Current Views
and My Preconceptions

T   
here is no agreed upon overall view of basic principles. There does seem to be a general unstated concensus that the following is true (or some similar variant).
That there are four basic independent units in existence interacting with one another to produce the observed array of phenomena. These being:

I. Abstract Logic
II. Rules Endemic to Our Universe
III. Matter
IV. Consciousness

Some would add a fifth overseer, God, as a sort of logical glue-all.

The first preconception to adopt is that there is only one thing, call it what you will. There is no way to get to four or five separate and independent things from nothing that I have ever found. Therefore, we begin the hunt with a firm commitment to 'bag' just one animal then carve up its parts. (Reductionism)
By corollary, then, no foundational ideas are acceptable unless they are utterly simple. Or, put another way, that which is common to all things is most important---that common to many things, next in importance---that common to few things, least important.

A popular misconception is the Anthropic Principle, the primary tenet of which is that things must be as they are in order to evolve a creature capable of wondering about such things, i.e. if the universe weren't just about as it is no intelligent life could have evolved. Or more tellingly and to the point, no secondary information pool could be formed. Considering the present extent of human knowledge such a belief is grossly premature and unwarranted.

The second preconception is then that there are no other universes in 'other dimensions'. For if we adopt this view we can solve anything too easily.

"Our universe is this way because it is only one of many universes."

As you can see, a plurality of worlds allows us an infinite amount of leeway. Whereas, if we wish to force out a unique universe, we must leave no leeway at all. Everything must fit together with infinite precision and with no missing or extra parts. This is a strictly Newtonian view (assume everything to be fundamentally the same everywhere and everywhen in the widest sense possible).

There was a scene in the movie "Exorcist" wherein Father Damian introduces the case of demonic possession to the old priest. To which the old one replies quietly (after shooshing him),

"There is only one ... "

He does so because of previous experience. And I say as much.

"There is only one universe ... and you are looking at it."

I have a reason for this viewpoint and I will here share it with you. We observe that everything interacts with everything else and in so doing it is said to "exist" relative to those others. What manner of intercourse might there be amongst an infinite plenum of universes which would serve to validate each one's existence relative to another ... since by definition they cannot interact with one another.

We must assume that objects interacting with one another is a logical requirement for existence. Are we then to believe that this law is simply dropped for a multi-plex of universes as though their identity were more of an identity than a simple objective member of a single universe?

When dealing with a cosmological unknown, it is often the easiest thing to balance the problem out by saying that the solution lies in another universe. As an example, I once thought that if I could not resolve parity non-conservation in the weak interaction, I would be forced to propose the existence of another universe of opposite handedness. This particular problem caused me an incredible amount of grief for some years until I was able to resolve it to my satisfaction within the context of a single universe.

I contend, as a matter of principle, that any such problem can be handled without resort to "other universes". One simply needs to work at it until it irons itself out ... no matter how long it takes ... or, how much work is necessary.

To do otherwise is to open the floodgates. One extra universe will beget, in short order, an infinitude. (As we presently see.) To accept another universe, we would be saying in effect that ...

God is a slob

... who can't figure out how to stuff everything into one box. It is my contention that God has an infinitely tight "musculature". There is no fat at all on Him and He does nothing in vain.

With all the foregoing in mind ...

All measured quantities other than 0,1,infinity, pi, e and perhaps 2 & 3 which crop up are expected to "have gotten that way" by means of changing. If this is not so we would be forced to accept that plenum of extra universes wherein every other possibility is checked off.

This makes explaining the universe both easier and harder.

It is easier because we have a preconceptual knowledge that things are changing at rates which are functions of one another (they must be mutual functions because rates can't be "picked out of a hat" either).

It is harder because we now have to obtain a much tighter integration of all our data (actually, an infinite tightness).

*
Many philosophical views contain an impotence ingredient stating to the effect that we can accomplish nothing lasting in the field of knowledge because we exist as man, an inherently deficient creature. Our understanding is always, eternally incomplete and mistaken. This in spite of an unending string of successes enabling the construction of civilization.

The third preconception is that the universe is comprehensible to man. Our senses are not instruments of distortion as some believe. True, we may not observe everything with absolute precision but the senses are quite accurate enough. We have evolved in this universe to observe this universe and that evolution must be understood to be impartial. Were this not so we would not be able to exist at all.
Also, what chance for understanding does one have if one believes that the universe is incomprehensible?

*

One last preconception ...

Consciousness abides in the same universe but is a different representation of the same structures, i.e. the qualities of sensations are congruent with physical structures and activities within your brain but are not necessarily directly or causally related to physics. This is a "phase space" interpretation ... a simultaneous but different representation of the "meaning" of the arrangements and actions of those particular atoms-molecules-cells.


Remember that these are preconceptions.
Expect to make modifications later but for now we need something to work with.



Next Page


Ebtx Home Page