A Diagram of Reality

.

Can reality be diagrammed?

 

Most of us are familiar with the diagram of the atom.  It consists of a large, central dot, around which are drawn ovals or circles.  Simple.  The large central dot represents the nucleus.  The outer circles also have one small dot each, representing the electrons.

 

The diagram is simple, easy to understand, and gives the novice a beginning idea how to think of the atom.  Of course, as we learn more about the atom, we learn that the diagram is too simple.  The nucleus is not a dot, but a complicated structure of quarks and forces.  Nor are the electrons dots, but rather, clouds, which are not separate from their orbits.  Even so, the diagram of the atom is a useful starting point toward understanding—only toward understanding, because we may never arrive at a full understanding.

 

Likewise, a diagram of reality is not to be taken literally as a full understanding.  It is not.  Even so, it provides a useful starting point, an anchor to which one can always refer, when his understanding begins to drift into a maze of complications.  Like a map of a large city, or of a continent, it helps to orient us, even though the map is but a symbol.

 

The diagram of reality is simply two circles, one inside the other, with a dot at the center.  How simple can it get?

 

Of course, that is too simple, even for the novice, so we have to point out some landmarks.  The two circles form a doughnut shape, an outer band which we can color in for clarity.  That outer band represents the material world that we experience through our senses.  It is the part of reality that we can see, touch, hear and so forth.  It is where we find atoms, rocks, cars and trees, and even our physical bodies.

 

Inside the doughnut shape is a circular disc, like a dinner plate.  This represents the part of reality that we cannot see or touch.  It is the abstract reality of mathematics, of the properties of physical things, and of even greater realities, such as life and consciousness.  This inner disc of abstractions is what governs the physical world.  Without it, there would be only chaos in the physical world.

 

Finally, our diagram of reality contains a central dot, but this dot is nothing like the nucleus of the atom.  The central dot of reality, if we can call it that for now, is the unknowable essence.  Really?  What good can come of discussing the unknowable?  Let’s see.

 

Just as the inner disc of abstract reality governs the outer physical reality, so also does the unknowable essence govern the entire diagram.  It not only governs it, but gives rise to it.  It provides plan, purpose and meaning to all of existence.

 

While we can never know the unknowable—of course—we can learn some things about it. 

 

In the diagram, the dot cannot be drawn small enough, because the center of a circle is an infinitely small point.  Its size is zero.  As we can quickly see, zero is not, “nothing.”  The center is unquestionably there.  It is unquestionably real.  We cannot, however, fully comprehend it.  Never.  It is unknowable.

 

If we wish to think of this in terms of the Trinity of Christian faith, we could say that the central dot represents (and we must tread very carefully here,) the Holy Spirit of God.  We could also say that the inner disc represents the Creator.  Finally, we could say that the outer band of the diagram represents Jesus, the physical incarnation of God.

 

We must hasten to clarify that God cannot be diagrammed.  The diagram does, however, give us a reference point on several challenges to God.  First, there are not three Gods, but only one, with three aspects (persons).  Also, God has no beginning, no more so than the center has a center.

 

Just as a map of a continent is not the continent itself, but only a tool for navigation, so also, the diagram of reality is only a symbol, one which helps us navigate through life.

 

The diagram also helps us to address the question of monism versus dualism.  The monist side of the question is answered by the fact that the diagram is one, a unified whole.  The dualist side is that while the physical is part of the hierarchy, it does exist.  Then there is the hierarchical argument, that reality can be understood in terms of Creator, Creation, Creature:  God, the Universe, Us.

.

Does Consciousness Reconcile Quantum Physics with General Relativity?

Sir Roger Penrose, during a taped interview, said something that has intrigued me for a long time.  He said that, eventually, the answer to the mystery of consciousness, will be found in the gap between General Relativity and Quantum Physics.

 

Such a gap does exist, and the Holy Grail of physics, of its Standard Model, is to fill that gap, to reconcile the two main theories of physics.  Those two theories clash with each other, and thus far, no one has been able to bring them together.  Both are considered to be valid branches of physics, and yet, they seem to exclude each other.

 

There might, however, be a way, an approach, albeit as radically different from the conventional paradigm as was Relativity to physics.  I will present a conceptual approach to the problem that might move us closer to a solution.  I cannot call it a theory, not even properly a hypothesis, so I will timidly refer to it as a provisional hypothesis, more a way of thinking about the problem, than a final answer. 

 

Before explaining this provisional hypothesis of the reconciliation, of relativity and quantum mechanics, let us first set the stage by briefly glancing at the paradigm leap that brought General Relativity into the picture.

 

Before General Relativity was formulated by Einstein, the view of physics was much different than it is now.  Space and time were considered distinctly separate from each other, gravity was considered to be a “force acting at a distance,” and matter was thought to be entirely separate from energy.

 

All of that changed dramatically with Einstein’s theory.  One of his equations, perhaps the most famous equation in history, is, E=MC².  What that equation does, is to unify, or reconcile, matter and energy with each other.  In practice, relativity theory has proven to be wildly successful.

 

The “E” in the equation stands, of course, for Energy, and M for Matter (or Mass).  But the equation would not reconcile anything were it simply to say, E = M.  If they already equal each other, then no reconciliation is necessary.

 

The equation contains the letter, C.  C is the physical, mathematical constant for the speed of light, with a value of about 300,000 meters per second.  The exact value is not what concerns us here; it is the principle of reconciliation between two things that were once thought to be totally separate from each other, that is germane.

 

To complete the reconciliation of energy and matter, any value of E is equal to the value obtained by multiplying the value of the mass, M, and multiplying that times C times C (or C-squared).

 

E=MC². 

 

Let us use the foregoing as a template for predicting what the final reconciliation of relativity with quantum physics will look like.

We can begin with the incomplete equation, R = Q.  The R symbolizes relativity, and the Q is used as a symbol for Quantum (quantum physics).  Of course, neither R nor Q is a number.  They are place-holders for the eventual reconciliation equation.  R will be the side of the equation involving Relativity, and then of course, Q is the other side of the equation, involving Quantum Physics.

 

Just as in the equation, E=MC², where E = M would be incomplete, so also is R = Q incomplete.  We need a reconciling value, or set of values, such as a universal constant in some shape or form.

 

Therefore, to move the equation closer toward its final form, let us write it as, R = Q x C.  This is still incomplete, of course, but we are following the template, E=MC².   So, R=QC².

 

In this new equation, C is not the speed of light, but rather, a universal constant.  It is written here as C – squared, but that is only for symbolic purposes.  It is unlikely that the final equation will contain C².  We now have a new template, which is, R=QC².  Bear in mind this is a provisional template only.

 

Of course, were matters this simple, someone by now would have moved much closer to a solution than in fact has been the case.  It becomes apparent that, while the template (E=MC²) got us started, it needs to be changed quite radically, and this is where the provisional hypothesis takes off in a new direction.

 

The part of the template that needs to be changed next, is not the R, nor the Q, nor the C.  It is the equal sign (=).

 

When the left side of an equation is equal to, or interchangeable with, the right side, then of course the equal sign denotes this.  That is what makes it an equation.  When the two sides are not equal, then we have an “inequation,” and the equal sign is replaced by another symbol.  If the equal sign has a diagonal line through it, this indicates inequality, but with no indication as to which side is greater than the other.  If it is known which side is greater, then either the “greater than” sign (>) or the “less than” sign (<), is used, for example to denote that A > B (A is greater than B) or A < B (A is less), or some combination which may include the equal sign, as in A is greater than or equal to B.

 

There are also modifications to the equal sign that indicate that, while the two sides are not equal, they are a close approximation of each other.  A “wavy” equal sign can indicate this.

 

What there is not a “sign” for, is quantum uncertainty.  In this commentary, we will suggest such a sign, and because of printer limitations, let us design it as, [?], a bracketed question mark.

 

With this innovation, we can now further modify our template to look like, R [?] QC².

 

The quantum uncertainty sign [?] indicates not only that it is unknown which side of the inequation is greater, but more importantly, it indicates oscillation.  One side can be greater, then become less.  For example, the spin of an electron may be plus one (+1) or minus one (-1) in one instant, and may reverse in the next instant.  The exact value of the spin is indeterminate, until it is measured, and this is what the uncertainty sign [?] signifies.

 

Now then, is there anything more that will direct the reconciliation?  Yes.  The symbol C, in the equation, stands not for the speed of light, but for Consciousness.

 

Unlike the speed of light, consciousness does not have a mathematical value, yet it is very likely a factor in quantum mechanics, which is why it is placed on the Q side of the inequation.

 

Here, we have radically changed the template of E=MC².   The new template is hardly recognizable, but the old template did help us to form the new one, which is, R [?] QC².

 

R [?] QC².

 

We should now get rid of the 2 super-script, and replace it with an indeterminate symbol, X.

 

R [?] QC^x. 

 

The X is not necessarily a power to which C is raised, but rather, a place-holder for a further modification yet to be devised. 

 

As you see, this is all murky, possibly with none of the mathematical precision that the Standard Model of physics demands.  What else, however, can we expect?  We are in unexplored territory, trying to peer through the fog in search of a path forward.  Such a search cannot be restricted to methods that, so far, have not borne fruit.  At the same time, we wish not to stray any further from conventional searches than is necessary.

 

This new template may be somewhat along the lines of what Penrose was suggesting in the opening paragraph of this commentary, with quantum uncertainty filling the gap. 

 

Whatever the final reconciliation between Relativity and Quantum Physics will be, it probably will not follow the template of E=MC².  What will be needed is new physics, perhaps a new innovation in mathematics, and a new paradigm in which consciousness is not an outcome of physics, but a fundamental reality that underlies physics, both relativistic and quantum.

 

If the new paradigm includes spiritual influences, why should that be a problem, if the solution turns out to be useful?

 

There is also, the possibility that the final description of reality will be something for which the human brain may be inherently and forever inadequate to sort out.  This does not necessarily mean, however, that the human mind, apart from the brain, cannot make sense of it all, at least enough sense to fulfill its needs, and its purpose, in the grand scheme of things.

-

Can the Universe Have Arisen from Nothing?

.

Sometimes it happens that, just as I begin to think that I am smarter than I really am, I get reminded otherwise.  Here is an exchange between two people, both of whom are smarter than me.  They were discussing the question of whether the universe could have spontaneously arisen from nothing.  The deeper question, of course, involves what nothingness is, and what “somethingness” is.  Here is what Nicholas and Simon had to say about the matter:

 

https://www.freethoughtforum.org/blog/did-the-universe-come-from-nothing

[Begin Quote by Nicholas Burk, Executive Board Member © 2019 Free Thought Initiative]

When I run into religious arguments against mainstream science, I often hear a line that goes something like this: “And what about the Big Bang? Now scientists would have us believe that something came from nothing. How absurd! Something is something and nothing is nothing and to think otherwise is nonsense! Besides, we never ever see something come out of nothing do we?”

Do we? Here is this common misconception in a nutshell: “The universe couldn’t have possibly popped into existence out of nothing.”

[Skip to next segment]

[Resume quotes by Nicholas—bolding by me]

Through mathematics and indirect observation of quantum fluctuations, scientists can now make the case that our universe did indeed come into existence out of what people call, “nothing.”

Now most people’s problem with this astonishing discovery comes from the use of this word, “nothing.” In everyday language, when we say nothing, we mean the opposite of something. We mean absolute emptiness, an unambiguous void. This pure, theoretical, and definition-based abstract doesn’t really exist. This idea isn’t exactly what cosmologists and quantum physicists mean.

[End quote, Let's turn to Simon]

[Response segment by “Simon”]

Hi Nick

Having once been an atheist, I find it interesting that when I now talk to atheists, I realise how powerful “confirmation bias” is on both sides in these discussions. Previously the idea of positing god as an explanation for the big bang was a bit like the atheist Stephen Hawkins famous description of never ending turtles on top of turtles - if god caused the big bang then who caused god etc. Quantum fluctuations underpinning spacetime, seething with ‘zero point’ energy seemed a far better hint at what could become a clearer, tangible answer.

Now my view of god is very different, and whilst I fully appreciate that science by definition must avoid untestable theories such as “god did it” from the process, I find that atheists are working with turtles. Ignoring for now the questions about the nature of quantum fluctuations, and how these manifest in a ‘universe’ that has neither space nor time, the god I believe in is absolute, not created and underpins everything. All energy ultimately comes from him and all time, space and quantum phenomena sit within him.

[End response segment]

[Now, for my comments] 

Nicholas has made a flawed argument, and Simon recognizes that.  The universe could have come from “nothing,” but only if you carefully re-define “nothing” as “something.”  Net zero is not “nothing.”  Plus one minus one equals zero, but in this case, that “zero” contains plus one and minus one, which clearly are not zero, and not “nothing.”  Even the vaunted Stephen Hawking stumbled on that matter.

Many atheists, having concluded that there is no God, cut their feet to fit their shoes.  Likewise, some of my fellow Christians make the most bone-headed arguments FOR God.

IMO, when we argue for or against (you name it, Idealism, God, atheism, physicalism) we should recognize that when it comes to ultimates and absolutes, human reason is inadequate to define them, much less to prove/disprove them.

We can at best only say WHY we believe as we do.

Thereafter, any further discussion should center as much on learning as it does on persuading.

.