One of the ways this model challenges our everyday lived experience is it does not treat time as linear. Rather, it views time as simultaneous—all days are happening every day.
Because of this, each day has three varieties of observer. It can be viewed from behind itself, as itself, or in front of itself. Saturday can be viewed from Friday’s perspective, Saturday’s perspective, or Sunday’s perspective.
This means that although the perception of Saturday may vary, this variance is all on the part of the observer. We can view the color green as the color green. Or we can view green from a “yellow” position (which will make it appear blue). Or from a “blue” position (which will make it appear yellow).
So, too, I am arguing, with pH7. pH7 will read very differently to a brain that is too acidic or too alkaline.
What I am perceiving might be true (“flat”) pH7, akin to perceiving water as water. But might it also be vapor that is condensing to water? Or ice that is warming to water? All three are technically water, but in the latter two, there is a foreground and a background value.
We do not, at present, treat illness as having a foreground and background value. We focus—to far too great an extent, I believe—on the foreground image. And so the cancer returns. And the joint continues to degrade. Because we are not addressing the root of the problem.
The root of the problem will be better understood when we better understand the nature of reality.
Could this truly be a holographic universe, as Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, Juan Maldacena, Gerard ‘t Hooft, and many others have predicted? If so, then perhaps light, like time, has three varieties of observer.
We can perceive light as itself—light qua light, the plain light of day (pH7 as pH7). Or we can perceive energy that is condensing (moon). Or matter that is heating up (sun).
“Sun” and “moon,” in this case, are composite images. There is a foreground and a background to what we are seeing. We see the distillate—not the energy that surrounds it. We see the fire—not that which is burning.
Might this play a role in disease?
Parkinson’s: I am too hot (hyper-methylating), so the world reads as too cold (too alkaline) to my brain. Now I become trapped. How can I slow down when the world reads as too cold? Slow + cold will be slower than the speed of light. In other words, if I read the world as matter (rather than light), I will think more speed is required than is actually required.
ALS: I am too cold (hypo-methylating), so the world reads as too hot (too acidic) to my brain. Now I become trapped. How can I speed up when the world reads as too hot? Fast + hot will be faster than the speed of light. In other words, if I read the word as energy (rather than light), I will think less speed is required than is actually required.
Perhaps the existence of foreground and background could account for some of the paradoxes we observe in medicine (e.g. we sometimes prescribe Ritalin, a stimulant, for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). If I am going to spin at a hot speed, that which is spinning had better be cold. If I am going to spin at a cold speed, that which is spinning had better be hot. Because the “net” effect, in this model, must always be c: the speed of light.
