A brief history of nothing

international | sci-tech | opinion/analysis Saturday April 15, 2006 23:37 by Seán Ryan

Establishes the logical foundation for a proof of the existence of an all-powerful God and removes the limitations imposed by Thomas Aquinas and others.

Gives a 'third' opinion on the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Uses Schroedinger's experiment to show why gravity is ignored by Quantum Mechanics.

Chapter VIII in Book II

Imagine space and imagine that in the vastness of space, that only one particle exists.

Is this particle moving?

It might be, but we cannot be sure. There is no relativity.

Imagine a universe with two particles. Imagine them passing by each other.

Is there movement now? Or more to the point can movement be established?

Yes. I can define the motion of either particle with reference to the other.

When the second particle is introduced, the complexity of the description of the first is increased. It is as if the first particle is suddenly given a degree of awareness. By this I mean that the particle would follow no particular law before the introduction of the second particle. But at the instant the second particle is introduced, space is shown to be three dimensional and time is created, and our particle now follows a very particular set of laws. We can also see that these two particles introduce a very strange behaviour that defies relativity, in that either particle can be described with reference to the other irregardless of the ammount of space between them, faster than light-speed communication is possible. The reasoning behind this is simple. If for instance the distance between these particles is so great that a picture cannot be described for their momentums and trajectories, then the lack of a description is a description too and has arrived irregardless to limits of relativity or rather the lack of a description does not imply that one doesn't exist. If a description can be derrived irregardless as to the distance between the particles then relativity has no hold on our particles. Either way relativity is not as we would describe it now.

Okay, now imagine our two particles flying around space, sometimes close to each other and sometimes far away. The laws that govern these two particles are not set in stone however. Thus far we have only imagined them flying around each other and so this is the law and behaviour that defines them.

Now imagine our two particles smacking into each other for the first time, the results of which I leave to the reader's imagination. The law that defines our two particles must now be added to.

Universal laws by definition seem to imply that they pre-exist that which they define. If this is indeed the case then we have yet another example of the relativity of time and that which we view as the past is actually the future. And that time is both a consequence of, and a dimension of awareness.

Let's go back to the universe that contains only a single particle and examine the state our particle finds itself in.

Time is a measurement in space between events and is inexorably linked to the three spatial dimensions and their existence. Our particle does not experience time and therefore does not experience space as a place of three dimensions. Some might argue that our particle might be spinning and would experience centrifugal force. However the laws of conservation of motion and energy would imply that this spin would not vary and thus the state of the particle is constant, it experiences no change and is therefore in a static state.

How about entropy?

Where does it fit in?

Heat death is when the universe has its heat so spread out, that it is not energetic enough to allow or cause an event to occur that is of a greater magnitude than a quantum fluctuation. Therefore a universe that contains a single particle is in a state of maximum entropy, or heaven.

How does the particle go from static to motive and create the universe?

Short of imagining this to happen, our particle is helpless. Relativity needs to exist for our particle to become motive.

If relativity does not exist at this point we are left with the absolute, and this is quite a ridiculous state to be in. It would be a timeless void, a non entity.

Therefore relativity must exist to some degree, and it does. Let's think about information. We must consider the particle to have a description, even if this description must arrive relative to nothing. The reality of the description of this particle is as great as the reality of the particle itself. The description of this particle is pure information, and because it is from the particle, entropy begins and by necessity must forever grow more complex, until at last there is again but a single particle in the universe. The time and space between these two particles is creation and destruction. The direction of the flow of time in this universe is not relevant. It is the same picture and set of acts no matter which direction time flows in. It is the only process that can give a complete and accurate description of our particle.

A state of maximum entropy is also the dawn of awareness, that place where it is either day or night, or neither. It is as if a universe that is at maximum entropy only contains a description of itself and its past, everything else is gone, matter converted into information. The theory of Relativity is a product of awareness and is itself directly consequential to awareness. At some fundamental level the universe is aware that space and matter are the same and yet different at the same time.

It is like the realisations of an infant. The universe self realises, it recognises the sum of its parts by the uncertainty principle and matter is born. Relativity is introduced via the position and momentum of these parts.

I.

In me.

Be.

Four words and the universe can exist. However the last three words are consequential to the first. The act of self realisation is the most rudimentary form of awareness there is, and in quantum terms it should be considered the planck level of awareness. If this is correct then every particle in the universe is invested with at least this "planck level of awareness," and or is consequential to it. The primal act of becoming self aware opens up a new set of dimensions and provides fertile ground for incidents such as the Big Bang.

I reckon God fans should be getting excited at this point. It again looks as if I'm promoting the idea of a God.

God did not create the multiverse.

He has not created it yet.

And "he" is not an all knowing and an all loving creature, "he" is a simple but incomprehensible event. God is the phase space that surrounds the birth of awareness.

This is the reason that Science mostly scoffs at religion. Science has no formula for the construction of awareness never mind the deconstruction of it. On the other hand, religion claims to possess the formula for awareness, that of course being God. The fact that awareness is such a fundamental thing and that it is obviously important in figuring out the fundamentals of existence, coupled with the fact that Science doesn't recognise awareness until after Biology, makes them very defensive on the subject of religion.

Where religion falls flat on its arse is where it attempts to define and limit its God. If you say what is possible you also define the impossible and the chances are that before long you will be proven wrong. Hence the varied histories of each religion and the bifurcations of each as snags become apparent.

So if there is a God. We do not know who or what "he" is, and we most certainly don't have a clue as to what "he" wants. And as I said earlier, if this entity exists, "he" does not do so yet.

As we seen earlier, a fundamental description of, or a law that governs the behaviour of everything, cannot exist until after everything has happened.

Ok, my God sitting at the end of the universe may tread on some toes. The fact that he loses most of his image and charm might upset some. However it eliminates some of the seemingly irreconcilable problems that have thus far plagued our benefactor.

Free will is the ability to act in accordance with or in opposition to laws that are self evidently correct and that may be the product of a divine will.

Remember Bob?

Bob whilst living his life backwards undoubtedly possesses a will, but it is by no means free will. Bob's will is absolute. Here is where things get interesting. When we experience the time continuum in a forwards sense our concepts of self come from within. In Bob's case, his sense of self arrives to him from elsewhere. This sense of self arrives with an absolute purpose and an absolute definition of Bob's universe and we notice that our sense of self is an entity that is very much associated with the flow of time. If the origin of this will and purpose is God then the universe and everything in it behaves in accordance with this will. But since man experiences the time continuum in a forwards sense he has free will in that his future is an abstract that he himself will make sense of.

What should be remembered here is that it is man who exists within time, the will of God or whatever is expressed in a backwards fashion through time, however the cause of this is itself outside the time continuum altogether. This place, as far as we are concerned is where everything that has happened and will ever happen all occur simultaneously. It is the place of maximum entropy, it is both the beginning and the end of the multiverse, the Alpha and Omega.

Another way to get your head around this is to consider the sum of the universe to be constant. The sum of the universe yesterday is equal to the sum of the universe today even though stuff has happened that seems to refute this. At some point there is a definition of all that accounts for all the bits and pieces of the multiverse and it accounts for all their movements along the whole of the time continuum. And this definition is no more complex or elusive than my concept of self. It strikes me as both funny and ironic that science thinks only about a motive universe but fails to understand that at a certain level the universe must be static, even though they search for a formula that will explain everything, the formula itself will of course be static.

Going back to free will, we can see that forwards through time my will emanates from me and is indeed free will, or at least it is my will, but backwards through time it comes from elsewhere and it is absolute.

Memories are strange things in that they are similar to this concept of a God outside time. Examine any memory, it is a series of events and at any point along the continuum of that memory, both the past and future are absolute and obviously exist outside the power of the time continuum we exist in. Entropy either doesn't exist in this continuum or it is at a maximum. Consciousness on the other hand which becomes memories does experience and interact with entropy. This interaction with entropy is the future and memory is the past. I can almost see an "equal to" sign.

It is also interesting to note that memories come from the future. By this I mean that our conscious minds do not hold the memory of an event until after it has happened. The point of creation of the memory always lies after the end of its time line. But once the memory is formed it becomes absolute in its continuum or rather the observer of a memory will know absolutely what will happen next at any point along the time line of the memory just as absolutely as he will know what has previously happened along any point of the time line. This is very similar to my description of God outside our time continuum. The Will of God is expressed backwards along our time continuum and the will of man is expressed forwards along the continuum, our time continuum is like the memory of God. And when this memory is experienced by God it is absolutely predictable along either direction of its continuum but it is only the will of God in one direction, because it was only expressed in one direction or rather the arrow of time for man was established as a consequence of this expression.

Remember the idea of God being all powerful and all knowing?

Conceptualising and accepting this presents no problems when the will of God is expressed backwards through time, in fact it's a self evident given. Eat your heart out Thomas Aquinas.

Next let's look at Adam from the Bible. From what we know of genetics and evolution it is very hard to accept that the whole of the human race is descended from a single man. However if the will of God emanates from the future then the idea of an Adam becomes possible.

Let me illustrate this.

George Bush is the last human alive. It has been many years since he saw another human being. Things have not been good lately, George has been waking up to the sound of screaming and has now realised that it is he who is screaming. Being numero uno is not all it is cracked up to be, he has realised at last. Slowly but surely Bush's sanity degrades until he is no longer able to look after himself.

Then one day whilst George is contemplating the lump of shit he's been playing with, he is struck by the mother of all strokes and shuffles off his mortal coil.

The earth, the universe and the multiverse gets colder and colder. Eventually there is heat death.

Only one particle remains. This particle is the result of everything that has ever happened; it is the consciousness of God.

If we look at this story backwards we see that the final effect and the primal cause are the same entity, and if we need to, we can easily derive the Adam story, even to the point where the whole of Humanity is a consequence of Adam, or rather, a consequence of Bush un-pushing the big red button.

For all you fuckhead muppets who will now have a valid excuse to consider Bush a prophet, remember that he is so in a very backwards sense.

Ok, let's switch perspective somewhat on my argument.

I made the point earlier, that if god had a thought that it would be manifest reality. This imposes a very severe limit on any potential creator. It prevents the creator from being able to judge or consider his creation in any fashion whatsoever. To consider otherwise one must presuppose that this creator adheres to some higher truth. For instance the concepts of good and evil; do they pre-exist God? If they don't we are left with a very interesting truth. Firstly it becomes obvious that neither concept in as far as God is concerned has a self evident truth or value in it, and in fact is the result of a random chance act of labelling. Eeny meeny miney good. Hardly the methodology of a caring God. It is quite conceivable that this creator could just as easily have labelled all acts as good. This would have made him a more caring God, just like if he had labelled all acts as bad he would have been a less caring God. In any case in as far as caring is concerned and the rating God would score for it we can see that he is a universal fence sitter. Secondly this argument is about consciousness itself. If our creator was conscious before he created we are left with a paradox, in that consciousness itself must not be a creation of the creator. And therefore the creator is not the creator. If consciousness follows creation it is not possessed by the creator.

However if consciousness itself or self awareness are present in every aspect of creation, god included, then the paradox is resolved. This of course presents a strange but interesting picture. It allows for a truly fundamental particle, one from which all other particles and subsequent bodies can be formed and it is fitting indeed that this particle should be both the first and the last in the multiverse. Let's call this particle the "me" or the "I" particle.

The single and solitary "me" particle considered itself and nothing more.

In a place with no time the "me" particle's sense of self is both momentary and an eternity. Depending of course on one's viewpoint. To be an element of this thought is to experience an infintie time continuum. To have this thought is to compress the time continuum out of the equation.

A universe that contains only a single particle does not experience time. The present tense exists, but there is no tomorrow. However the "me" particle being self aware creates a time continuum in which the past, present and future exist. Time is a consequence of realisation. To self realise is to posess a memory, and it is only memory that posessess a time continuum.

Quantum mechanics allows for a universe without time. In that a particle can be everywhere at once. If this is the case and it is, then it is equally feasible to consider that every event that involves this particle can also be considered to have occurred simulataneously.

Relativity is the other side of the coin. It follows realisation. It is the constituents of realisation and their relationship with each other with reference to the created dimensions of space and time.

Why is it so hard to quantify gravity?

Because gravity is consequential to Relativity and its effect is spread out over time. However when the universe is summed in a quantum fashion, ie. the time continuum is compressed into a singularity and gravitational effects thus appear to be infinite.

I know this will piss a lot of folks off because what I'm suggesting is that there is yet another way to view quantum mechanics. I'm sorry about the upset but let's look at some ideas that show where I'm coming from.

Let's examine Schroedinger's cat first.

You have this box with a bowl of milk in it. You go looking for Tiger who has already survived this stunt once and you put him in the box.

In the box with Tiger is a bowl of milk, which is on a mat, a pressure sensetive mat that is connected to a coin tosser. When Tiger steps on the mat a coin is tossed. If the coin reveals tails, an odourless, tasteless and fatal poison is mixed in with the milk and Tiger will die. If it's heads, nothing happens. Once Tiger has stepped on the mat and the coin tossed the mechanism shuts down and if the milk was poison free it remains thus. The box is of such a good construction that it is impossible to determine Tiger's state until one looks into the box and observes. Oh yeah, and Tiger is starving so he's definitely going to drink the milk.

Without looking in the box, what description could one give that describes Tiger's current state?

The standard explanation is that Tiger is in a superposition of states, that he is both alive and dead at the same time.

This is a decrease in entropy. Before you put Tiger in the box you have one feline body heating the universe. Then you have two feline bodies heating the universe or I suppose more correctly the multiverse, fair enough one is dead, but he's still warm.

However if time stands still or is in an ambiguos state, you can have as many warm bodies as you like, entropy does not decrease. And once Tiger is observed and becomes memory, entropy increases and time moves on, with no decrease in entropy at any time.

Now let us redefine the experiment somewhat. Imagine the box used this time is a really big box and that you throw the Earth and the Sun into it and close the lid before you see what happens. Will the Earth smack into the sun? Yup eventually. But eventually can be a long long time. The Earth might go into orbit for a few billion years before colliding with the Sun. So in this experiment what is the state of the Earth before we look in the box? More importantly where within the Box lies the centre of gravity?

The centre of gravity cannot be nowhere, it has to be everywhere equally and thus has no effect. Time has to have ceased. Also the Earth may be considered to be everywhere within the box including superimposed on the Sun. We begin to see why gravity can be ignored in a quantum universe.

Why is it that we cannot travel faster than light?

And what has this to do with Quantum mechanics?

Let's make another box. This time the box contains two guns pointed at each other from opposites ends of the box. When the lid of the box is closed a coin tosser in the box determines whether both pistols will shoot an electron at the other or whether the pistols remain unfired.

What can you say about this scenario?

Let's look at the possibilities.

The guns fire and two electrons probably collide and probably exchange forces and probably give off a photon.

Or the guns don't fire at all and the box remains dark.

Now this provides for a very interesting superposition of states. There exists in the box at every point a photon but simultaneously at every point it is also dark. You have a state where the box is totally illuminated and utterly dark at the same time. And in every state between. This incredible system remains in this static and timeless state until a conscious observation gives a description to it.. What is interesting here is that under no circumstances will the observer when he opens the box will he observe it to be totally illuminated, in fact he will only observe a single photon if indeed he observes any. So what we have before an observation is made is a static state that accounts for any observation that it is possible to make and many many more that are impossible. A truly miraculous state. The only parallel that I can think of that even remotely resembles this state is a mind that has self realised. To put this simply I mean, that this scenario can be viewed in at least two different ways. The first way is the obvious and normal way ie. that there are two systems in operation. In this case there is the system that encompasses the box and everything that might be in it and there is the system that constitutes the observer. Secondly and more importantly the scenario can be visualised as a single system, with the act of observation being seen as part of the system's self awareness.

Another thing that is interesting to note here is that the observer can only observe a tiny portion of what has actually been manifested. But that which he observes has been manufactured in precisely the way he will describe it to be. It is like the box knew what would and what wouldn't be possible for the observer to witness.

Let's do a final trick with the box to show what I mean here.

This time you close the lid on an empty box.

What's the state of the box now?

It's full of possibilities isn't it. But one thing for certain, "empty" is not a word that suffices. The observation that will later describe the reality of the contents of this box seems to be an agreement of sorts. I mean the quantum nature of the inside of the box can concieveably come up with any and all states simultaneously, but that this probability wave will eventually collapse into something that does not violate the observers sense of what is logically possible. How is it possible that this agreement can exist. For all intents and purposes the quantum nature of the box can be considered to exist outside the time continuum we exist in. What law in existence can pre-exist this timeless state and give cause to this agreement as to the possibility of what could be observed? What is it that links a timeless and static state to a temporal observer? The answer is simple. This static and quantum state also creates and allows for the mass and functionality of the observer. To a degree they are the same thing.

At some point in in the Multiverse, in a place that cannot be observed, there is an entity or a condition that decides the eventual contents of the box and both the initial and final mindsets of the observer. Because it can be shown that quantum happenings to a degree can be shown to be outside the influence of time it can also be assumed that this "event" is outside the influence of time also and indeed is the cause of time. One can label this event as "God," "Primal cause" or as "The birth of consciousness" which is my personal favourite.

With consciousness anything is possible, without it, nothing is probable.

It is my aim to reconcile Science and God somewhat. If I were questioned however, on my idea of this "birth of consciousness," and I were asked do I believe that this entity cares about me or the lofty concepts of good and evil.

I would answer that I exist and that this goes to answering as to whether I am cared about. I cannot know whether I am cared about but I choose to act as if I am. That is my faith, it is my choice to be who I am and to act as if this were by universal decree.

Does this "God" understand the concepts of good and evil in a similar fashion to the way I understand them? Again I don't know for sure. My concepts of good and evil are self evident to me. More importantly they are my own construction. I would not be so vain as to presume my idea of morality would exactly match anyone else's idea of it, never mind that my simple imaginings would dictate the hand of "God."

In my last writing I favoured science in how I described my ideas on God. To be true to my nature I shall this time play the "devil's advocate" and prove that God does exist.
Allow me to open this time with a question for science. If I take one of the boxes used earlier and empty it and close it, is God in the box?

You cannot answer "no," can you? The best you can do is answer that God is possibly in the box, and that he's possibly visiting Mrs. Santa Clause, whom he might have heard is possibly suffering from a cold. It doesn't matter, the important thing at this point is that you cannot answer "no" in an absolute sense when questioned on the existence of God.

The truth garnered from this question is that once something is imagined, that its existence or the possibility of its existence are established. It's down to probability after that. I think therefore it might be.