JOURNEY IN BEING
COSMOLOGY
Cosmology—essentials of update
The variety of being… Mechanism and explanation. Origins… Mind as a cosmological object (06)… Time and space (06)… Status of substance as locally or practically fundamental (06)… Atomism (06)… Local cosmology. … Two Divides in the evolution of the local cosmological system (06)… Anthropic principle
Aims… General cosmology from ‘06… Mechanism and explanation… Normal mechanism: incremental change from ‘06
Time and space from ‘06… Dominant versus multiple times and relative strength of interaction from ‘06… Mind as a cosmological object from ‘06… Status of substance as locally or practically fundamental from ‘06… Atomism from ‘06. … Two Divides in the evolution of the local cosmological system from ‘06
The variety of being has been considered in What exists—categories of objects and subsequent sections… that discussion may have been placed here but is more appropriately placed in Objects
As seen in Metaphysics, study, experience and realization of variety is and must be ever open and fresh
Variety is more interesting than depth
To develop cosmology as the theory of variety of being and to note that knowledge of the variety must be implicit
To characterize the variety of being
That an enumeration of the variety is not possible because the number of states of the universe and the variety of kinds of being is a non-enumerable i.e. non-countable infinity
To combine with Logic and quantum mechanics
In this narrative, Logic is the theory of possibility (the ideas of Logic and possibility are developed in Metaphysics and in Logic where it is shown that Logic is immanent in being and that the concept of Logic includes logic in its traditional meaning.) There appears to be a potential to combine the ideas of possibility and variety that will yield insight and perhaps knowledge of the variety and its structures
There is an analogy between the void of the Theory of being and the quantum vacuum. The analogy is by no means full in any sense for the void contains no Law, Pattern or Form while the quantum vacuum is not without law. The quantum vacuum and its behavior are extrapolations of the quantum laws of this cosmological system to the idea of a lowest manifest state of the ‘universe’ where the quotes indicate that the concept is not identical to its use in this narrative but refers instead, roughly, to the empirically known world. In saying that the quantum vacuum is an extrapolation it is not suggested that there is no quantum vacuum or that there are or can be no reasonable predictions from theories of the vacuum – quite the contrary is the case. However, what is said and what has been demonstrated as necessarily true is that any extrapolation of the quantum laws must fall infinitely short of application to the universe (of all being.) I.e. the depth of the universe relative to quantum behavior is at least numerically infinite. That is, there is a gap between the law of the void –i.e. the Law of the universe– that is the concept of Logic and the theoretical behavior of the quantum vacuum. These comments motivate and are preliminary to and will condition any development of the analogy between the void and the quantum vacuum into an integrated account. The comments show that any theoretical integration of void and vacuum in which the theory of the vacuum falls out of the theory of the void will be a theory of the void as restricted to account for the behavior of the vacuum; such restrictions may come from the theoretical andor empirical structure of quantum theory
To estimate the feasible and the desirable
To study the following kinds and aspects of cosmology
General
Local / physical
Mechanism / explanation. Necessary and contingent mechanisms
Symmetry, stability, durability. Factors of population: frequency of origin * durability. That the dominant population of the universe should be of near symmetric, relatively stable systems or states (perfectly symmetric states would not decay but do not come into being)
Variety / origins
Causation / determinism
The metaphysics implies that it is writ with infinite repetition in the universe
Anthropic principle. Population of the universe by sentient states. Question of significance and sentience
Mind
Substance and atomism
Divides
To develop some results in general cosmology
Further results in general cosmology. Annihilation. Recurrence and Karma. Recurrence and Identity. Significance in being. Fact, fiction and the unending Variety of being. Scripture and truth. The nature of death. Creation. God. The idea of self-creation. Interaction of the elements of being. Ghosts and ghost cosmological systems. There are no distinct universes. The Limit of imagination
To develop implications of the cosmology for some common cosmologies and their relations
Mythic, legendary and religious
Karma and scripture
Materialism and physicalism
Theories of space-time-matter. Meaning of ‘origin of time’ (that the phrase can have a meaning that is both coherent, applicable and with application)
Life and evolution
Mind and psyche
Human and animal being
General cosmology and cosmology are identical. I.e. in general cosmology there is no restriction of domain or kind of being. For purposes of the present discussion of ‘general cosmology’ it will be abbreviated to ‘cosmology’
The Void is an element of the cosmology
The principle that ‘generates’ the Variety of being is the ‘Fundamental Principle of the Theory of Being’ i.e. the principle that the entire system of consistent descriptions is (must be) realized
That is, not only are all possible entities realized but also realized are all arrangements of entities, all laws, all patterns, all mechanisms of generation of generation. The enhancement from ‘entities’ to ‘arrangements’ and so on may be understood also by seeing the arrangements etc. as complex or compound entities
The general proof of the existence of form does not explain the existence of form
A proof of existence of an object or occurrence of an event may or may not show or explain how the object came into existence and continues to exist or how or why the event occurred
If the proof does not explain existence, a mechanism may provide the lack
A mechanism is a dynamic (distinguish Mechanism or dynamic from mechanism or understanding of Mechanism)
If a mechanism is necessary, it is universal in its domain
If it is not necessary, a ‘mechanism’ may be impossible or possible. If possible but not necessary the mechanism is contingent
Although a contingent mechanism of a form is not the universal or necessary genesis of that form, it is necessary that the mechanism will sometimes be the genesis of the form
Is a separate word for contingent mechanism indicated?
A necessary mechanism has a probability of 1
A contingent mechanism may have probability so close to one –as far as is known– as to be normal or practically necessary
If an event has a necessary mechanism, the occurrence of the event entails the mechanism as prior or cause or determining
A contingent mechanism of an event is templated by a necessary mechanism
If a contingent mechanism has a high probability it may be labeled causal but the terms quasi-causal or quasi-deterministic are better
The normal may be labeled causal but the terms quasi-causal or quasi-deterministic are better
The ‘original’ mechanism of generation is variations (required by indeterminism) from an initial state and selection i.e. relative duration of Existence i.e. relative stability of those variations that are self-adapted i.e. near symmetric. That is the mechanism is that of variations and selection of relatively stable states. Perfect symmetry is infinitely unlikely i.e. is not arrived at but if it were realized it would be ‘frozen’ i.e. would remain unchanged (except for the ‘intervention’ of indeterministic elements from without e.g. the Void – which is not truly without.) The initial state relative to which (further) generation is considered may, according to context, be the void, the ‘first’ state of manifest Being, a normal cosmological system (defined earlier and explained further below,) earth just before the origin of life, life at any point in its history, living forms just before the advent of consciousness (as has been seen in the discussion ‘Mind,’ it is more accurate to say ‘just before the emergence of acute consciousness,’) life just before acute imagery, before free imagery, before the symbol and before the free symbol (defined later under ‘Human being,’) and cultural change
As described, the generic mechanism is identical in the foregoing cases. On account of the differing initial states, the manifest details of the mechanism vary. For example, in the case of life, genetic structure and replication are involved and in the case of sexual species, sexual reproduction is involved as well. More primitive cases do not involve reproduction although there may perhaps be mechanisms of replication that are more primitive than bio-genetic replication. I.e. although the idea for variation and selection may come from biology, the biological case is not taken as paradigmatic
The justification of the universality generic mechanism for the origin of novelty is as for the outline of the justification in the case of life that was given earlier in ‘Logic.’ The mechanism of indeterministic variation and selection is necessary when the ‘end’ result is too complex to originate deterministically from (contains elements not determined by) the initial state
The argument for Necessity does not specify whether the ‘path’ from initial to end state occurs in a single step, in large steps or incremental. The argument was that incremental change is (perhaps in most circumstances) colossally more likely than single or large steps. Even though the normal mechanism is, in any instance, only more likely, there must be instances of its occurrence (this follows from the fundamental principle of the Theory of Being and, similarly, even though single step change to a more complex state is unlikely, that that shall occur is also necessary. While an incremental explanation of complexity was given, incremental change though far more likely, is not necessary and there must be instances of large single step change even if generally unlikely and even if absent from a given cosmological system)
The ‘normal mechanism’ is implicated in all the examples stated above e.g. from the Void to first manifest being, from early manifest being (which has at least some normal characteristics if relatively stable i.e. if more stable than the Necessary ephemera that emanate from the void) to normal cosmological systems and so on
Some properties of the Universe as a whole follow from the natures (properties) of ‘being,’ ‘Void,’ ‘universe.’ Any entity including the manifest universe or a normal cosmological system is capable of annihilation at any time. In general, annihilation may be spontaneous even if unlikely. In the normal case the annihilator system evolves from the void and since it must match the nature of the system to be annihilated, annihilation is unlikely: it may be said that, roughly, the likelihood of annihilation ‘by’ an external and normal annihilator is that of a single step origin of the system (which is much less than the odds of incremental origin.) The more complex the system the more unlikely is annihilation
Every event, every normal system, every realization of a consistent description, recurs infinitely in Time and space i.e. and more accurately over the manifold of being (subject to the requirement that a description of the recurrence should also be consistent.) Such recurrence may in certain cases be interpreted as karma
Every individual recurs. As was seen in discussing Identity, such recurrence has significance in being only when the discrete consciousness (the consciousness of the discrete individual) merges in a more comprehensive consciousness. ‘Jesus Christ is risen from the dead’ occurs in countless cosmological systems (excepting evidence to the contrary this means that the possibility on this earth is Necessary but not that the occurrence was necessary, probable, or given)
The laws of science, the articles of religion, the depictions of Art and literature including fiction, the extreme fantasies of imagination are realized (except for logical contradiction.) Every possible (i.e. non contradictory description of a) state (of affairs) is realized i.e. the Universe is one of unending variety that infinitely exceeds any given description or imagination – any science or art or fiction; it includes the unimagined though not (perhaps) the unimaginable
The story of the Bible is realized in one domain, the Koran in another, and some combination in a third (what is realized in each instance is some consistent account of the scriptures.) Thus the contradictions of Bible versus Koran are actual only if literally applied to the same domain e.g. this world. While this gives support to literal interpretations it does not justify application to this world or cosmos. The ‘moral’ significance of the scriptures must include the non-literal – even though the literal interpretations are realized in some domain of the manifold of manifest being; the moral significance requires this possibility. Jesus Christ is risen and rising from the dead in countless sub-domains; this necessary fact lends no credence to rising from the dead on this earth except that it is not impossible i.e. its negation is not certain. The Theory of Being is implicitly ultimate with regard to breadth; however, even its explicit breadth is infinitely greater than is that of the traditional understanding of science, Faith, myth, art and fiction
The ‘Jesus Christ is risen from the dead’ is fundamental to Christian Faith. Some interpreters assign non-literal meanings to the articles of religion; one assigned significance has been that the rising from the dead points to human ignorance of the nature of death. From recurrence, every individual recurs infinitely in the manifold of being. From the Theory of Identity, meaning is given to the individual recurrences as they merge into an Identity that spans the otherwise isolated occurrences
If a creator is external to the Creation, the Universe (All Being) has no creator. The origin of manifest being from the void may be described as a process of creation but it is one without an original or external creator. One part of the manifest universe may ‘create’ another part. However, it is reasonably clear that creation of a formed cosmos by an external agent is much less likely than ‘intrinsic’ formation by mechanisms (variation and selection.) It is possible, however, that one part of the manifest universe may condition the creation and ongoing formation of another. It is perhaps empty to talk of ‘God’ since the word evokes specific images, meanings, and supernatural powers. Still, to insist on avoiding reference to all Power whatsoever because certain historical and religious thought may be in contingent error is, as is insistence on reifying such reference, to assign excessive weight to human preoccupation. Any ‘God’ is part of the universe and may be implicated in the creation of another part e.g. a cosmos but there is no god outside the universe and the entire universe was not created by any god. The entire universe may be found in different degrees of manifestation – including absence of manifestation; however, the universe is not created – can not be created by an external agency because nothing is external to the universe
The era of scholastic philosophy saw a variety of definitions or conceptions of ‘God’ e.g. the most ‘perfect’ Being… and proofs of the existence of God. A proof can have no more ‘real’ significance than the real significance of the concept whose existence is demonstrated. Proof of the existence of one conception of God does not imply the existence of another conception. Perhaps, therefore, the question of the existence of God is essentially an experiential endeavor; within the realm of experience, however, it may be recognized that there may be a variety of conceptions each of which may have its own appeal
Here, reference to the ideas ‘God’ and ‘Power’ is made to connect to human sentiment. The foregoing thoughts would carry through also in terms of the neutral idea of power as effect (which is not to be equated to normal causation)
Creative power is immanent in Being. If the universe is divided (in thought) into different regions, creative power is both local and non-local; these are immanent and superposed forms of creation. Regarding the universe as a whole, ‘creation’ is immanent
It is possible to think that the universe creates itself. However, if a creator is external to creation then, as already seen, the universe cannot create itself. However, once there is manifest being a given state of the universe may, until information regarding that state is ‘lost,’ condition subsequent states. While any entity may contribute to its future, full self-creation is logically impossible. It should not be thought that the ‘creation’ (from the void) occurs once; from ‘recurrence’ it is clear that the creation of manifest being and the dissolution of manifest being into the void occurs repetitively without beginning or end. Creation from the void is perhaps an inappropriate description of the emergence from the void. The void does not ‘cause’ manifestation; rather, it is inherent in the void that there is and can be no restriction on manifestation
It will be useful to carefully review the ideas of ‘creation’ and ‘creator.’ The ideas involve first that where there was nothing there is something new and second that the process of manifestation is causal in some sense. If a process results in no new outcome whatsoever, the appellation ‘creation’ does not apply; if something new comes about in the presence of an individual but the individual was not instrumental or causal in the process the individual cannot be said to have created what is new. Since absence cannot be causal, self-creation, as has been seen, is impossible. It has been seen that the concept ‘creator of the universe’ is logically self-contradictory; however, even if there were no contradiction, as substance or substantial, the concept has no explanatory power for the question ‘Who or what created the creator?’ remains unanswered. The void, however, does not create; rather, the world manifests and un-manifests from and to the void which is not outside the universe but is (among other things) the universe in its un-manifest phases. The substantial and explanatory powers of the void result from relinquishing determinism and causality. Creative power may be thought to be immanent in being; however such ‘creation’ must involve elements of indeterminism or a-causation
A creator of the universe is a special entity, hypothesized to satisfy a need for causal or deterministic explanation (and whose existence would entail a contradiction since the concept of ‘creator of the universe’ requires that it be outside the universe while the concept of the universe requires all entities.) The void is not a special entity – it is one of the many equivalent states of the universe; explanation and substantiality based in the void are and cannot be deterministic or causal
Every entity or element of being interacts with every other element; the strengths of interaction vary by colossal amounts so that (at least in some normal systems) there are, in effect, only a ‘few’ major interactions. If by ‘ghost’ is meant something that has no interactions, there can be no ghosts; however, if a ‘ghost’ is something that interacts with a given entity only weakly then there are and must be ghosts and ghost universes (i.e. ghost cosmological systems. Such systems may pass through one another with only a whispered interaction.) If there were non-interacting systems, they might be called distinct universes (even though one ‘universe’ could never know another.) However, because of universal interaction, there cannot be distinct i.e. non-interacting ‘universes.’ I.e. the earlier definition of the uni-verse as All Being is good in that the universe is unitary i.e. fully self-interactive. If a map of the interactions is drawn, outside the map there is no being but the void – although the void is the absence of being it may be equivalently thought of as the null or zero Being
Although human knowledge of possibility is normally limited by the contingent human powers of imagination, these do not constitute limits on possibility. A description of a being whose contingent limits is much greater than that of human being is consistent; such a being is necessary. (An objection to this kind of exploration of possibility is the assertion that a description in which such a being does not occur is also possible. The objection is invalid since such a being may occur in one cosmological system but not in another. That such a being should not occur in any part of the universe would constitute a law of the void and is therefore not a possibility)
Time is involved in duration i.e. in all origination even from the Void; space is involved in distinction, extension or separation. A kind of space and Time occur in the origin of first manifest being from the void. It is clear that space and time may not be altogether independent; but developing a description is likely a matter of intricacy (see the section ‘Topics for investigation,’ below.) Relative to a more stable, durable cosmological system with quasi-determinism and quasi-causation (that must occur) it is possible to talk of the ‘origin of time and space’ for the ‘origin of time’ is an origin of a more coherent, coordinated, dominant time; and the origin of space is e.g. as conceived in singularity (big-bang) theories. It should be clear then, that it is not possible on account of the Theory of Being or general cosmology to decide whether the local space-time should be absolute or relative in character: both are possible and each occurs and must occur in some systems
The question of the absolute versus relative character of space and time in the local cosmos is, therefore, inescapably empirical. I.e. if deduced from a theory, that theory must be contingent
It is possible, therefore necessarily occurs, that two normal cosmological systems whose structures are maintained by their local dynamics, have interactions that are much weaker than the local forces. Thus, one cosmos could pass through another as a ‘whisper.’ Each cosmos would have its own Time but detection of the time of the other cosmos would be possible with sufficiently delicate instruments. The weak interactions between the two cosmoses could strengthen and the two could become one. It is further possible that the two times could come into coherence i.e. become one. All ‘coulds’ and ‘possibilities’ of the previous few sentences must be realized in the Universe
In the local cosmos, the individual particles may each be regarded as having its own time. The phenomenon of a single dominant time may have resulted from the particles being brought into coherence or from an initial or near-initial coherence that resulted from the conditions of formation. The phenomenon of a single time may be seen as the coincidence of the individual times (referred to a base state e.g. absence of motion and gravitational field.) ‘Light-speed’ would then appear to be a local constant and its constancy would appear, even locally, to be contingent; there can, however, be no universal speed of propagation of all interaction
The foregoing also indicates how the Theory of Mechanisms of formation may provide a foundation for modern quantum theories and Einstein’s relativistic theory of gravitation (the parallel between the properties of the void, discussed earlier, and the quantum vacuum is interesting and suggestive as is the dual character of extension and duration in the ‘origin’ of manifest being.) Obviously, these theories will not emerge of necessity from the Theory of Being (the Void) but some further facts of the local cosmology will be required. These thoughts provide material for the later section ‘Further investigation.’
In the section, ‘Mind,’ above, it was seen that (with justified and necessary extension in meaning) mind is found among the primal elements of Being and that mind-as-manifest-in-higher-organisms (e.g. animals) is an elaboration and layering of primal mind (it is shown that this assertion is necessary to avoid classical and more recent paradoxes of mind, that it is sufficient to resolve those paradoxes, and that, provided the nature of ‘primal mind’ is appropriately understood, the paradoxes and absurdities that have been associated with ‘pan-psychism’ are avoided)
It may therefore be said, considering the entire Universe, that mind extends to the root i.e. to the primal elements of Being
What is the case regarding the source or origin of mind in a cosmological system e.g. the local cosmological system? Since mind extends to the root, there is no actual origin in the cosmos. However, it appears that infusions of form, organization and layering are possible. In parallel with earlier reasoning it is concluded that occasions of infusion are much more likely than continual guidance of the local development of mind. What form would or might an instance of infusion take? Very early in the history of the cosmos there might be an alteration in the structure of the elementary particles that makes them capable of higher forms of organization. Later, there might be infusions of complex molecules. It is perhaps normally the case that such infusions are more likely than the import of well developed being. Such considerations are of interest in tracking the history of life, of mind in the cosmos but are not fundamental i.e. they would not be resolutions of questions regarding origins (of life) and questions of substance (what is mind?) (Resolutions are not needed since, in this narrative, the issues are already resolved by more fundamental approaches but the considerations are of interest since they have been proposed as resolutions by some writers. Such resolutions cannot be fundamental resolutions for the distinction between this or that cosmos or this or that part of one is a normal but not a fundamental distinction)
As has been seen there is neither substance nor need for explanation based in substance. However, relative to any cosmos, there may be kinds that play a local and practical role of substance. In the local cosmos these may, perhaps, be taken to be the elementary particles and forces (of modern physics.) For that assertion to be valid two requirements must be satisfied, (1) that the cosmos (aspects labeled Mind and aspects labeled Matter) has required no infusion for its formation and history and (2) the understanding that the elements (particles and forces) are equally (primal) matter and (primal) mind. It would then follow that life and animal-mind would be combinations, layers of combination and elaboration
In an original meaning atoms (Greek atoma: things that cannot be cut… Democritus, born c. 460 BC was a central figure in the development of an atomic theory of Being) were indivisible fundamental particles. The idea provided an alternative to earlier substance theories whose purpose was to understand the Variety of the world in simple terms. To be ultimate in simplicity, an atom should have no internal structure. However, if there is no internal structure, there can be (no explanation) of interactions between atoms (e.g. a force field associated with an atom is either an unexplained substance or requires structure.) I.e. an atom that is deterministic and ultimately simple can have no (mechanism of) interaction. Atomic explanation has the deficiency that ‘stuff’ theories of substance (Thales’ water, or Mind or Matter or mind and matter…) also have: explanation terminates in the unexplained. Atomism can be seen as a kind of substance theory. If there were no alternative, substance theories would, perhaps, be the best possible explanation of manifest being even if not entirely satisfactory. However, in the Metaphysics developed earlier that establishes the existence and character of the Void there is an explanation that terminates and requires no even more fundamental unexplained substance or entity. Metaphysical atomism faces a further problem. It postulates novelty but is incapable of explaining further true novelty. The metaphysics of the present narrative does not face these problems: it does not overcome them; instead, as shown earlier, it shows them to be artifacts of a kind of explanation based in (invalid) assumptions regarding ‘simplicity’
The atoms, elementary particles and fundamental forces of modern physics are not intended to take on the role of metaphysical substance and (except when they are proposed as such) in their role as nothing more than the best available explanation need not address the issues of substance. Regarding material objects, the basic objects of modern physics may be seen as locally and practically fundamental; although there is speculation on their role in the locus of mind and consciousness in animal being their actual role remains an open question (c. 2007)
Earlier in this section on cosmology a number of Divides were noted. These included the ‘first’ state of manifest being, the origin of a normal cosmological system and so on
Of these, two stand out as especially significant. (1) Origins of a cosmological system: a coherent sub-manifold of the Universe, and (2) Origin of the free symbolic capability
These Divides, the first that marks the local cosmological system (often called ‘the universe’ in common use) and the second that marks the origin of an especially human form of adaptability are significant in what follows