Towards a New Cosmology

***

Copyright 2007, Dennis H. Kane

Notice: You are free to copy and distribute this work as long as you do not modify it in any way.

***

For those of you who puzzled over my previous work, "The Real Ontological Proof", I am sorry. At the time, I was in a major transition from the philosophical paradigm into a cosmological paradigm. I didn't know where I was trying to go at the time, but now that I've had time to think, things have gelled together into what you are now reading.

I suppose what I've always been lacking in my philosophy was a believable cosmology (physical ontology). The problem with most "scientific" cosmologies is that they are perfectly "asymmetrical". Symmetry is almost a religious doctrine in particle physics, but when it comes to the origin of the universe... not so much! I'll tell you what I mean by symmetry in a moment.

The problem with the "big bang" theory is that it is the ultimate question-begger. Physicists can go all the way back to the singularity, but then they say that all of the physical laws break down. We aren't supposed to ask the question, 'Why?', when it comes to the moment of the singularity. The funny thing, however, is that scientists make their livings based purely on the question, 'Why?'. But then, continuing to be a scientist (by once more asking 'Why?') when you aren't supposed to be one anymore (because of the singularity) automatically brands you a zealot (or worse: a philosopher!).

So, the big bang scientists have this moment where nothing exists, and then another moment where everything comes into being. That is what I mean by "asymmetrical": everything is perfectly imbalanced. However, even those who think that "God" started the whole deal are just as guilty as the big bang guys. This is because the idea of God simply begs the same essential question, which now reads: "Why God?".

The major problem, I feel, is related to our notion of time. We see time as a discrete series, rather than as an essentially indivisible continuum. Our cosmological explanations boil down to: "At moment x, this was the case, and at moment x-1, that was the case, and...". Well, I simply say that static moments such as these are logically impossible. All of our conceptions of timelines require that there be a succession of instants of zero duration which are each arrived at by leaping over durational gaps. Within each of these zero-durational instants, it is assumed, there exists a single spatial frame, which is normally understood as a three dimensional Cartesian grid. Within each of these frames, there exist geometric forms that are filled with that weird thing called mass.

However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that reality cannot possibly work this way. For, if each spatial frame is truly of zero duration, then it can never be sensed! It wouldn't matter if ten gazillion frames whizzed by per second, because none of them truly exist if they are each of zero duration!

So, we are forced to endow each spatial frame with the quality of duration if any of this is to make sense. But the problem now involves deciding what it is that is happening in each of these tiny durations that give "substance" to our spatial frames. Is everything within each frame moving or is everything still static? I would submit that the former must be true, because the latter case is effectively identical with the initial problem. In other words, if every spatial frame were "held static", then all of the observers within it would be held static. Their sensory organs, along with everything else, would not be active, and nothing could be sensed. This case, therefore, is no good.

So now we are left with the case of a series of tiny, living durations that are still separated by empty durations. To illustrate what this is like, imagine a bowling ball rolling down a lane. At moment 1, you see the ball rolling naturally, and at moment 2, it vanishes. At moment 3, the ball appears to have jumped from where it was last seen at the end of moment 1, and then the whole cycle repeats. The sixty-four thousand dollar question is: "Why would reality function in such a bizarre way?". Why would everything be so natural and continuous at one moment just to "vanish away" the next? And after it vanishes away, how in the heck does it reappear?

The only solution I can imagine is to squeeze together all of our spatial frames into one large, continuous spatial frame. This way, our model of reality will "match up" with the way that it is experienced. However, the problem now is that there are no "timepoints" that structure our temporal dimension. We are left with a continuum that somehow adheres to itself. We can also go so far as to say that this continuum is an infinitely dense "essence" that cannot truly be dimensionalized. This is my understanding of the true nature of temporality.

Let's consider Einstein for a moment. He showed that all of our dimensions exist only as relativities. In other words, there are no such things as space or time, taken as independent, measurable entities. In is only when observers are inserted into the picture that spatial and temporal measurements can be talked about. This is not to say that reality is not objectively real. It is only to say that our measurements of reality are not objectively real.

Let us consider our universe. Being inside of the universe, it appears to always be expanding. However, if one were outside of the universe when it was first born, and kept looking at it as it expanded, it would always appear to be a singularity. What this means is that the universe would not appear at all, even after 15 billion years of observation!

My First Law: A universe, regarded externally, will never appear, no matter how close you are to it. It will remain a non-phenomenal singularity.

This strange fact is an inevitable conclusion of Einstein's theories. Simply put, all concepts of spatial and temporal dimensionality are relative only to the internal inhabitants of a universe. The moment you try to think about a universe, as a whole, it collapses upon itself!

Perhaps this fact will allow us to understand the true nature of our universe, as well as how our universe fits into the "really big picture". Again, if we think about it externally, our universe is an infinitely dense singularity that is perfectly internally cohesive. From the inside, however, it seems that it was born as a "big bang" and that it is constantly expanding. How are we going to reconcile these two vastly different perspectives?

Well, let us thing about Einstein and E=mc^2 for a second. This says that, except for the square of the speed of light, mass and Energy are interchangeable. What this really means is that energy, robbed of its spatial and temporal determinations, equals a non-dimensional essence that we call mass. This leads us directly back to our observation in the last paragraph. We can now describe our universal singularity as an infinitely dense "mass" of energy. Even though all of the inhabitants of the universe would beg to differ with this fact, it is unavoidable if we think about things from an objective perspective.

So, now, let us meditate on the concept of energy. The best way that I can think of the idea of energy, as such, is as an inexhaustible flux. But there is also an idea called chaos that could perhaps help us out. The ancient Greeks understood chaos as being a kind of primordial clearing upon which things can be revealed. It was only later that the word was "Christianized" with the negative connotation of systematic disorder. Perhaps we can somehow try to infuse the original concept of chaos with our new idea of energy as an inexhaustible flux that constitutes our universe.

Supposing that this Greek "clearing" were also perpetually active, then what do we get? We are left with a kind of strange substance that is also infinitely creative (think Spinoza, Einstein's favorite philosopher!). I like to use the term, Pure Creative Chaos (PCC), to try to describe what I am talking about.

My First Definition: Pure Creative Chaos is a mass of pure, inexhaustible energy that continually creates infinitely scalable spacetime contexts (universes).

This idea of PCC was the most awesomely creative "force" that I could imagine. The concept of infinite scalability is what separates this idea from any other that I've heard. It basically means that the idea of "scale" is the primal form of dimensionality within which a universe exists. A universe of a smaller scale is too small to be seen and a universe of a larger scale is too big to be seen. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much a universe appears to internally expand: it will always just be a singularity when observed from the outside (an unavoidable conclusion from Einstein).

Let's think about PCC. We know that it is always active, but what does this activity "look like"? The only thing that I could imagine (that didn't require dimensional determinations like motion) is the concept of intensification (condensation). Imagine squeezing a tennis ball. All that is happening is that the energy densities within PCC are constantly and chaotically increasing and decreasing.

PCC, as such, does not contain matter. However, whenever it freely intensifies, it forms tiny knots of energy that can be called particles or quanta. Imagine tying a knot in a piece of string. You are left with a kind of mass that is nevertheless an integral part of the continuity of the string. These elementary particles can be understood in much the same way. From the outside, these particles seem to be solid bits of matter. Internally, however, is still the same chaotic, energetic activity as there ever was. The nature of this activity (the vibrational frequency) is what determines the characteristics of the given particle.

As these elementary particles interact, they begin to take on the form of sensible matter. Eventually, we begin to see things like quarks (which make up protons and neutrons) and leptons (which are electrons and photons). These things eventually combine into relatively stable arrangements that are known as atoms (which are anything but atomic in the strict sense!).

So, we can see how intensifications of PCC gradually leads to the creation of sensible matter. However, this idea flies in the face of common sense which tells us that matter (aka mass) is what causes intensification (aka gravity). This is not true! It only appears this way because large, massive bodies are common occurrences where intensifications occur. However, scientific evidence shows us that most of the so called "matter" in the universe is in an unobservable form called dark matter. What this means is that this form of "matter" does not emit light like a star (nor does it scatter light like a planet), however it does cause light to bend around it, as if it were a star!

This phenomenon is perfectly perplexing if considered from within the paradigm that spacetime is an inert substratum that is only "activated" (bent) by mass. However, if we come to understand spacetime as ultimately constituted by PCC, then the phenomenon of dark matter is actually predicted! In other words, spacetime, as PCC, is always freely intensifying regardless of whether there is observable matter in the vicinity or not. And in the places where there is no observable matter, these intensifications are mistakenly assumed to be a invisible, spooky substance that is euphemistically known as dark matter.

So, now we have intensifications that are chaotically occurring within the universe. Wherever there are large amounts of pre-existing matter while an intensification is occurring, the matter will begin to clump together into bodies like planets, stars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters. The superclusters appear first, and eventually, smaller intensifications occur until we are left with relatively small bodies like planets and moons, that are all bound together into seemingly organized systems.

However, what happens if an intensification keeps intensifying? Is there ever a point at which the existing spacetime fabric breaks down? Yes, because this is what we call a black hole! Once an intensification becomes too strong, an unobservable phenomenon that I call a scalar collapse occurs. In other words, the moment in which the singularity at the heart of a black hole is created is the moment in which a universe of a lower scalar dimension undergoes its big bang.

Because the new universe is physically interior to the original one, it is tempting to say that the child universe is smaller than its parent. This is not true because their scalar contexts are different. Only objects within the same scalar context can be directly compared. Because of all of this, the inhabitants of a child universe can "feel" that their universe is constantly expanding, but it will always just be a non-phenomenal singularity within a black hole of the parent universe!

While everyone knows that black holes "suck up" light-energy, no one has ever offered a good guess as to what this energy is used for (besides the obvious notion that it causes the black hole to become more massive). Well, it is easy to see that all of this disappearing energy is being used to feed the growth of an entirely hidden universe! In fact, a universe can only expand if its parent black hole continues to feed energy into it.

And now we can come to understand where all of the dark energy that the cosmologists are so worried about comes from. You see, their problem is that there seems to be infusions of unobservable energy that is causing our universe to increase its rate of expansion. Well, if we understand that our parent black hole is constantly feeding pure energy to us, then we do not have to surprised at all by this phenomenon.

It is important to understand that we are only able to see certain forms of energy (like light) because it is infused (corrupted) with tiny energy quanta called photons. It is these photons that are constantly hitting our eyes, and forming images in our brains. However, whenever energy comes through a black hole, the force is so tremendous that all of the tiny knots are flattened out into non-phenomenal, pure energy. Hence, the name, dark energy. Again, our model of reality actually predicts it (just as it predicted dark matter)!

So, the rate of expansion of a universe is dictated by the difference between all of the incoming energy from the parent black hole and all of the outgoing energy into its child black holes. If this difference is positive, the universe expands, and if it is negative, it contracts. The term, dark energy, is simply an admission on the part of cosmologists that their paradigm of a single, explosive "bang" that provides all of the energy used by a universe while expanding is totally full of hot air!

***

Conclusion

All of these observations resulted from the unavoidable fact that all concepts of dimensional measurement are merely relative to observers within a universe. Externally, a universe can only be regarded as a singularity of infinite energy density. In this way, big bangs are just as common as black holes. Universes are embedded inside of universes, and everything exists thanks to that utterly awesome thing called Pure Creative Chaos!

I feel that I have been able to construct a physical paradigm that successfully brings together the world of the extremely small (quantum theory, string theory) and the world of the extremely large (cosmology, general relativity). It is true that my major ideas are not open to experimental verification, however, such is the nature of developing a full-fledged physical ontology. It will never be the case that we can simply use our observations to explain everything that is observable. (This is like trying to think about your own thoughts!) All that is required is carefully considered philosophical intuition in order to unify all of the seemingly disparate pieces into a transcendent whole.

Perhaps I have been able to make these discoveries because I decided to undertake a process of self-education very early in life. I would often become bored of ordinary life and decide to undertake new challenges. All the while, whenever my curiosity got the better of me, I would find the nearest library and just wander around the aisles, picking up whatever book seemed interesting. Everything from philosophy to physics captured my attention, and eventually, those two disciplines came together under the guise of developing a "First Metaphysics".

Everything that you see here is the apex of 13 years of perpetual curiosity and dogged philosophical introspection. If anyone wants to be "deconstructively" critical of anything that I've said go right ahead... I'd love to hear the original physical ontology that you've devised! (Of course, specific criticisms concerning writing style or ways that I should elaborate are highly welcome.)