An Infinite Cosmos: Part Two

The nature of, the size, the shape and the duration of our Universe has been speculated and debated upon ever since humans gazed in wonder at the night sky. Though ideas have waxed and waned, and though modern cosmology is more focused than ever on actual observations, speculations, well that’s still the case today. My take, albeit slightly more philosophically inclined, is that our Universe is just part of an overall infinite in space and infinite in duration cosmos. 

Continued from Part One.

As we noted in the example of the fridge and your body, it takes energy to reverse entropy or at least hold it at bay. A reversal of entropy is sort of like that closed box with Maxwell’s Demon (representing energy) that controls a slot that the Demon can either open or close that’s in the middle of that closed box that’s of a uniform temperature.  The Demon opens the slot whenever a rapidly moving (hot) molecule heads toward the left side or when a slower moving (cold) molecule heads toward the right side. After a while, the left side of the box will be containing just hot stuff (rapidly moving molecules) and the right side cold stuff (slowly moving molecules). Maxwell’s Demon is like a kid expending energy sorting a bag of 1000 various coloured marbles (maximum disorder) into piles of reds and greens and blues and yellows (maximum order).  Of course our infinite cosmos contains no demons, and marble-sorting kids need not apply if there’s ever a job ad for restoring order to an infinite cosmos.

Okay, without demons (or entropy reversing kids), our infinite cosmos heads towards a state of maximum entropy or maximum disorder or maximum uniformity. The cosmic temperature will be the same everywhere; matter will be evenly distributed. But, can an infinite cosmos ever reach such a state? It could or should take an infinite amount of time, but that’s also assumed. 

Yet alas, what even an infinite cosmos needs is a Maxwell’s Demon. The cosmos, if it is to retain a state of vitality for an infinite duration, needs something that recycles stuff that’s at maximum entropy (maximum disorder) back to the basics of minimum entropy (or minimum disorder) where useful things can continue to happen.

* The Role of Gravity

Gravity seems to be a Maxwell Demon’s kind of force that keeps on keeping on. As long as you have two bits of matter, even just two electrons, you have gravity. Radiation (electromagnetism) could be dispersed evenly in infinite space over infinite time, but it is hard to imagine that situation with gravity. The only real way gravity could be rendered inert and useless as an energy source would be if it was 100% concentrated in just one place – like a super ultra mother of all cosmic Black Holes. The only other way gravity could be nullified would be in matter were distributed so absolutely evenly such that every bit of matter were being gravitationally pulled on absolutely evenly in each and every direction. But the slightest nudge or deviation from this ideal theoretical state (inevitable given quantum fluctuations) would throw everything out of equilibrium. But because matter is energy and energy is matter, if gravity can disrupt the distribution of matter from a state of near perfect uniformity, then energy will follow the short and curly material bits. Light (photons) reacts to gravity as much as electrons do. Further, the one extra nice property that gravity has is that it can’t be blocked. You can block out light or shield yourself from electromagnetic effects, but nothing will shield you from gravity.

* The Recycling Role of Radioactivity

Fortunately, there are several basic ways of recycling complex cosmic stuff back into the cosmos in the form of simple stuff. The first of these however has issues. Gravity can contract and pull together interstellar gas and dust into a proto-star which will ignite under pressure via thermonuclear fusion to form a radiant star. Stars however fuse lighter elements into heavier elements, and when a star goes nova, or becomes a supernovae, those heavier elements increasingly form the next generation of interstellar gas and dust. Eventually, after many generations of enrichment, interstellar gas and dust is lacking in those lighter elements (mainly hydrogen and helium) which easily undergoes fusion. Heavy elements, like iron, just won’t fuse any more and so the continued formation of radiant stellar stuff grinds to a halt. But, there is an escape clause.

Among the heavy elements; elements that stars manufacture, are radioactive elements with unstable atomic nuclei. Radioactive decay re-releases back into the cosmos those fundamental bits and pieces that can reform into those lighter elements that are the basic building blocks for forming radiant stellar objects. There is cosmic recycling from the simple to the complex and back to the simple again.

* The Recycling Role of Cosmic Black Holes

The second way of cosmic recycling is, believe it or not, via cosmic Black Holes. Astronomical Black Holes, via the vacuum energy (quantum foam or fluctuations) and quantum tunnelling, can release elementary particles back into the cosmos. As mentioned earlier, this is known as Hawking Radiation, after theoretical cosmologist/astrophysicist Stephen Hawking. Complex stuff can go into a Black Hole, but just very simple stuff ultimately comes back out again.

* The Recycling Role of Life

Life can be an entropy buster as in the case of Maxwell’s Demon, the kid who sorts the marbles, the mum who does the housework, the bird or beaver who gathers up forest debris to make a nest. But, it takes outside energy to accomplish these things and at the end you haven’t decreased complexity – the marbles are still marbles; twigs are still twigs. But microbes like bacteria, etc. can break down complex stuff (like twigs) and turn it into less complex stuff which can be recycled into hundreds of new and different complex things. So, when our home planet eventually meets its Waterloo, and gets scattered back into the cosmic winds, thanks to bacteria, there will be more simple stuff floating around than would otherwise be the case

So complex stuff gets recycled back into simple stuff, all brought together again by gravity to ultimately form complex stuff again. The cosmos receives recycled stuff back, from which it can keep on keeping on!    

* A Fly in the Ointment

In a cosmos that’s both infinite in space and infinite in duration, here’s an interesting ‘angels on the head of a pin’ question. There are two forces which in theory can extend their influence indefinitely, that is, unto infinity. They are electromagnetism (of which light is a prime example) and gravity. So, can the influence of a force cross an infinite space if it has an infinite amount of time to do it in?

Perhaps Maxwell Demon’s ‘closed box’ isn’t really an appropriate ‘container’ for an infinite cosmos. If the cosmos is infinite, can it be described as a closed system? 

The Multiple You

And so finally, consider and reconsider the quantum mantra: “Anything that isn’t forbidden is compulsory; anything that can happen will happen”. That’s even more the case when you have infinite time and space to play around with! So, I add to that mantra “and will happen again and again and again, an infinite number of times”. That actually means, or at least very strongly suggests that every possible scenario, every possible history, and every possible variation on each and every scenario or on any theme that you care to think of or think up will happen again and again and again. That, by the way, includes you. You are a scenario, and you, and every possible variation of you and your history will transpire numerous times; actually an infinite number of times. If that isn’t spooky, I don’t know what is, but it’s a logical consequence of having an infinite cosmos. 

An Infinite Cosmos: Part One

The nature of, the size, the shape and the duration of our Universe has been speculated and debated upon ever since humans gazed in wonder at the night sky. Though ideas have waxed and waned, and though modern cosmology is more focused than ever on actual observations, speculations, well that’s still the case today. My take, albeit slightly more philosophically inclined, is that our Universe is just part of an overall infinite in space and infinite in duration cosmos. 

In the infinite beginning there was something rather than pure nothing – a finite amount of something in an infinite void of nothingness. This scenario eliminates the philosophical quandary of what’s beyond the boundary - that only other alternative. This eliminates the philosophical quandary of how much stuff there is. An infinite amount of stuff doesn’t leave you much elbow room.

In the infinite beginning, well there was no beginning; there can ever be an end. No Alpha – no Omega. This eliminates the philosophical quandary of what comes before the ‘beginning’ and what comes after ‘the end’. 

Okay, having postulated an infinite cosmos in space and in duration, well, other certain and not so philosophical issues come to the fore. If they can be addressed, well that’s all to the good. If not, well it’s back to the drawing board.

I’ll start with…

Olber’s Paradox

The night sky should be as bright as the daytime sky since in whatever direction you look, sooner or later you should see a star or galaxy that’s in your line of sight. That’s Olber’s Paradox because the night-time sky isn’t as bright as the daytime sky. One resolution is that our observable Universe is finite and there are only a finite number of stars and galaxies and thus, there will be lines of sight that do not intersect with an object that’s emitting light.

But what if the cosmos is infinite in size and has existed for an infinite amount of time? Does that resurrect or reinstate the validity or viability of Olber’s Paradox? Not necessarily.

Why is there something rather than nothing? That’s been a prime philosophical question that has raged for eons. But, on reflection, overall, there is a great deal more of nothing than of something. If everything was something, it would be rather difficult to move. There would be no elbow room. In other words, just because the cosmos is infinite in duration and in volume doesn’t mean that there has to be an infinite amount of something within.

Let’s say that pure nothing is a perfect vacuum. Then something within that nothing makes for an imperfect vacuum. One could image a cosmos so dilute that there could literally be gaps of pure nothingness between the bits and pieces of something. Or, one could imagine a universe that contained just one final cosmic Black Hole that had over all the infinite eons gobbled up everything else that had been a something within the cosmos, and thus 99.99999% of that cosmos would contain absolutely nothing. 

That aside…

Stars, like people, are born, and thus their light may not have yet reached us.

Stars, like people, die, and thus their light has ceased to reach us. It has all now passed by.

In an infinite space, stars maybe so far distant that by the time their light reaches us, it’s so diluted or spread out that only one photon per hour hits the eye and that threshold is too low to stimulate the optic nerve and thus register.  

Ever present cosmic Black Holes have gobbled up a lot of the radiation that is emitted and reflected. In fact, in a cosmos that’s infinite, why haven’t those astronomical Black Holes sucked up everything that can be sucked up thus terminating any and all evolving universes within that cosmos? Well the answer is Hawking radiation which theoretically predicts, on pretty substantial grounds, that eventually Black Holes will radiate away their mass. Once input is less than Hawking radiation output, the Black Hole will slowly, ever so slowly, radiate away, giving back to the cosmos what it once took away. There will be more on the significance of that shortly.

Entropy and Cosmic Recycling

Another concept that needs addressing is entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise known as the ‘arrow of time’ or sometimes as ‘time’s arrow’. If one considers an infinite universe to be a closed box or closed system, then over time, and we have an infinite amount of it, that closed box should reach absolute equilibrium and no further cosmic evolution would be possible. There would be a maximum amount of disorder, and there would be no further energy available to reverse that level of disorder.

It should be noted from the outset that in any closed box or closed system, entropy rules. Things will go from a state of order to a state of disorder without outside interference, that being an external source of energy to reverse the natural trend. The commonly cited example is if you have a closed box (the kitchen), and you turn off the fridge, the kitchen and the fridge will eventually reach absolute equilibrium, the same temperature. The kitchen warms up the fridge; the fridge cools down the kitchen, until both are at the same temperature – maximum disorder. It takes an outside energy source – electricity – to keep the fridge colder than the kitchen and thus in a state is disequilibrium or a state where entropy has not been maximalized. Trouble is, once energy is evenly spread out throughout a closed system (like the fridge in the kitchen), no matter how much of it there is, it’s useless in terms of doing useful things – like initiating change.

Another example: Your own body is a closed system. Your body’s energy is in equilibrium. You are at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit from head to toe. Within that state of affairs, your body can not do useful things. Fortunately, there’s a larger closed system that your body is a part of (like the fridge is part of the kitchen) that enables you to disrupt your body’s equilibrium and thus provide the means for your body to initiate change. Your outside energy source is food, which is good since once you invoke that larger closed system that contains you, that larger system absorbs your body heat that gets radiated away into it. So the fridge needs outside energy to replenish its supply of cold; you need energy to replenish your body heat and to provide the ways and means to keep you keeping on. Of course as we all know, that’s just postponing the inevitable. Sooner or later the fridge breaks down with wear; ditto you too. But in the meantime, and for a little while, you can keep your body’s entropy under control.  

Now any attempt to tunnel around various laws, principles and relationships of physics might be in vain, but not a total waste of time. The laws, principles and relationships of physics are constantly being refined, even overturned as in Einstein refined Newton’s gravity; the Sun going around the Earth got overturned by Copernicus. However, anyone attempting to tunnel over, around, or through the Second Law of Thermodynamics should abandon all hope. If you try to butt heads with entropy you’ll just end up with a sore head. You’d have better luck patenting a ‘perpetual motion’ machine, itself a violation of the ways and means of the entropy concept. In fact entropy is why you can’t construct a perpetual motion machine and why any patent officer worthy of the name would refuse you a patent for one.

Still, in an infinite cosmos, a cosmos that keeps on keeping on, there probably needs to be a way to go from a state of disorder (high entropy) back to a state of order (low entropy).

  

To be continued…

A Universe Without Life: Part Two

You know and I know that at this point in time, our Universe is inhabited. Even if nowhere else in the cosmos, Planet Earth is host to terrestrial life. However, the Universe didn’t start off with any life, especially human life. This puts the kibosh on a certain brand of quantum philosophy, the brand that encompasses the role of the observer and the role played by probability.

Continued from yesterday’s Part One blog…

In a universe without life, it’s probably pretty meaningless to talk about concepts like free will. Then there’s that whole sackful of concepts related to good-and-evil like morals, ethics, sin, badness, righteousness, etc. and as such there’s no need for the concepts of heaven or hell. As such, scratch salvation, redemption, forgiveness, or damnation.

There are no emotions, suffering, pain, sorrow, pleasure, consciousness, or psychology. There’s obviously no disease.

There’s another bagful of concepts like the afterlife, reincarnation or resurrection that can go by the boards. Speaking of the latter, there’s no such thing in a lifeless universe as miracles. There is no such concept required like survival of the fittest; there are no wars, no death, and certainly no taxes! There were no soft science concepts around like society, culture, education (no homework), politics and government (no politicians), no economics (no bills), no religion (no thou shalt nots), no philosophy (who needs angels and pins), history (all those names, dates and places) and no environmental issues that needed addressing. There was no beauty (and no ugly either). In short, that pre-life era – that was what is known as the really good old days!

There’s one other important contrast between a lifeless universe and the universe that, in this case specifically contains and singles out humans and human concepts, and that is probability.  

Probability or uncertainty (two sides; same coin) dominates our existence. What odds my next child will be a female? What odds the next time I fly the plane will crash? What odds I win the lottery this week? What’s the probability I will be promoted this year? What’s the probability that I am normal, being of average height, weight, age, etc.? Even in science as performed by humans, probability or uncertainty dominates. Every measurement has error bars. Every forecast has some degree of uncertainty. Even the Sun rising tomorrow is not absolutely guaranteed (though I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that unlikely event). Every theory can ultimately be found to be wrong or incomplete. And just where is that damn electron anyway?

The fundamental question is, is probability an intrinsic property of Mother Nature like mass and gravity, or is it a human invention; a human concept? IMHO, there are no error bars in Mother Nature’s reality. Mother Nature knows the temperature is this, not around this but within this range. Mother Nature notes it will rain tomorrow, not just a chance of showers. Mother Nature knows that the Sun will rise tomorrow even though it will go nova the day after that. Mother Nature knew that Einstein’s theory of gravity was more precise than Newton’s theory of gravity millennia before Newton or Einstein was conceived of in anyone philosophy. And Mother Nature knows exactly where that damn electron is because the electron is. 

Any observer, via instrumentation or via the five senses, usually has to interpret what that observation actually represents – it’s not always obvious. If it was, science would have concluded its work decades ago, or just be engaged in refining things from the tenth to the twelfth decimal place. Interpretation – the choice between two or more possibilities – well that’s weighing probabilities.

* We’ve all observed a cat rubbing its head along an object. What’s the probability the cat is putting its scent on the object or the probability does it have an itch to scratch?

* We might have observed a boat passing away from us and disappearing over the horizon. Is this because the Earth is probably round or did the boat probably sink?

* In quantum physics, observations suggest a wave-particle duality. But is it more probably a wave or is it more likely a particle? 

* Is that unusual light in the sky probably an alien spaceship or is it probably a weather balloon?

* Does viewing a sunrise suggest t you that the Sun probably goes around the Earth or that the Earth probably is rotating around its axis?

* You spot that tornado on the horizon – maybe it will miss you or maybe it won’t. What are the odds? It certainly can’t both hit you and miss you at the same time and place.

* Is Pluto probably a real planet or isn’t it (and does it even cosmically matter)?

* My friend has a cold. I have a cold. Did I probably catch his or did he probably catch mine or was there probably something contagious in the meal we shared several nights ago?

* That Sasquatch I saw. Was it probably too much to drink or was it probably real and if it was real was it probably a bear or was it probably an unknown primate?

* Did the apple fall to earth because it’s probably seeking its natural place or was it probably due to an external force called gravity?

* Is Schrodinger’s cat probably dead or probably alive? It can’t be both simultaneously despite what quantum physics suggest.

* Why is the night sky dark? Is it probably because the Sun’s not shining in the sky at night or probably because the Universe is expanding or probably because there’s only a finite number of stars and galaxies giving off light.

* Why did the chicken cross the road this morning? You may not know (though you can probably come up with a half-dozen possibilities) but the chicken probably does.

There’s little doubt in my mind that to all of these probably observations there is but one answer(s). In many cases we’ve sussed out the answer(s). We don’t have the answer(s) in all the cases. I say answer(s) because there can be more than one answer acting jointly, like there really was a Sasquatch and yes, you were also really, really drunk; yes the Earth is round, but yes, the boat sank as well. But its an either/or certainty of an explanation(s), not a bit of both ways by sometimes probably having your cake and sometimes probably eating it too, probability, as in sometimes the apple falls to earth because it is seeking its natural place and sometimes it falls to earth because of gravity; or that Pluto is a planet on odd days or in months containing an “R” and not a planet on even days or non-“R” months; or sometimes the night sky is dark because the Sun isn’t in the sky, but at other times the night sky is dark because the Universe is expanding and at yet even on other occasions its only dark because there’s only a finite number of stars and galaxies.

The bottom line is that the Universe isn’t governed by probability. Given identical sets of circumstances or conditions, the outcomes remain the same. Observers and observations are irrelevant. That’s made crystal clear during all those millennia the Universe was observer-free.   

A Universe Without Life: Part One

You know and I know that at this point in time, our Universe is inhabited. Even if nowhere else in the cosmos, Planet Earth is host to terrestrial life, from the humble bacteria through to plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In terms of sheer numbers of species and total biomass, microbes and insects rule the roost, though humans alone pat themselves on the back. However, the Universe didn’t start off with any life, especially human life. This puts the kibosh on a certain brand of quantum metaphysics, the brand that encompasses the role of the observer and the role played by probability.

I think everyone would agree that before they were thought of in anyone’s philosophy, the Universe existed. You’d agree that the Universe existed before humans existed, unless you’re one of those fundamentalists who interpret the Book of Genesis literally, and even then there were a few days for the Universe to enjoy a pre-human existence. If you’re not one of those extreme right wing all-things-literal Christians, then you’d go along with the Universe existing before life, any kind of life, arose on Terra Firma (or anywhere else in the cosmos for that matter). You’d also have to go along with the notion that the Universe existed before the Earth (and therefore the Sun and solar system) existed, since the parent (the Universe) has to exist before the offspring (Earth, Sun and solar system). In fact, to bring this string to its logical conclusion, the Universe existed even before our home parent galaxy, the Milky Way existed.

The origin of our Universe via that Big Bang event was roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Our own galaxy didn’t come into its own until three plus billion years post Big Bang. Planet Earth (plus Sun and solar system) came about some 4.5 billion years ago; the first stirrings of what we’d call life happened on Earth within a half a billion years of Earth’s origin event. If you want to equate life in the Universe with life on Earth (terrestrial biology is the proverbial IT), then the Universe has been lifeless for the first 9.7 billion years of its existence.

Our Universe is bio-friendly otherwise we wouldn’t be here to discuss the issue. That’s often termed the Weak Anthropic Principle. A bio-friendly Universe is a Goldilocks Universe, albeit a dangerous Goldilocks Universe with lots of places that are too hot or too cold or otherwise not quite right and not quite bio-friendly. But, any port in a storm.

But before life was thought of in anyone’s (not that there was anyone) philosophy, we’re certain that:

* Chemistry still happened.

* Stars still shined and photons still did their photon thing.

* Gravity still grabbed; Black Holes still formed.

* Radioactivity decay still proceeded.

* Neutrinos still whizzed their merry way along the cosmic byways and pathways.

* Electrons still quantum hopped from orbit to orbit giving off and absorbing energy.

* Quarks still carried on their threesome relationships inside protons and neutrons.

Okay, there clearly was a time when the cosmos was lifeless and the above were cosmic truisms. There clearly might come such a time again if Planet Earth is the proverbial IT when it comes to the life part of “life, the Universe and everything”. Humans aren’t immortal; Planet Earth isn’t immortal, and as I said earlier, the Universe can be a dangerous place. Perhaps humans don’t even need assistance from the Universe at large to bring about their extinction and the extinction of all life on Earth. If life on Earth goes kaput, then:

* Hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, blizzards, floods and droughts will still happen on Terra Firma.

* Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, avalanches, Ice Ages, tsunamis, meteor impacts, erosion, mountain building, and continental drift will still happen on Terra Firma.

* The tides will still ebb and flow; the Moon still waxes and wanes.

Now the $64,000 question is why is a lifeless Universe of any interest whatsoever? The answer is “observers”, or in the case of a lifeless Universe, “no observers”.

Many, especially the religious, think the Universe had a purpose, and that was to be fruitful and produce life, intelligence and consciousness, a way of the Universe being able to contemplate its own navel. That’s often termed the Strong Anthropic Principle. Most scientists give that the thumbs down on the grounds that the Universe just is. The Universe doesn’t have a consciousness, or a deity controlling it, and therefore the cosmos can’t have a purpose to its existence, nor a ways and means that it can consciously direct itself toward such a goal.

However, many quantum physicists suggest that the Universe cannot have achieved a reality until such time as observers (life) appeared to give the Universe reality. That’s often termed the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The idea is that all possible realities exist in a state of superposition and only one becomes reality when someone actually observes and forces the numerous possibilities down to one certainty. All possible realities are grouped together and termed the probability wave-function or wave of probability. When crunch-comes-crunch and someone peeks, Mother Nature is forced to make a decision, the wave-function collapses and one and only one certainty results.

Until life appeared then, the Universe was in a superposition of all possible realities, a wave-function that was a composite of all possibilities. That first observer hence collapsed the wave-function of near infinite possibilities down to one reality. Or is that just so much bovine fertilizer?

Now between the time of the creation, that Big Bang event some 13.7 billion years ago, and the time of that first observer arising, the cosmos expanded and evolved. Stars formed, solar systems formed, galaxies formed, and so on. Now all that suggests that there was one reality, one chain of events, and a causality that was universal – the Universe was not in a composite of all possible states of reality even while no life existed. It’s silly to think that that ever first proto-cell billions of years ago determined the single structure or reality of the Universe we see around us today. For observers to have come into being, the Universe had to have already been in a state of being. Therefore, the Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum is utter nonsense.

So, does the Universe exist even if nobody is looking? Yes! Did the Universe exist even when there was nobody to look? Yes! Are observers relevant? No!

Having settled the observer question, let’s move on to the next phase.

To be continued…

More Random Thoughts In Physics

* In our Universe there are two kinds of astronomical objects. There are cosmic faucets like stars and anything else that gives off or reflects electromagnetic (EM) waves. That’s the cosmic “In Tray”. Then there are cosmic sinks and drains that absorb electromagnetic waves – Black Holes, the cosmic “Out Tray”.

It would seem to me that over the course of 13.7 billion years, an awful lot of EM (light, IR, UV, radio, microwave, gamma-ray, etc.) photons, not to mention neutrinos and cosmic rays, would have gobbled up and removed from the Universe’s inventory by being sucked into and forever residing in the insides of Black Holes. Since all astronomical observations, hence conclusions about the state of the Universe, rely on the detection of that which is emitted or reflected by cosmic faucets, then it stands to reason that in order to arrive at valid conclusions, what cosmic sinks and drains remove from the Big EM Picture must be taken into account. But is it? I’ve never read any account where the removal of EM photons from the Universe’s inventory has been considered.   

One example that springs to mind is the minor temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) – perhaps those slightly cooler spots are due to a large Black Hole between our measuring device and the CMBR that is sucking up those microwaves before they reach our measuring telescope or space probe or high altitude balloon. I seem to recall cosmologist George Gamow back in the 1940’s making a theoretical prediction that the (then undetected) CMBR would be somewhere between 5 to 7 degrees Kelvin, instead of the roughly 2.7 degrees Kelvin that eventuated. Perhaps, the overall cooler than Gamow expected CMBR is due to Black Holes sucking up lots of those CMBR photons over all those billions of years.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Another case of non-causality that’s oft given is when an electron gives off a photon, loses energy, and drops to a lower ‘orbit’ around a nucleus. The opposite isn’t lacking in causality however. A photon is absorbed by an electron which gives it additional energy which kicks it upstairs into a higher ‘orbit’ around a nucleus. Now it’s nuts to suggest that a process has causality in one direction while lacking causality in the exact opposite direction. We may not know why an electron gives up a photon and loses energy in the process, but there is most definitely a why causality – of that I’m convinced.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* To be honest, I reject the idea that space itself is expanding. To me distant galaxies are expanding farther and farther apart throughout an already existing space. That makes way more sense. Expanding space appears to me to be a case of getting a free lunch – something from nothing – in violation of standard conservation principles.

Is there any actual observational evidence that proves conclusively that it is space expanding and not cosmic flotsam and jetsam moving apart through existing space? Not to my knowledge but I can think of a possible test that might conclude the issue. Two objects receding apart, like the Earth and the Moon (due to tidal forces) are going with the expanding space grain and should be separating more rapidly than otherwise would be the case due to tidal forces alone. The experiment, measuring the increasing Earth/Moon separation should be a relatively easy experiment to do. Due to the reflective mirrors left on the lunar surface by the Apollo moonwalkers we know the Earth-Moon distance to extreme precision. It should be straightforward whether the Moon is receding from the Earth faster than tidal forces can account for.  

oooooOOOOOooooo

* The cosmos is easily divided into matter and energy related ‘things’ (products of nature) and space and time related ‘not things’ (concepts invented by humans and maybe by other animals). IMHO, ‘things’ are probably those which ultimately reside in the world of the quantum and are discrete. Many ‘not-things’ can be divided and divided indefinitely and are continuous.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* If an electron acquired enough mass (say by being accelerated to near light speed), would it become a Black Hole, and if so, would the ‘inside’ still be an electron, which after all, is considered a fundamental particle? 

oooooOOOOOooooo

* If you like symmetry, then the most perfect object of all things symmetrical is a sphere.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* We frequently read of a “world without time” or “time standing still” or “time doesn’t exist” when it comes to that never-never-land of singularities, be then Black Hole related or that which was at the moment of the Big Bang which somehow created time. I consider that an impossibility since the absence of time means that nothing changes or conversely if nothing every changes it would be meaningless to talk about the existence of time. But the froth and bubble of the vacuum energy is omnipresent (even inside a Black Hole or the structure that was the Big Bang event) and that involves change and therefore the concept of “no time at all” is kaput.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* It is said the electron is a fundamental particle that cannot be divided or split into simpler components. An electron can of course be converted to energy (all mass can be) say by coming into contact with a positron, the electron’s antimatter alter ego. An electron can emit and absorb a photon, but it doesn’t decay into anything simpler. So I gather if you could smash two electrons head on with as much oomph as one could muster, you’d end up with as close to as makes no odds, that is nearly, a case of the irresistible force failing to move (shatter) the immovable (un-shatterable) object. Another case illustrating the irresistible force and immovable state of affairs – it is impossible to isolate a quark (they come as a trio take all) or its force particle, a gluon.

oooooOOOOOooooo

* Space is not the final frontier. The ultimate challenge is to ‘boldly go’ past the event horizon of a Black Hole and see what’s to be seen. 

A Trilogy of Universes: Part Four

There is a trilogy of possible universes we inhabit – Supernatural, Natural and Simulated. There are also several universal beliefs that nearly all humans, all cultures, over all of history share. Belief in these universals usually extends to the present day. Can the later assist in determining which of the three possible universes we might live in, is the one we do live in?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Final Scores and Summary

If, and only if, you accept the reality of those human belief systems, those universals, then the following are the pluses and minuses that are suggestive of what sort of universe we inhabit.

*Natural Universe: The natural universe, the universe where Mother Nature rules the roost, can easily account for any and all creations – from the universe through to galaxies, stars, planets, life, intelligent life, and human life. Deities can be attributed to highly advanced technologically inclined extraterrestrials – ‘ancient astronauts’. Free will can be achieved thanks to quantum physics. Unfortunately, universals such as an afterlife, a home for afterlife retirees, ghosts, and variations on a theme of reincarnation cannot be accommodated in Mother Nature’s realm. Score: 4 ½ out of 11. 

*Simulated Universe: With the sole exception of free will, a Simulated Universe can account for, well, life the universe and everything. Score: 10 out of 11.

*Supernatural Universe: With the exception of ghosts, a Supernatural Universe can accommodate everything regarding life, the universe and everything universal. Score: 10 out of 11.

It seems to be a tossup between a Supernatural Universe (with supernatural deities) and a Simulated Universe (with flesh-and-blood computer programmers). If you’re the end product, does it matter much if it’s a god or a programmer that’s responsible? It’s “In the beginning God created” vs. “In the beginning the Supreme Programmer created”. Anyway, the choice boils down to free will vs. ghosts. There’s no way you can verify you have free will. As the saying goes, “you have to believe you have free will; you have no choice in the matter.” Both a Natural Universe ruled by classical (cause-and-effect) physics and a Simulated Universe can remove free will from any consideration. Ghosts on the other hand have been seen and recorded for thousands of years by millions of people. Ghosts have a greater reality quotient than free will. Therefore, I have to give an extra tick to a Simulated Universe scenario which can give you a believable ghost, but not free will vs. a minus-tick to a Supernatural Universe which cannot give you a believable ghost but a free will that cannot be verified.

So, when crunch comes crunch, if you want to accommodate all of the universals that humans hold near and dear to them, then a Simulated Universe is the way to bet the family farm on being the true universe, at least as far as we are concerned. The sort of universe the simulators inhabit is beyond our comprehension, in much the same way that a character in one of our video games cannot grasp what our universe is like.

If however you reject the Simulated Universe scenario, then you slide on down the steep slope to the Supernatural Universe option. If you reject the Supernatural Universe, then it’s down the slippery slope to the Simulated Universe. If you reject both in favour of the Natural Universe, then you have a lot of enigmas that require some very deep thought and explanations.

So what’s the point of all this? I mean, regardless of which universe you (and the rest of us) actually reside in, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. If you live in a Natural Universe, yet really desire a Supreme Being and an afterlife – tough! If you really exist in a Simulated Universe but are uncomfortable with the unknown pulling your strings – tough! Still, though powerless you might be, still it’s interesting to have a firm idea of what your universe actually is. It’s relatively easier to come to terms with the known, than the unknown, even if you’re not altogether pleased with that knowledge. 

#Of course if you throw into the mix all terrestrial life forms that have a reasonable advanced set of wetware (mammals and birds say) then the equation shifts drastically to the natural point of view. I’m sure my two cats don’t have a cat deity and their worldview is all things natural.

A Trilogy of Universes: Part Three

There is a trilogy of possible universes we inhabit – Supernatural, Natural and Simulated. There are also several universal beliefs that nearly all humans, all cultures, over all of history share. Belief in these universals usually extends to the present day. Can the later assist in determining which of the three possible universes we might live in, is the one we do live in?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Reincarnation

Lastly, another near universal concept is reincarnation. Some people believe they have led previous lives. Some cultures suggest you can be reincarnated as another life form. Nearly everyone has experienced a sensation of Déjà vu. 

*Natural Universe: You cannot have a memory of a previous life or lives since neither your father’s sperm and your mother’s egg could contain a genetic memory of your previous life or lives, so at conception, your conception, you could not have been blessed with any genetic inheritance of a memory of another you that lived once upon a time (in a galaxy far, far away). For a similar reason, you could not be the reincarnation of a previous life form. There is only one ‘you’ and that ‘you’ did not originate from any other life forms apart from your biological parents. As for Déjà vu, that would have to be coincidence. A natural universe rules out any versions of reincarnation.  No points awarded in this case.

*Simulated Universe: If your name is Joe Blow, and you’re just software, then there’s a command within that software that you come to that says something like “end subroutine program Joe Blow” – Joe Blow kicks the bucket. But, then there’s another command which says “start subroutine program Joe Blow reincarnate” – Joe Blow gets reassembled into another simulated identity. Easy! One full point has to be awarded here for the logical possibility that the Supreme Programmer or Supreme Player likes to subject their simulated characters to perform as various identities, sort of like father, like son, or like human, like cockroach.

*Supernatural Universe: Some religions do suggest that upon attaining the state of death, some part of what was you, becomes a you again, but in another body, which may or may not be of the same species as the one you just died as. If, presumably, this transition from life to death to life (not afterlife) is guided or determined by supernatural deities, then I guess such a belief is rational, since a supernatural deity can transcend the Natural Universe or the natural order of things. And, who’s to say whether a transition from life to afterlife is more logical than a transition from life to another life. One point if you please!

Shape-Shifters

Like ghosts, shape-shifters and shape-shifting, of certain deities, humans and creatures, and a belief in same, is a universal shared by all cultures throughout recorded history, albeit less so in modern times than ancient times.

*Natural Universe: While shape-shifting isn’t unknown in the natural world, it’s a slow process – a seed can’t transform into a plant; a tadpole into a frog, in seconds, and in the natural world it’s a one-way street. The shape-shifters throughout human history cannot be natural since transitions tend to be rapid and reversible. However, they just might be extraterrestrial since we have no idea what might be biologically possible on other worlds. Still, without proof of aliens and that alien ability, terrestrial (natural) shape-shifters have to be given the thumbs down, but, given the (unlikely) possibility, ½ point.

*Simulated Universe: We’ve all seen shape-shifting undertaken by characters in the movies or in TV episodes. It can be made to look pretty convincing, in fact, given the state of the CGI art; it can be made to look absolutely convincing. If a computer programmer wants their creation(s) to shape-shift, so be it. One full point for the possibility has to be the order of the day.

*Supernatural Universe: Well, in mythology, various deities, such as Zeus, shape-shift to their heart’s (and private parts) content. God and/or Jesus may not have shape-shifted within Biblical texts, but they probably could have had they wanted to. That’s just one of those superpowers deities have. Again, one point is awarded based on the relevant literature.

Hybrid Creatures

While now relegated to our past societies and cultures, hybrid creatures, either animal-animal (like the dragon or griffin) or animal-human composites (like the centaur or Minotaur), were in ancient times held universal, and in fact based on prehistoric carvings, extend way back before recorded history. Even on tiny, isolated, remote Easter Island you get images depicting hybrid creatures, in this case birdmen predominate.  

*Natural Universe: There’s no biology, no natural selection, no operations of normal evolutionary genetics that can account for the dragon, the griffin, the sphinx, Pegasus, the Minotaur, the centaur, and literally thousands more hybrid creatures that are found and described in ancient literature, depicted in ancient art, manufactured as ancient statues – what tends to be termed today mythologies from around the world. However, composite creatures produced or manufactured via artificial selection is a different hybrid horse of mixed colours. Since such artificial selection techniques, advanced genetic engineering, was beyond the abilities of the ancients, the only explanation, assuming hybrids in our natural universe, has to be technologically advanced aliens. So, ½ point here too.

*Simulated Universe: If software can simulate a human; if software can simulate a lion; then software can simulate a sphinx! As in the case of shape-shifting, well, one can simulate a hybrid creature via sophisticated computer generated software. So, if you believe there was, once upon a time, a sphinx, then one point awarded for your belief, since that belief can be vindicated via a Simulated Universe.

*Supernatural Universe: If mythology is just somebody else’s supernatural religion, then the supernatural is chock-a-block saturated with hybrid creatures. The issue of ‘why’ the need for such entities isn’t at issue here; they just are. Since mythologies record their existence, who am I to doubt this universal facet that humans, at least once upon a time, found credible? - One point.

Universal Flood

*Natural Universe: All ancient societies, for obvious reasons, settled first near water, usually rivers. Rivers flood, even if the source of the floodwaters was way upstream and not local rain. So, it’s not surprising that there would be embellished tales of catastrophic floods, all the better when told down through the generations with a morality twist. So, local floods can get thumbs up, but one big global deluge is not possible by any sort of geography known to mankind, so that gets thumbs down. All up, ½ point for an each way bet.

*Simulated Universe: A 100% global flood is certainly possible to simulate. One could probably design a video game called ‘Noah and the Ark’ or equivalent from some other culture. If you accept a deluge that was worldwide, then a simulation of same has got to be under consideration. One point has to be awarded for the logic.

*Supernatural Universe: Well, there are no shortages of massive flood events that were triggered by the wrath of the gods, and not just the one related in the Book of Genesis. Science can not account for forty days and nights of rain (and variations on that theme), but in the La-La-Land of supernatural occurrences, well, the Heavens knows, anything goes. One point if you accept the realm of the miraculous.

To be continued….

A Trilogy of Universes: Part Two

There is a trilogy of possible universes we inhabit – Supernatural, Natural and Simulated. There are also several universal beliefs that nearly all humans, all cultures, over all of history share. Belief in these universals usually extends to the present day. Can the later assist in determining which of the three possible universes we might live in, is the one we do live in?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Deities

One such universal are deities (or aliens misinterpreted as deities).

*Natural Universe: Deities are almost by definition supernatural since they all have powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men (and women). However, it’s perfectly logical to have a natural universe containing extraterrestrials with advanced technology. Advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, the supernatural, if your level of sophistication is below that level of that advanced technology (what would a Neanderthal make of a jet aircraft flying overhead). To ancient human societies, ‘ancient astronauts’ would be deities, even more so if these extraterrestrials pawned themselves off as deities for various reasons. Because extraterrestrials violate nothing in the Natural Universe, yet the existence of extraterrestrials hasn’t been verified to date, just ½ point can be awarded.

*Simulated Universe: The deity in question here is the software programmer. Though not an actual deity, the end products created by the programmer, if given enough sophistication, might worship as a deity this unknown creator they envision as having to exist in order to account for them. One point awarded.

*Supernatural Universe: Here deities are really real deities, real deities strutting their real deity stuff for all and sundry to see and appreciate. So, it’s only natural that their existence should be acknowledged. One full point awarded.

Free Will

Probably the most universal of the universals is the concept of free will. Very few humans would deny that they are in control of their own fate, destiny, etc. They might be subjected to the laws of the land; to the laws, principles and relationships of physics, chemistry and biology; to the whims of others; but ultimately you yourself pick and choose – or do you. Let’s just say that philosophers and metaphysics professors have been arguing that point for thousands of years.

*Natural Universe: There are two possibilities here. Firstly, at the time of the creation of the universe, all the laws, relationships and principles of, ultimately physics, were set in motion. Everything from that point onwards was fixed. Determination ruled. Causality ruled – absolutely. From first principles, the future, to as many decimal places as you’d care to measure, was fixed – absolutely. As such, you were predetermined as long ago as the Big Bang – 13.7 billion years ago. Therefore, you have no free will. Classical Physics rules, OK? However, part of physics is known as quantum physics, the physics that rules the roost of the microscopic. Apparently, causality doesn’t rule the roost in all things quantum, only probability. Therefore, there’s wriggle room, not certainty, and you can exhibit free will. Score ½ point for an each way bet. .

*Simulated Universe: Unless software is way more sophisticated than I dreamed possible, you dance to someone else’s tune. There’s no free will if you’re a virtual being. There are actually two scenarios here, but one outcome. Either simulation parameters were set at the Alpha Point and the enter “run program” button pushed, or else there’s an active ‘player’ who manipulates events as they unfold, like someone would in a video game or in a pilot training simulator. Either way, it’s zero points being the order of the day if you’re into free will.

*Supernatural Universe: In the monotheistic religions, and for that matter in the polytheistic religions, free will tends to be the order of the day. You are free to believe or not believe; free to sin or not to sin; free to rule your own roost and pay whatever piper needs to be paid accordingly. Score one full point here. 

Afterlife

Another universal concept is an afterlife. Part of your existence in the here and now will survive your clinical death and decay.

*Natural Universe: There’s no evidence that any part of you that was part of you, when you were alive, remains a part of you after you die. You are 100% composed of matter and energy, and all of that matter and energy can be accounted for post death, because of the various laws of conservation (matter/energy can neither be created no destroyed but only changed in form). Unfortunately for you, those changes in form go from the highly complex to the less complex (that’s what decay is), the exact opposite of what is required to form life, even an afterlife. No one has ever witnessed a newly deceased body or the transition from a dying body to a dead body, with any associated phenomena that would suggest that part of that body’s life essence survived. If the living you is 120 pounds of matter and energy; and the dead you is 120 pounds of matter and energy, then there’s nothing left over that survives and goes to La-La-Land. No points can be awarded here.

*Simulated Universe: If your name is Joe Blow, and you’re just software, then there’s a command within that software that you come to that says something like “end subroutine program Joe Blow” – Joe Blow kicks the bucket. But, then there’s another command which says “start subroutine program Joe Blow afterlife” – Joe Blow gets resurrected into another simulated realm. Easy! One full point has to be awarded here for the logical possibility that the Supreme Programmer or Supreme Player likes to subject their simulated characters to perform in various scenarios, sort of like on earth scenario as it is in heaven scenario.

*Supernatural Universe: Any and all texts that have any relationship to verifying a Supernatural Universe, like the Bible, are full of references to everlasting life, life everlasting, eternal life, life eternal, immortality, in fact an afterlife. Somehow after you die a biological death you get resurrected into a supernatural realm, ‘alive’ and kicking and maybe screaming (just depending on location). One full point has to be awarded here.

One general question, what happens to all those artificial body bits in the afterlife – tooth fillings, artificial heart valves or pacemakers, metal hip or knee joints, etc. For that matter, if you’re a ghost, do you retain those artificial bits and pieces?

Afterlife Location

If the afterlife is universal, then an afterlife location is also universal, from Hades to Hel to Hell; the Spirit World, Valhalla, Heaven, etc.

*Natural Universe: If there can be no afterlife in a natural universe, then it makes no sense that a natural universe would contain geographies that house those blessed with a nonexistent afterlife. In any event, no such afterlife location has ever been discovered and pinpointed either up there or down here. No points awarded here either.

*Simulated Universe: If you have a simulated afterlife, then you need to have a simulated location(s) in which to put down your simulated afterlife roots. One full point given.

*Supernatural Universe: The Supernatural literature is full of locations where you get to spend your immortal life everlasting existence. There are no promises on whether or not you’ll be a happy afterlife camper however. Anyway, another full point has to follow-on.

Ghosts

There’s the paranormal phenomena of ghosts, spirits, phantoms, wraiths, spectres, call them what you will, but a rose by any other name… Whatever they’re called, they appear to verify the existence of life after death. Ghosts have been observed and in general an accepted phenomenon by all peoples, all societies, and all cultures since recorded history began and probably even before that that requires an explanation. However, there’s one fly in the ointment. There are observations of non-living ‘ghosts’, things like phantom trains (the Abe Lincoln funeral train), trucks (‘Phantom 309’) and cars, planes and of course ships (like the Flying Dutchman); also structures, even islands that no longer exist (though the latter two are probably best explained as in all probability mirages). They’ve got to be accommodated too.

*Natural Universe: There is no physical, chemical or biological mechanism that can transform a clinically dead flesh-and-blood body, the kind that made you, you, into a physical, chemical and biological ghost. Ghosts have to be made of matter and energy since they are seen, heard and interact with the environment. They have to be biological since they are animated and behave like a living thing. If ghosts are really real, then we do not exist in a natural universe. If ghosts, including phantom trains, do exist in the natural world then they are the sole product of the human mind and all associated evidence (photographs, etc.) are either fraudulent or have prosaic explanations. Because an all-in-the-mind explanation is possible, albeit unlikely IMHO, ½ point is awarded.

*Simulated Universe: In a Simulated Universe, everything has a ghost of a chance! Software can create ghosts, fully clothed ghosts, as well as phantom trains. Or, on the other hand, ghostly images could be just the result of previously deleted software, which was only 99.9% deleted. Residues remain. The ‘delete’ button isn’t 100% efficient. Whatever scenario you choose, its one full point awarded.

*Supernatural Universe: The problems here are several. What’s the rationale for creating phantom trains for example? - None that I can see. Now assuming something supernatural happens and a dead person becomes an animated person that’s not quite all there, a ghost, then you’d expect that ghost to be starkers – absolutely naked as a newborn baby. It’s the biological entity that dies, not their attire. For that matter, if you’re a ghost, do you retain those artificial bits and pieces, those artificial body bits like tooth fillings, artificial heart valves or pacemakers, metal hip or knee joints, etc. That’s part of your attire too. If you see a ghost with a peg leg, something’s fishy. Because of these issues, no points can be awarded. 

To be continued….

A Trilogy of Universes: Part One

There is a trilogy of possible universes we inhabit – Supernatural, Natural and Simulated. There are also several universal beliefs that nearly all humans, all cultures, over all of history share. Belief in these universals usually extends to the present day. Can the later assist in determining which of the three possible universes we might live in, is the one we do live in?

Possible Universes

*Natural Universe: Once upon a time there was this really Big Bang! The Natural Universe was born. The Natural Universe is really real reality. This is the universe of science, the universe where Mother Nature is Queen, the universe that nearly all of us think of when we think of the universe we inhabit. It’s the universe of death and taxes; of cause-and-effect. But it’s not the only option.

*Simulated Universe: In the beginning the Supreme Programmer created Virtual Reality! We’re all familiar with computer/software generated simulations from video games to educational/training simulators. Mother Nature isn’t in charge. It’s the programmer, the software, the player who pulls the strings. Cause and effect still rules, but it’s a universe where anything and everything can happen; the laws, principles and relationships of science that hold firm in the Natural Universe are irrelevant here - Software rules. The upshot is that we are the puppets. We ‘live’ in someone else’s Simulated Universe. Our reality is virtual reality. That’s of course if you accept the possibility of a simulated universe and simulators and appropriated sophisticated software – but if you don’t, well that takes care of that. But, let’s keep an open mind.

*Supernatural Universe: In the beginning, God (or some supernatural facsimile thereof) established Life, the Supernatural Universe and Everything! A Supernatural Universe is a universe that contains one or more supernatural deities. Magic and miracles and other violations of the laws, relationships and principles of science can and do happen. There’s no hard and fast causality. Whims happen. There might be science, but deities can alter the rules anytime and place they choose. That’s why it’s SUPER-natural. That’s of course if you accept the possibility of supernatural deities existing – and billions do – but if you don’t, well that takes care of that. But again, let’s keep an open mind and see where it takes us.

Either we life in a Supernatural Universe filled with one or more deities, or we live in the real Natural Universe (that’s actually a minority worldview since greater than 50% of the human population believe in a god(s) and the supernatural#), or we live in a Simulated Universe which could be wetware (yours or someone else’s) or software (human or alien). If the latter that Simulated Universe, a creation of wetware or software, probably ultimately resides in a really real Natural Universe, one that’s beyond our grasp. It’s quite possible although to have, like a series of Russian dolls, a Simulated Universe within a Simulated Universe within a Simulated Universe, etc. That aside, the question is how to decide between the three possibilities.

Within the sum total of human beliefs, there are certain universals shared by all cultures at all times. Scholars tend to call these beliefs mythology or religion or the supernatural or paranormal. Whatever the label, it’s difficult to totally dismiss these beliefs as superstitious nonsense given the universality of those beliefs. Something is going on – where’s there’s smoke there’s fire, or as I like to phrase it, behind every mountain of mythology lies a molehill of fact. So, accepting that we have some factual molehills, what are these universal beliefs? Well, they tend to centre around creation for starters. But creation, the Alpha, and its counterpart, destruction, the Omega, be it of the cosmos, the Earth, life or human beings, is only one a several universals that are across the board in every human culture from every human era. You have near universal beliefs in the natural order of things, in deities, free will, in an afterlife, in a place to spend an afterlife, and manifestations of those who are living an afterlife – ghosts for want of a better word – reincarnation, as well as shape-shifters, hybrid creatures and the universal flood. With one exception, hybrid creatures, belief in these universals usually extends to the present day, though perhaps with less intensity, or some, like shape-shifting, are now relatively minor compared with that ‘once upon a time’ era.

Now one has to plot those eleven universals against the three possible universes (Natural, Simulated and Supernatural) and see if one kind of universe best supports those human cultural universals or beliefs – creation/destruction; the natural order; deities; free will; afterlife; afterlife location; ghosts; reincarnation; shape-shifters; hybrid creatures and the universal flood.

Creation

We all know about Alpha Creations, even The Creation. “In the beginning…” We all know about Omega Ends too, as in Armageddon, etc. But the interesting bit is that Alpha Creation and Omega Destruction isn’t a one-off with nothingness on either side. Cycles are the norm. Someone is born; someone dies: repeat. Stars and planets are born; stars and planets die: repeat. Even in theory, our Natural Universe, born of the Big Bang, could die in the Big Crunch. But the Big Crunch (end times of a contracting universe) can turn into the next Big Bang (beginnings of a new expanding universe). Big Bang creation; Big Crunch destruction: repeat. Many cultures around the world have echoed this cyclic universe theme of birth, death, rebirth, death, re-rebirth, death: repeat, repeat, repeat. Even in the Christian religion Armageddon gives rise to a new heaven and a new earth. It’s all much the same as going from the 31^st of December to the 1^st of January.

*Natural Universe: So where does creation fit into a natural universe? Well once upon a time, roughly 13.7 billions of years ago, there was this Big Bang, the creation of matter and energy, space and time – maybe. There might have been a before-the-Big-Bang; in fact I’m personally certain of it. In any event, the Big Bang event isn’t an intelligently inspired creation, but if the Big Bang spawned life, the universe and everything – ah, life, and life can begat intelligent life and intelligent life can create, which might then lead to creating concepts of creations, deities, an afterlife, a supernatural and a simulated universe. Because science has no difficulty coming to terms with creation events in the Natural Universe, one full point awarded.

*Simulated Universe: Some might consider a simulated universe/world a supernatural universe/world since it was created by a creator(s) and in it anything goes. If a deity can do anything (i.e. – miracles), so can wetware or software. Still, a Simulated Universe can create the illusions of any and all kinds of creations. One full point awarded.

*Supernatural Universe: Or conversely, some might consider a supernatural deity/creator filled universe/world a simulated universe/world, but that logic doesn’t follow of necessity though it might be so. So maybe it’s best for clarity to keep the supernatural universe/world and the simulated universe/world concepts separate and apart. If there is such an entity as a supernatural deity that likes to mix it up in the kitchen, creating recipes for a universe, and life in that universe, then one has to logically admit that given the premise, the Supernatural Universe can be a party to and create all that’s within, even the Supernatural Universe itself. So, one point awarded here too.

The Natural Order

We all know about the natural order of things, and so did all ancient cultures and societies. The natural order may have been the providence of the gods, but there was a natural order. Birth - death, male - female, rocks fall down – steam rises, fire hot – ice cold, sunrise – sunset, water wet – dust dry, lightning first – then thunder, cause – effect, predictability if not certainty. Or as the introduction to the TV show “Ben Casey” put it: “Man, Woman, Birth, Death, Infinity”. It would not be the natural order of things if each and every night there was a full Moon visible after years of recordkeeping revealed otherwise. You don’t wake up one morning to see a purple Sun with green poke-a-dots imprinted on the surface. Of, and even more interesting, the Sun rises in the North and sets in the South, or half-way around the globe, vice versa! That would be way out of keeping with the natural order.

*Natural Universe: Almost by definition, the Natural Universe contains the natural order of things. One point is given for the natural order, being the order of the day, in the Natural Universe.

*Simulated Universe: Computer software can easily be created or programmed to say simulate Mars moving slowing through the night sky and doing its once up a time mysterious retrograde loop-the-loop motion. If Mother Nature can do it, a computer can simulate it, and a lot more besides – things not part of what you’d call the natural order. One point has to be given.

*Supernatural Universe: There maybe a natural order to things but that’s because the gods created the master clock and they keep it well oiled and wound and running smoothly, as long as they are happy little gods. But when the natural order starts falling apart, the rain fails to arrive, your local dormant volcano suddenly blows its top, and the herds of migrating food supply (say the buffalo to the Amerindians) fail to show up, then the gods are not happy and so they must be pacified with a sacrifice or two or two hundred. In fact, to keep the gods onside and forestall any wrath, they have to get their proper due, worship, sacrifices, etc. in every way that’s proper, all the time. Again, one point awarded since a Supernatural Universe too can contain the natural order.

To be continued….

Ultimate Purpose, Meaning and Destiny: Part Two

If there is a common theme within religions and associated philosophies, it’s one of trying to position oneself in the broad context of life, the universe and everything as something special. You have somehow been tapped on the shoulder with a special and unique mission or destiny, or a special purpose or meaning that you have to carry during the time of your existence, something that places you uniquely above the rest of life, the universe and everything. Hogwash!

Author’s note: for the sake of brevity, I intend to use the acronym for self-awareness or consciousness as SAC; for the overlapping concepts of destiny, fate, function, meaning, purpose or reason as DFMPR. That should save a bit of space!

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

If something is created, and that something has a DFMPR for being created in the first place, that implies an act of intelligence, though that level of intelligence doesn’t have to be very high. Ants create an anthill out of dirt or sand for a purpose (shelter); some birds will gather up pretty baubles and lay them out to be admired by a prospective mate, an artistic work that has a purpose (sex and reproduction); some primates fashion sticks out of leafy twigs to probe for termites, again for a purpose (food).

Back to you: were you created for a DFMPR – are you a tool as it were, designed with an ultimate DFMPR in mind, and if so who or what created that DFMPR? There are two possibilities, not mutually exclusive.

* You are your own tool. You create your own DFMPR.

* You are someone else’s tool. Parents, teachers, other authority figures help give your life DFMPR, like do the dishes; mow the lawn; do your homework; voting is compulsory (this being written in the rather undemocratic country of Australia); pay your taxes; don’t drink and drive; don’t be late for work; spend, spend, spend; be fruitful and multiply; thou shall have no other gods before me, etc. Of course it doesn’t have to be an authority figure. Maybe a close friend suggests your DFMPR lies in being a musician. Decades later, you’re a rock & roll superstar!

Your mind is perfectly free to accept or reject the demands or your externally imposed DFMPR, like wash the dishes or practice, practice, practice your music, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences if you exert your free will in the negative. Ultimately, you, or your mind is in control and that’s where the buck stops.

In the case of the anthill, the artistic pattern of the baubles, the termite gathering stick, these are someone else’s tools (ants, birds, primates), obviously, since they didn’t create themselves. They are creations from within the mind of their ant, bird, primate creators, but via a hardwired form of intelligence – instinct.

What humans tend to create is more a soft-wired flexible sort of intelligence; true intelligence as it was – creating outside of the instinct box. You don’t fashion atomic bombs, or financial markets, or shoes, or a theory of evolution by hardwired instinct.

But the line between animal hardwired and human soft-wired ‘intelligence/instinct’ isn’t all that neat and tidy. Apart from housing/shelter, many an animal ‘society’ has by definition a social structure, a political system (leaders), a division of labour, and has ‘invented’ agriculture and harvesting and animal husbandry, even slavery, warfare and genocide. I’m thinking primarily, but not exclusively, of the ant or bee/wasp kingdoms.

However, there is a bottom line here. Things with DFMPR, by instinct or by pure intelligent design, stem ultimately from the brain, mind, or wetware, whatever you wish to call it. There is no nebulous other factor behind an anthill or wasps nest; creating a new dance step or meal recipe.

The human mind does differ I suspect in at least one highly significant way – humans, via their minds, envelop themselves in a wider worldview, both in time and in space, vis-à-vis the animals, and ponder the meaning of ‘why’.

Animals, my cats for example, have a sense of who (friend or foe; prey or predator); what (I know what that is, it’s my chair); where (I know where my food dish or litter box or the door is); even when (their biological clocks are damn accurate, but their sense of when doesn’t extend much past ‘right now’), but lack the intellectual ability to ponder why or how. Animals live day-to-day, even moment-to-moment, without a sense of mystery (they have no concept of whodunits), which isn’t to say they don’t have a concept of the unknown – they do have curiosity and like to explore (is there food just over that hill), but DFMPR are foreign ideas to them. Things just are and don’t need to be explained. There is no need to frame questions, far less seek answers.

Humans however have evolved the concepts of how or why. And the human mind can come to terms with concepts like DFMPR; good and evil; mystery and awe; yin and yang; a sense of yesterday and tomorrow; of death and immortality which are all foreign in the animal kingdoms.

Unfortunately, though how and why questions come easily to the human mind, answers do not and being an rather impatient sort of life form, well, what do we want, answers; when do we want them, now!

Any gaps in our minds ability to figure things out, the natural order of things (like life, the universe and everything), could be instantaneously filled in by one very simple invention – storytelling. If you have trouble explaining the natural via the natural, then invent explanatory stories of the supernatural, or mythology, or its synonym religion, since every mythology has both supernatural elements and deities. Easy! Every culture has done it. As author Karen Armstrong says “We created religions because we are meaning-seeking creatures”. A local pastor of a friend of mine wrote that “religion is for making a disparate and confusing world coherent”. Substitute the word ‘science’ for ‘religion’ and I’d agree. That’s what science tries to do – make sense of life, the universe and everything. Later on down the track, people decided the best way to explain the natural was to investigate, experiment and get their hands dirty, and slowly but surely,  supernatural or religious philosophies morphed into natural philosophy, or what we call today science, and science has indeed filled in many gaps where previously only deities feared to tread.

Not all mythology need be 100% tall tales invented from scratch out of whole cloth to explain life, the universe and everything. There could be, and probably are, natural events influencing the authors of these tall tales. One can easily substitute a natural, albeit extraterrestrial Captain Yahweh of the Starship Heaven for the supernatural Almighty for example. 

Religion may have once covered that role but since the Age of Enlightenment religion has become irrelevant in that role. We created science to ultimately explain that who, what, where, when, why and how. Science answers the question ‘what is my DFMPR in life’ by pointing out there isn’t any DFMPR (given to us by a nebulous other or religious deity), any more than what is the DFMPR of a rock’s existence. It just is. There is nothing ultimately different between you and a rock, just the arrangement of the fundamental bits and pieces that make up both you and the rock.

But science hasn’t yet come to terms with everything life, the universe and everything has thrown up. An obvious example is explaining that eternal question of what is my DFMPR in existing and being present and accounted for in the first place, apart from my asking “how high” when someone says “jump”! “How high” might be your DFMPR for being present and accounted for in the here and now. 

But then you too could jump all on your own accord because you have decided that your DFMPR in life is to jump, or at least one of your DFMPR (there’s probably no such thing as just a singular DFMPR to your life). Now that’s not all that frivolous since there are athletes whose profession is the high jump or the broad jump or race track hurdles, or who ride and jump horses over obstacles – the steeplechase I think that’s called.

So again we see that your DFMPR can be both influenced by others (say your drill sergeant) and by yourself – you volunteered to enlist in the army and serve your country thus giving you DFMPR to your otherwise miserable existence.

The Concept of the Nebulous Other:

Now a question arises, does any DFMPR stem also from a third party, from a sort of nebulous supernatural sort of other drill sergeant type? Only if you believe in the existence of such a deity or the various mythological texts that supposedly endorse such a being. However, I’ve already pointed out that these religious mythologies were the products of the human mind to give instant satisfaction to un-answered and unanswerable (at the time) questions. Therefore there is no competing nebulous supernatural other directing your life, even if you believe otherwise. Any nebulous supernatural other stems from your own mind.

There is one other last option. People who feel that they are being directed or otherwise have a sense of higher calling or DFMPR in their life might be virtual beings in a simulated universe. Software is the string; you (in fact all simulated life, the simulated universe and the simulated everything) is the puppet of some unknown nebulous, but not a supernatural nebulous other, is the puppeteer. In such a simulated universe you’d have a DFMPR, but no free will. In this case the puppeteer wouldn’t be just a mental creation.

Conclusion: All DFMPR; good and evil; mystery and awe; yin and yang; a sense of yesterday and tomorrow; of death and immortality stems 100% from within your own mind, albeit influenced at times by others – like your drill sergeant – natural others, not nebulous supernatural others. If you feel you have an ultimate DFMPR to your existence then that ultimately stems from or is consolidated from within your own mind (brain chemistry rules the roost) even if influenced by the input of others. I have various self-assigned DFMPR, but they all stem from within my own mind – an example of free will? When my mind eventually goes, so too will go the DFMPR. Once you’re brain dead any DFMPR you had can’t be continued or added too, though that doesn’t mean you can’t still serve a DFMPR, like being an inspiration after-the-fact. Still, the bottom line is that all DFMPR ultimately comes from within, probably after much internal mulling things over, and ever evolving as you get older (and wiser). Apart from the simulated universe scenario, your mind is your own. You have, apparently, free will to pick and choose your own DFMPR.