The Big Picture

That the world is suffering from a virulent bipolar condition is beyond question. I think we are all familiar with the various polarizations that the world seems to be hopelessly stuck in. Perhaps the most prevalent one is the split between belief systems in general and science. There are also the schisms of the isms: Islam v the West; Islam v Islam as in Sunni v Shiite; political correctness v religious fundamentalism and the polarization of left v right in many western countries. This, as we see, causes extreme violence, real and virtual. We are all too aware of the viciousness of the real kind. As for the viciousness of the virtual, we have ideologues in the US, for instance, caught up in so-called culture wars, calling for the total elimination of their opposition as if they were some kind of alien species.

Globally, nationally, locally and individually we are in the grip of a bipolar epidemic that is so prevalent we do not seem to recognize it even in its most flagrant manifestations.

For example, George W. Bush in justifying his opposition to embryonic stem cell research once said, “Sacrificing life to save other life is just wrong.” That statement seemed to be accepted at face value by the press, politicians and public. It went unnoticed as evidence of a severely polarized mind.

George W. Bush claims to be a man of faith and is convinced that his belief provides him with a coherent worldview. But that is a conviction that does not hold up when looking at the big picture. For example, President Bush believes that he is serving the greater good by sacrificing American lives and the lives of others in the pursuit of “Iraqi freedom". So, generally speaking he believes that there is such a thing as the greater good and that it is worth sacrificing human life for.

Now, the greater good is also served by combating disease, yet President Bush is unwilling to sacrifice what he considers to be human life in the form of embryonic stem cells in that battle. Hmmm? Adult human beings are okay to sacrifice but a clump of cells is somehow sacrosanct? But, one might say, those adults voluntarily signed up to sacrifice themselves in combat while stem cells represent innocent life with no say in what they might be subjected to. Well then, let’s not forget all the unavoidable collateral damage that occurs in war. Innocent children, with no say in what they might be subjected to, will be killed and maimed. Nevertheless, one might argue, the outcome of embryonic stem cell research cannot be known, so the sacrifice might not be worth it. But the outcome of a war cannot be known either.

No matter how one wishes to parse this issue it is the President who is deciding to sacrifice human life in Iraq for what is perceived to be the greater good. And if you believe that you are justified in sacrificing human life for the greater good in that instance then you must apply the same reasoning with respect to cellular life as well. Also, to sacrifice embryonic stem cells seems a pittance in comparison to the suffering caused by armed conflict.

So, there is a little example of bringing the big picture to bear on a particular individual’s bipolar condition. It’s not difficult to do. However, using the big picture to scrutinize any belief system can pose a threat to one’s own. The big picture doesn’t favor any particular ideology and challenges them all. Religious fundamentalism and political correctness, for instance, would both be severely compromised if viewed through such an all-encompassing frame of reference. This is, perhaps, why we are somewhat reluctant to refer to the big picture in forming our view of things.

One of the casualties in ignoring the big picture is the kind of authentic discourse that Jacques Monod talked about in his book Chance and Necessity published in 1970. Authentic discourse is guided by knowledge. Knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. It has to do with being aware of how what we say over here stacks up against what we said over there and how it all relates to other relevant matters. Monod wrote, “Authentic discourse…lays the foundation of science, and returns to the hands of man the immense power that enrich and imperil him today. Modern societies woven together by science, living from its products, have become as dependent upon it as an addict on his drug. They owe their material wherewithal to this fundamental ethic upon which knowledge is based, and their moral weakness to those value systems, devastated by knowledge itself, to which they still try to refer. The contradiction is deadly. It is what is digging the pit we see opening under our feet. The ethic of knowledge that created the modern world is the only ethic compatible with it, the only one capable, once understood and accepted, of guiding its evolution.”

Knowledge, real world knowledge is what needs to be referenced in forming the big picture. Edward O. Wilson put it this way in his book On Human Nature, “To chart our destiny means that we must shift from automatic control based on our biological properties to precise steering based on biological knowledge.”

These quotes from two of the great minds of the 20th century deal with the impact of knowledge on traditional belief systems and the need to employ that knowledge in shaping our institutions of thought and practice in order to afford a clearer view of what we are doing and how to get to where we need to be.

Without the kind of reality check suggested by Monod and Wilson we will always be in danger of deceiving ourselves about our true intentions. If we do not refer to biological knowledge then we will continue to be controlled by biological properties. Thinking that our societies, our cultural institutions are somehow exempt from real world considerations because we believe them to be heaven sent or pure inventions of the human mind has unfortunate real world consequences - like the unfettered growth of government bodies.

Here, for instance, is some real world knowledge; any group of living organisms, human beings included, will behave as a living organism itself. Any such group will form, to one degree or another, an US vs. THEM mentality with respect to their group and the rest of the world. Greater allegiance will be extended to group members than to the society at large. Groups, like the tribes they are, put their welfare above all else. Bad behavior on the part of individuals belonging to a particular group will be handled discretely. Cops protect other cops, priests protect other priests, etc. Groups, as tribes, as living organisms, are vitally interested in seeking their own advantage. Their instinct is to survive and, thus, increase in power and number and find ways by which to ensure their continuance in perpetuity.

The welfare bureaucracy in the United States is an excellent example of the survival instinct inadvertently taking charge of a particular group seemingly concerned with other matters. Welfare was formed for the purpose of lending financial assistance to the needy, to see them through the tough times and get them back on their feet. However, operating as a living organism, the welfare agency naturally became more interested in its own survival. The agencies survival depended on the number of people in need of its services. So, rules and regulations were formulated that made it nearly impossible for welfare recipients to escape the agency’s clutches. Eligibility requirements were broadened so the agency could cast its net ever wider, entrap ever more and more people into its web of dependency and, so, ensure the growth and prosperity of the agency. Welfare recipients were not allowed to get a job, to have a savings account or to get married, although having children was fine and even encouraged. The children of welfare recipients were, after all, the agency’s future. From this overview it’s plain to see that the welfare agency was primarily concerned with its own survival. Of course, it never occurred to the welfare workers themselves that they were doing anything but administering to the needs of the indigent. A living organism does not, as a rule, scrutinize its means of survival.

So, there you have it, an example of being controlled by biological properties for lack of biological knowledge. The welfare agency behaved as a living organism seeking its own advantage.

A welfare agency enlightened by knowledge would have been better able to appreciate what its role was and fashion itself accordingly. It would have realized that its true objective would be to lessen the need for a welfare agency rather than to increase it. That conclusion could only be reached by engaging in authentic discourse.

But how alien is the term authentic discourse to our ears today? It is absolutely alien in a world dominated by commercially sponsored journalists, religious fundamentalists and the thought police of political correctness. It’s a world where rabid ideologues of whatever stripe spout forth the most grating inanities as if they were pearls of wisdom.

The world is beset by extreme ideological fervor from all quarters. It is an extreme world in every respect. You may be extremely cynical about the prospect of any social, political or religious ideology having anything worthwhile to offer and extremely convinced that nothing whatsoever can change things for the better.

Or you may be extremely convinced that your own particular ideology has all the answers, espouses all the right values and that all other ideologies are bogus and must be eradicated. But, “Those who think all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes. They do not consider that disproportion destroys a state.” Aristotle made that observation over two thousand years ago. In 1796 President George Washington agreed with him in his farewell address. He warned our then burgeoning nation against ideological fervor and its corrosive effects on a free society. He called it “Spirit of Party” and described it as “A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.”

That great wisdom, it seems, has been greatly ignored. And we are presently beset by a blaze of warring ideologies that continues to become more and more inflammatory for lack of “a uniform vigilance” to control it. Providing such vigilance can be achieved, as we shall see, by engaging in authentic discourse with respect to utilizing the big picture.

In the absence of an authentic discourse the world is inundated with a bunch of pretentious worldviews. I call them pretentious because, for one thing, they all fall short of the fullness that the term worldview now implies. We have various views-of-the-world like socialism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, fascism, communitarianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam et al. And they all conform to the traditional definition of worldview in that they offer a comprehensive view of the world from a particular standpoint. However, in this age of globalization, electronic communication and information processing particular standpoints have been rendered invalid. Each and every standpoint is constantly overtaken by every other as traditional boundaries separating and protecting them have vanished. To hold fast to a particular standpoint now requires enormous obstinacy that is manifest in the rise of extreme fundamentalism, which, from Rush Limbaugh to Osama bin Laden, calls for the elimination, in one way or another, of all who do not share a particular point of view.

Thus, as we see, there is no worldview that actually speaks to the world as a whole. What we have is a rage of ideologies in cacophonous concert all attempting to impose their particular standpoint on the world as the one and only truism. Such attempts are nothing new. It’s what defines the history of the civilized world. In the past, however, these impositions were the prerogative of an organized state ruling over a bounded territory. Today states of mind take precedence over states and map the landscape via electronic media where armies of like-minded individuals, infused with one dogma or another, can participate and attempt to enforce their view of the world as sacrosanct.

There is a universally accepted dogma at work here whatever the ideology or cultural conceit, namely that human beings are all participating in an exercise that lies beyond the plane of obvious existence. We believe our natures are molded and guided by some influence from the beyond. We believe that the inspiration for all our ideologies comes from a realm apart from the natural one.

But how can this realm be feeding us conflicting views of itself and the world? How can one god be visiting different beliefs in different gods upon us?

Good questions, but we are reluctant to give them any play for fear of undermining belief itself and thus our very own belief as well. But such reluctance gives tacit approval to the violence of extremists. For, if it is a legitimate claim that, according to divine decree, one’s belief system is the one and only truism then what earthly limits can realistically be put on proponents of a particular worldview in their efforts to establish its absolute supremacy?

For fear of the consequences no believer wants to dwell where uncompromising challenges exist. Desire to believe trumps all. Reason and knowledge must not be allowed to encroach upon anyone’s belief system because it poses a threat to our own.

Believers of all kinds share a distrust of science if not downright disdain. But there is not a unifying worldview to be found among their various belief systems. They create divisiveness. It is only through knowledge of the world that such a worldview can be found. A genuine worldview that does not need to be imposed on the world but is derived from it. A worldview that, by default, includes everyone. A worldview that puts everything in place. Everything. Including traditional belief systems, which, it will be shown here, are derived, not from a divine realm, but from the very fabric of the natural world.

The worldview that will be presented here constitutes a departure from just about everything now in place. From the model of the universe that physicists are using in the quest for a Grand Unified Theory GUT to the model of human nature espoused by most social scientists and philosophers to the ideological models for the formation of social systems. It is a worldview that is grounded in science and draws on the works of established scholars in various fields.

To begin with, we consider the universe itself - how it evolved, how it manifests, designs and engineers itself. And then, by reverse engineering deduce what exists beyond this universe, beyond the “big bang”. The big bang isn’t something that happened billions of years ago. The universe is still in the throes of that powerful eruption as the ever-accelerating expansion of the universe attests to. The particles created in the early universe are exactly the same now as they were then. Time has not passed for them and since they are the foundation of everything that exists, including ourselves, we are not very far from the beginning.

Now, one of the fundamental characteristics of this universe is its peculiar habit of creating something out of what that something is not. Take the classical world and the quantum world. The classical world is the familiar sensual world of objects, sights and sounds that we inhabit, and the quantum world is the world of particles like quarks, electrons and atoms. The classical world is formed by quantum particles but it is something entirely different from the quantum world. As far as the quantum world is concerned the classical world doesn’t even exist. In the quantum world, for example, there is no such thing as solidity while in our world it is commonplace. The quantum world allows us to exist in a world that is experienced as something other than what the quantum world is. Or we might say that the quantum world makes up another world that is totally different from it. Scientists have yet to find a connection between the two worlds and use two entirely different mathematical approaches in dealing with them.

In SHADOWS OF THE MIND Roger Penrose expresses his consternation at this state of affairs. He writes, “Quantum theory provides a superb description of physical reality on a small scale, yet it contains many mysteries. Without doubt, it is hard to come to terms with the workings of this theory, and it is particularly difficult to make sense of the kind of ‘physical reality’ – or lack of it – that it seems to imply for our world. Taken at its face value, the theory seems to lead to a philosophical standpoint that many find deeply unsatisfying. At best, and taking its description at their most literal, it provides us with a very strange view of the world indeed. At worst, and taking literally the proclamations of some of its most famous protagonists, it provides us with no view of the world at all.” Mr. Penrose goes on to ponder the fact that there are no mathematical formulas to account for the inconsistencies that arise between the behavior of the objects in our world and those in the quantum world - that the objects in our world do not behave like the quantum particles of which they are constructed. For one example, particles are said to spin in many different directions and to occupy many locations at once but objects like golf balls do not. “The spin of a classical object like a golf ball,” Penrose writes, “has a well-defined axis about which the object actually spins, whereas it appears that a quantum-level object is allowed to spin all at once about all kinds of axes pointing in many different directions. If we try to think that a classical object is really just the same as a quantum object, except that it is ‘big’ in some sense, then we seem to be presented with a paradox. (for according to mathematical calculations) The larger the magnitude of the spin, the more directions there are to be involved. Why, indeed, do classical objects not spin in many different directions all at once? This is an example of an X-mystery (a paradox) of quantum theory. Something comes to intervene (at an unspecified level), and we find that most types of quantum state do not arise, (or, at least, almost never arise) at the classical level of phenomena that we can actually perceive… There is even a more clear-cut example of this sort of thing in the quantum-mechanical concept of location for a particle. We have seen that a particle’s state can involve superpositions of two or more different locations. (Recall the discussion of 5.7, in which a photon’s state is such that it can be located in two different beams simultaneously after it encounters a half-silvered mirror.) Such superpositions could apply also to any other kind of particle – simple or composite – like an electron, a proton, an atom, or a molecule. Moreover, there is nothing in the formalism of quantum theory that says that large objects such as golf balls cannot also find themselves in such confused states of location.”

In a subsequent book THE ROAD TO REALITY Penrose speculates that gravity might account for the difference between the two worlds. At the quantum level gravity’s effect is inconsequential but on large objects its force is much more influential. And it is the exertion of that force which might account for the more uniform behavior of classical world objects.

The goal to somehow merge the classical and the quantum worlds in a GUT whereby both worlds will be expressed by the same mathematics is the holy grail of physics. No one can know for sure, however, whether such a prospect is actually possible. There are a few theories that are in the process of being worked on, such as string theory, loop quantum gravity and twistor theory. The proponents of string theory have been touting it as having the GUT all but wrapped up. It’s just a matter of time they say before it will all come together.

Be that as it may, all the theories remain shrouded in a problematic fog where experimentation is not as yet, perhaps never will be, able to penetrate. There are extraordinary complexities to be dealt with. String theory, for example, posits extra dimensions at the tiniest scale of the universe. There are seven extra dimensions that are posited, making eleven altogether, and they are all curled up in a complex convoluted Calabi-Yau space of which there are an infinite variety that somehow need to be sorted through to find just the right one.

This all seems hopelessly complicated, especially when we look to science to reduce things to simpler elements. Strings are simple elements but they are all wound up in complex phenomena. Also string theory does not offer us a way of readily relating to the universe we are part of.

There is nothing that says there has to be one math for everything. And it seems clear that the two different maths are given to us and dictated by the nature of things. The classical world gives us one kind of math and the quantum world another. It remains to be seen whether or not there is one math for the entire universe - one equation that will unite everything. Physicists certainly want there to be. In a platonic universe, an ideal universe, perhaps that would be the case – one equation for it all. But what world will provide that equation? The world that led up to the big bang, perhaps?

Perhaps taking a different view of the universe might yield more satisfying results. I propose we take a telescopic view and get away from the minutia of particle behavior that so bedevils our minds. A broad view that everyone can follow and, if one has a mind to, actually relate to.

To begin with, the scientific model of the universe physicists are using, known as the standard model, consists of four fundamental forces - the strong force (gluons), the weak force, electromagnetism and gravity. However, moving way back and taking a telescopic look at the whole universe from the largest scale to the smallest there appears to be only two fundamental forces – namely, attraction and repulsion. Attraction and repulsion form a universal dynamic that seems to suggest a law whereby the one infers the other.

Gravity is, of course, attractive. And the forces of attraction and repulsion are quite evident in the quantum forces. The force of attraction would, of course, be accounted for by the strong force, the gluons, as they are called, that keep quarks held in confinement by overcoming the force of repulsion between them. And the weak force, responsible for radioactive decay, drives assembled atomic particles apart. The weak force, then, is a repulsive force. Electromagnetism serves as the catalyst in which all the quantum forces of attraction and repulsion are conducted. Particles draw on electromagnetism to produce either force in relation to the particular charges of the particles.

Since 1998 there is also the discovery of dark energy to contend with. This is the repulsive force responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe. So, we see that the underlying universal forces are indeed those of attraction/repulsion A/R.

This brings a heretofore strange, alien universe into familiar territory with respect to the human condition. The forces of attraction and repulsion, which we all experience in regard to various things, are how we as a particular life form can come to see ourselves as intimately ensconced within the fabric of the universe itself.

Quantum particles are formed and instructed by the forces of attraction and repulsion that permeate their existence. A/R characterizes the whole universe with its repulsive dark energy and attractive gravity. Life itself is characterized by the attraction/repulsion dynamic. The expansion and contraction of our lungs is due to our organic attraction to oxygen molecules and repulsion to the waste products that are exhaled. Our brains, hearts and intestines are constantly expanding and contracting by some internal attractive/repulsive dynamic of their own. Proteins, the very building blocks of life, are characterized by A/R. Before they become proteins the chains of amino acids of which they are composed must fold. The folding of proteins is due to the attraction and repulsion of the amino acids with respect to the alignment of their specific charges and also to hydrophobia, the repulsion to water, expressed by the non-polar amino acids.

This dynamic is also manifested in the external behavior of organisms. Primitive one-celled creatures swimming in primordial tidal pools functioned by employing such a dynamic. They were attracted to food and repelled by toxins. Here we have the beginnings of conscious intelligence where informed choices are made. In the case of more evolved animals the interplay of attraction/repulsion becomes more complex. For instance, a female cheetah with cubs is faced with a dilemma. For days she has been staying close to her cubs to protect them from lurking predators. But her growing hunger is telling her its time to hunt for food before she becomes too weak. The thought of food is attractive. The thought of protecting her cubs is also attractive. The thought of leaving her cubs alone is repulsive. The thought of becoming weak with hunger is also repulsive. She is reluctant to leave her cubs but she knows she has to. Her cubs might be okay on their own for a while but without food neither they nor she could survive. And so, finally, the attraction to food wins out and off she goes to hunt. Further along the evolutionary track we have human beings who can reflect about what they are attracted to and repelled by and philosophize about it in grand style.

We see that the attraction/repulsion dynamic factors into every facet of existence from the beginning of the universe to the present. Everything is holding together and pushing apart, attracting/repelling. It seems that this dynamic is the primal mover behind all that exists. Spacetime itself is drawn out, as it were, between the attraction/repulsion dynamic. The expansive force of the universe, the force of repulsion, pushes away from the force of attraction making room, as it were, for all that follows. The attract/repel dynamic is ubiquitous throughout the universe. This dynamic duo is responsible for the revelation of all the various phenomena in accordance, perhaps, with a particular ratio of itself. Attraction/Repulsion is the binary language of your computer that has to do with electrons being attracted or repelled. A/R is the computer we know as the universe. The universe is at once the hardware and the software. It is an information processing system that produces and processes its own information through the binary of A/R.

Attraction/repulsion of energy itself is the élan vital that makes all things possible. It is difficult to think of any phenomenon where they are not present in tandem, from the holding together of an ever-expanding universe to the deciding factors in human relationships to the imbroglio of quarks and gluons. It is the duality of attraction and repulsion, a coming together and a pushing away that makes the universe at all possible. And the one thing that this duality is part of is something we call energy. All is one as the philosophers of old used to say. All is indeed one. Everything and everyone is of the one and the same energy. And with the creation of life, energy has found a way of experiencing itself.

People can experience a lot of resistance to a purely materialistic or naturalistic worldview like the one being presented here. Many find such views repulsive and opt for metaphysical visions that they find to be more attractive. The belief that we are special creations of a supernatural entity has an attraction for us, while the facts of evolution can arouse repulsion. What leads us to discover and finally accept unpalatable scientific findings like evolution is our attraction to knowledge.

So, attractions and repulsions can create conflicts for one’s self and this prevents us from being mindless automatons of the attract/repel dynamic. If we find ourselves attracted to knowledge and also to metaphysical visions that are at odds with a particular body of knowledge then we have to make educated reasoned judgments about reforming our worldview.

Now to return to the universal phenomenon, discussed in the previous post, where something is created out of something it is not – the classical world out of the quantum world, for instance, where some threshold event occurs to trigger a metamorphosis.

And there are many other such thresholds; Protons, for example, are formed from quarks and gluons but protons are something else entirely from the particles that form them. And it would seem that, just as the classical world does not exist as far as the quantum world is concerned, protons don’t exist as far quarks and gluons are concerned. And just how protons and the classical world materialize from things that they are so different from is one of the great mysteries of the universe. Other threshold events include individual anatomical cells creating particular organs. Neurons, for instance, coalescing at some point to produce a working brain and then, as a result of another threshold event, the brain goes on to produce a conscious mind. How the brain goes about producing the phenomenon of consciousness is as mysterious as how the classical world is produced from quantum particles. All we can say is that some kind of threshold event triggers a kind of transcendence. And one may wonder if all the various threshold events in the universe are informed and instructed by the exact same elemental influence that must in some sense be vitally connected to the primal force of nature. But if various forms of existence do not register as such with preceding forms then it’s likely that as far as the primal source of nature is concerned nothing else exists beyond itself. That’s not to say the universe doesn’t really exist. It does. But just as the classical world doesn’t exist for quantum particles the universe doesn’t exist according to that which it is created from. As far as energy is concerned nothing exists except energy.

We might list the various threshold events in this way:
ENERGY -> PARTICLES
PARTICLES -> ATOMS
ATOMS -> MOLECULES
MOLECULES -> INORGANIC MATERIAL
INORGANIC MATERIAL -> ORGANIC MATERIAL
ORGANIC MATERIAL-> CELLS
CELLS -> ORGANISMS
ORGANISMS -> CONSCIOUSNESS

Each stage in the right hand column represents an apparent departure from its partner on the left. Each stage in the left hand column remains unchanged throughout all subsequent stages. Each stage is unique unto itself while each and every stage is a result of the previous stage. From the perspective of quantum particles, for instance, the world that we inhabit is nonexistent even though it is those very particles that form the objects that inhabit our world – the classical world. Chemicals such as amino acids are not in and of themselves organic, but they are, along with other chemicals, useful in developing the organic chemistry responsible for life. The quantum world does not change as it composes the classical world. Brain cells are not transformed in bringing about consciousness; they are not transformed into consciousness. Our consciousness is something other than the neuronal activity from which it arises. The separate chemicals in a living cell are no more alive than they would be outside of a cell. It is the interactions of non-living chemicals within a cell that creates a living cell. What is not life creates life. And Energy itself does not change in composing particles. From the perspective of energy nothing else exists except energy.

Generally speaking, with regard to each manifestation of existence, a threshold is reached and something happens to extract one stage of existence from another. Again, Individual brain cells reach a particular threshold at which point they become a functioning brain and another threshold is reached where consciousness is produced. And some threshold is reached to produce the classical world from the quantum world. But what is behind these thresholds, what mechanism, what force, what influence? Could such thresholds be determined by some ultimate source - the origin of all things that must be omnipresent in a deep and abiding way at every event in existence?

Fundamentally the universe is comprised of energy. Energy is what empowers the whole universe. It is energy that configures the universe with material objects. Spacetime itself has to do with the transformation of energy from one state to another.

The whole universe, and all that comprises it, is derivative of one energy. This might be why all of the various fundamental particles of force and matter, which are the next stage over from energy, are absolutely identical to each one of their kind. Each photon is exactly identical to every other as are electrons, positrons, quarks, protons, etc.

To say, however, that particles exist in the energy that they are formed from would be somewhat misleading. Particles do not actually exist in energy anymore than a particular life form actually exists in genetic code, though it can be said that all possible life forms are contained in genetic code. The genetic code bears no resemblance to that which it creates. Life forms are completely different from that which produces them. The world of quantum particles remains oblivious and fundamentally unchanged by the macroscopic worlds that they compose. The macroscopic worlds are completely different from that which produces them. So too, energy exists as it is in and of itself alone with seemingly no connection whatsoever to anything else. Energy is, however, everything that exists. Energy also remains as one thing in and of itself alone while at the same time it gives form to all the various particles of force and matter. Energy is everything that exists and everything is composed by virtue of energy though it is completely different from what it composes. Everything it seems is composed of that which it is completely different from. Everything, that is, except energy, which is a thing in itself.

Finding a formula for one of these threshold events would, one might surmise, be a rather significant discovery with respect to describing the fundamental nature of the universe. A complete understanding of one of these threshold events could very well serve as a complete understanding of all of them and give us an idea about the universe prior to the big bang.

In looking at a particular threshold event with the attract/repel dynamic in mind we have, for instance, the repulsion of quarks drawn together by the force of attraction provided by the strong force, which produces a proton. Perhaps, when a certain arrangement of repellant quarks interact with the attractive strong force a particular ratio between the forces of attraction and repulsion is reached and this causes a specific energy field to envelop them that produces a proton. The particular ratio of the two forces could be the key to a formula for other threshold events. Consciousness could be the result of an organism’s need to manage the various attractions and repulsions of a complex nervous system. One might imagine lines of the two forces of the attract/repel dynamic extending from the universal energy and working the universe and everything in it like the strings of a marionette. So, a formula describing the threshold events on this side of the big bang might be applicable to events prior to the big bang.

Energy was behind the initialization of the big bang - an energetic display of a particular manifestation of energy. And as far as we know energy is all there is. We know that everything is energy but we do not know what it actually is. In order to be energy, however, it must be energetic. If energy is all there is then its energetic activity must be self-generated. That energetic activity could be the result of an inherent attraction/repulsion dynamic. That is, energy is attracted to itself while at the same time repelled by itself.

The A/R dynamic of the universal energy causes it to be in a state of extreme tension. A certain ratio of the A/R dynamic was reached at one point in that energy and resulted in the intense eruption known as the big bang. The eruption compromised the energy’s force of attraction while its repulsive force enjoyed a massive energy gain. The universe expanded at a relentless pace leaving the flotsam and jetsam of the big bang to hold itself together as best it could. So, we can see the universe at large as being formed from, and being an ongoing revelation of an attract/repel dynamic constituting one energy.

The idea that the big bang was propelled out of nothing, that nothing existed prior to that event, could have some validity here. If the inherent attraction/repulsion of energy is generally equal it would at some point cancel itself out. And that would be its eternal state. As far as eternity is concerned, then, nothing exists. Eternity cannot be arrived at. It always is, always was and always will be. Within that eternity, however, all manner of various configurations of A/R are possible. Eternity would, in effect, comprise all possible states including, of course, the one where A/R is perfectly equal. The equal state where energy cancels itself out is the actual eternal state because it is the only one that never changes. Any particular temporal manifestation of energy is non-existent as far as the eternal is concerned.

Think of the attractive force as positive and the repulsive force as negative and relate them to positive and negative numbers. There are always as many negative numbers as positive numbers and, therefore, the numbers are cancelled out leaving only zero forever in their stead.

So, to answer the question posed by Leibniz, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” we say there is something and nothing. Taking the measure of time moment by moment something exists; but in the all-encompassing eternity nothing exists. But again moment-to-moment existence is something entirely separate from eternity; the eternity of zero is something separate from a progression of moments.

How can this be? Well, again, we see in the universe certain threshold events where things exist as they are while at the same time they manifest themselves as something entirely different. Also, quantum particles have been found to exist in different states at the same time. As it manifests itself on this side of the big bang energy gives rise to a lot of bizarre happenings. Can we expect anything less from energy on the other side?

We can see all the threshold events as manifestations of the forces of attraction and repulsion. Particles attract and repel in certain ways to form atoms. Particular atoms attract to one another to form molecules and so on and so forth. Chemical bonding in general has to do with particular elements attracting and repelling one another. In this way all such events are vitally connected to the one energy that is the primal force of nature.

All is a manifestation of the attraction/repulsion dynamic of the one energy. And it is to that one energy that all seeks to return. Energized quantum particles display a marked tendency to recombine into the whole energy from whence they appeared - like the virtual particles that percolate out of the vacuum energy and just as soon recombine back into it. However, the quantum particles of our universe, called real particles, lack the wherewithal to perform that neat little trick.

Each virtual particle is able to recombine with its antiparticle. But if they were somehow prevented from doing so real particles would be produced. This is perhaps how the big bang occurred. Pairs of virtual particles were torn apart by the forces of A/R so that the particles and antiparticles went their separate ways to form distinct universes. By virtue of a particle’s ability to simultaneously be in all places the newly formed real particles filled up the expanding universe they found themselves in. John Wheeler once suggested to Richard Feynman that all electrons are exactly the same because they’re all the same electron.

In the formation of an atom we can see the tendency to recombine along with the inability to do so. The forces of attraction and repulsion that wrestle around with quarks perform a Sisyphean like agon of continually coming together and pushing apart. Out of this agon, however, the A/R forces and the quarks combine to create a unity in the form of a proton or a neutron. Electrons are attracted to protons, as they would be to their antiparticle positron, but lack the energy to take that attraction to its logical conclusion of merging back into the one energy. And so atoms are formed.

Hydrogen atoms with the assistance of the attractive force of gravity formed galaxies. The black hole at the center of a galaxy is a massive attempt by gravity to return to the prior state of oneness. A greater majority of the hydrogen atoms in proto galaxies, however, got caught up in less massive gravitational fields and produced the fusion reactors known as stars which created all the atoms with multiple nucleons. And, in seeking to recombine, these heavier atoms formed the molecules that created solar systems and life forms.

From the forces of A/R we can derive all the characteristics of the universe that stand in opposition to one another. In terms of the one energy they can be seen as absolutes and our universe exists by virtue of a dialogue between them.

These characteristics are:

• unity — diversity
• uniformity — disparity
• stability — instability
• order — chaos
• contraction — expansion
• permanence — change
• attraction — repulsion

The characteristics that make up each column are interchangeable with one another. Unity, uniformity, stability, order, contraction, permanence and attraction are all intimately related, as are their opposites. The one common denominator in all of these pairings is attraction/repulsion because they qualify as ultimate forces; all of the other dualities can be seen to be an effect of the cooperative contention of the attract/repel dynamic.

At one extreme we have super giant stars with enormous centers of gravity striving to hold them together while the ongoing force of their nuclear furnace violently pushes outward producing an overwhelming force of repulsion that seems bent on tearing the body of the stars apart as quickly as possible. This objective is achieved soon enough in a massive explosion as the star’s constituent parts go their own separate ways into outer space. This nearly absolute repulsive force can also be characterized as approaching absolute diversity, disparity, instability, chaos, expansion and change.

Something approaching absolute uniformity can be seen in our universe as a neutron star, or a black hole, where the force of attraction, gravity, acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner sucking everything around it into its super monolithic density and stripping everything down to elemental particles. This nearly absolute uniformity brought about by a nearly absolute attraction can also be considered as absolute unity, order, stability, contraction and constancy.

In opposition to the extreme black hole gravity devouring galaxies from the inside we have the repulsive dark energy pushing them apart and threatening to eventually tear them up. Could the dark matter found around the periphery of galactic formations be a build up of dark energy denied access into the galaxies by the gravity holding them together.

A/R is what is responsible for the controlled expansion of spacetime and what started the universe in motion prior to the “explosion” of light and heat that ushered the visible universe into being. The visible universe is an anomaly in the universe as a whole. It accounts for only a fraction of the contents of the entire universe. Light is, and must always be, contained within the universe. Light is a product of this universe and cannot exist except within it. The expansion of the universe proceeds at speeds faster than that of light and it keeps on expanding at an ever-increasing acceleration. If the universe had begun with an explosion of light then its boundaries would be that of light itself and it would have been impossible for anything else to accrue more energy than that which the initial expansion predominantly consisted of. Before the lightshow of this universe took place there existed a vast ocean of energy roiling with innate forces of attraction and repulsion.

In subsequent posts we will see how all this relates to the human condition.