of intricate balance. One side must equal the other, by definition. If the two sides are not equal, we have a sign to indicate that fact- and we no longer have an equation. By definition, equations are symmetrical. In an internal combustion engine, if one piston goes up, another must go down. When one set of valves open, others close.

The net result of this low entropy organized activity in math or the engine is periodicity or rotation.

A student asked how I could be so confident the universe was two-sided (dual). I asked the student how many sides an equation had. Then I held a quarter in front of the students face and asked him how many sides it had...two.(actually three, but this is another fascinating story) Finally, I asked the student how many sides of the coin he could view at one time...one.

Charles, we have our answers. We may not like them. They may not suit our philosophy, but we have answers. Irrefutable scientific proof of the dual universe will be on the table within a few years.

I would hope the world of science could give Stephen Hawking that proof before our generation passes.

Best Wishes, Sam Cox