IV
MIRACLES

There is at least one thing, or one event, which cannot possibly be explained.

The English language has no word suitable for denoting a thing of such fundamental nature. Miracle is the closest approximation, for it has the right connotation and would do the job nicely had not the advertising industry and religion conspired to corrupt the word by applying it to laundry soap, good luck, and paranormal phenomena.

To make the distinction between advanced technology and genuine miracles, we will simply capitalize “Miracle.” For emphasis we will use the term Absolute Miracle.

An Absolute Miracle is neither a new product nor a complex technology which you do not understand, but something which cannot be explained— not by you or me or an alien from another galaxy with an IQ larger than the government deficit— not even by God.

The miracles attributed to Jesus Christ do not qualify because if He knew how to perform them He also knew how to explain them. Anything which can be explained, however mysterious you or I may find it, is just another technology— no more miraculous than a cigarette lighter flashed to impress an isolated aboriginal tribe.

The Miracle we seek here is a simple thing of monstrous consequences which can never be explained. You probably take this Miracle for granted, as does almost everyone.

The Miracle is that something exists.

The only non-Miraculous state of being is a null universe, a state of total nonexistence without space, matter, or energy, and without a God to fill the nothingness with something interesting. Absolute nothingness is the simplest and arguably the only natural state. But that is not the state which we experience.

Almost everyone with a functional mind accepts that the universe exists and is real, but of course there are exceptions.

Some individuals argue that the universe is merely a figment of their personal imagination. Luckily for the rest of us, they are unable to disrupt our universe by imagining a different set of physical laws because they don't understand physics.

If your beliefs about the nature of reality accept the scientific conclusion that the universe is changing, even expanding, logic declares that it had a beginning. This is typically interpreted as a thing or entity from which the universe and its components sprang. If that beginning is an omnipotent God, then the existence of that God is the Miracle. If you prefer Big Bang theory, then the exploding cosmic micropea is the Miracle. Etc.

Anyone who believes in both God and the Big Bang is confused, or is a theologian trying to reconcile religious beliefs with astrophysical theory, or both.

Given that the existence of a universe is an Absolute Miracle, the next question is about the precise nature of that Miracle. What entity, event, or combination thereof brought this universe and ultimately ourselves into existence? Brahma? Krishna? Jehovah? Zeus? The Gods of Christianity? Allah? The Big Bang?

We will make a case for an option which also belongs on every election ballot: None of the above.

Conventional Theories
About the Miracle

• Each hypothesizes the uncaused pre-existence of a single thing or entity, a precursor which became or created the universe.


• Neither precursor can be investigated.

  God is defined to be a spirit, an entity which cannot be found by instruments in the physical world. The micropea disappeared in its own explosion.



• Lacking direct evidence, the existence of either precursor can only be inferred.

  God's existence is inferred from the physical universe and complex biological life forms which appear to be the result of intelligent design. The micropea's existence is inferred from observations of the universe's expansion.



• If time can be said to exist before the universe came into being, the precursor will have existed for an infinitely long time.

  This implies that it was stable. The micropea existed, capable of exploding but not doing so. Or God existed, forever knowing everything and content with that for an infinitely long period of time.

  What might have prompted either precursor to give up its stability and make a universe?

We've already evaluated the notion that a lonely God created the physical universe in order to enjoy the scintillating company and faithful adoration of human beings. Other justifications are phrased more eloquently, but mostly amount to variations on the absurd “God needs human worship” theme. This works for believers but fails to persuade others.

Big Bang theory seems to have an advantage over creationism in that rational motivation need not be considered. Nonetheless, the question of cause remains. If the micropea existed before the bang, it must have been stable, however unlikely the concept of stability is for something capable of blowing up into a universe. What caused it to become unstable?

The micropea itself was allegedly a simple thing, not a composite of other things, so forces between internal components such as those within an atom would not have been available to destabilize it. If an outside force caused its explosion, the existence of that force requires a second Miracle.

If the micropea is actually a composite, then the existence of each component within it becomes a separate Miracle. The incorporation of these components into the micropea will demand one more Miracle. Because the micropea has made itself unavailable for scientific investigation, determining the properties of its components and the forces which bundled them together would be a matter of guesswork, not science.

One might wonder if, given the nature of the Big Bang's precursor, it is even reasonable to inquire about the cause of its explosion.

• We cannot ask what caused the micropea to explode, because the question itself implies the existence of something other than the micropea.


• We cannot ask how the micropea blew up without implying that it was actually a compound thing composed of interactive parts.


• To ask why the darn thing went poof would imply motivation, which in turn would imply intelligence. That seems unlikely.

The cosmic micropea, singularity, or whatever it might be called, appears to be a dead end idea. By virtue of its own definition, it cannot do anything.

This feature distinguishes the micropea from religious ideas. It is so tightly bound that it can do nothing, while at the other extreme, the omnipotent God can do everything.

Scientific Evidence for the Big Bang

• The universe is expanding, which suggests an explosion.


• Deep space observations show low level microwave radiation in all directions, once thought to be constant, but actually not. This is interpreted as the residue from the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory led to the prediction that the universe's rate of expansion would be decreasing. Since the force of the original explosion no longer exists, gravity should be pulling all matter back together.

The original observations of the expanding universe could not determine the rate at which the expansion is slowing down. Since inquiring minds and documentary channel producers wanted to know when the universe will implode, they figured out a way to measure the rate of deceleration. Surprise! There is no deceleration! The expansion of the universe is accelerating, as if the original explosion is still continuing.

Science is reknowned for the verifiable predictions made from its theories. Successful predictions become the inferential proof of a good theory. Why isn't such a dreadfully incorrect prediction regarded as clear proof of a bad theory?

Instead of discrediting the Big Bang, the accelerating expansion observation has led to the dark energy hypothesis, the idea that the universe is filled with a mysterious unformed energy which exerts a force strong enough to overcome gravity and push massive galaxies away from one another.

Physics does not understand dark energy. There are no nifty equations relating it to known forms of energy like heat, matter, motion, and electricity. We do not know its quantity, its density, or how it changes as a function of spacetime and other aspects of the universe. Right now, dark energy is just a cosmological fudge factor, something thrown in to make existing theories work.

Until we learn exactly what dark energy is and understand its relationship to other components of the universe, any declarations about how the universe began or how it could not have begun are likely to be wrong.

Everything you've wanted to know about singularities.

Cosmologists originally described the “thing which blew up” as an extremely tiny particle smaller than a proton but which nonetheless contained all the mass and energy of the universe. This was clearly a thing, something real and potentially definable. It is this which we've dubbed the “cosmic micropea.”

Cosmologists who tried to mathematically analyze the micropea could not calculate its exact size. They could not devise an equation which described it. Unwilling to admit that they had no idea about how to describe the Big Bang's precursor, they cleverly renamed it a “singularity.”

The adoption of the term singularity as the revised name for the cosmic micropea represents a regrettable first for hard science— neurolinguistic spin.

A singularity is only a mathematical abstraction. Its appearance as a mathematical solution usually means that someone has divided by zero, thus causing the solution to become infinite.

Back in high school math, if you'd written an equation which blew up to infinity when numbers were plugged in, then informed your teacher that this absurd result was a singularity, but meaningful nonetheless, you'd have gotten a good laugh and a big fat “F.” The rules change for professors.

Mathematical abstractions are useful but not real. Although the number “one” is a handy abstraction, is it not a real thing in the usual sense of what real means to regular people. To prove otherwise, find a one— not a symbol of a one, not one bean or one penny— just a one.

Likewise, a “thousand” is not real— there is no such thing. Nor is there an “infinity.” A “singularity,” the solution to an equation which blows up to infinity, would be even less real if such a concept as “less real” than meaningless meant anything.

History will clarify this complaint about an issue which probably seems irrelevant.

Big Bang theory was derived by running the universe's clock backwards in time, imagining all of its matter and energy shrinking into a smaller space. That matter and energy did not disappear— it was compressed like garbage in a trash compactor until it ended up, the theory declares, in a space smaller than a proton.

That part of Big Bang theory was easy. (Note that you had no problem visualizing the compression of the universe.) The tough part came in figuring out why the compressed universe might have exploded. (Unless you put an old stick of leaking dynamite in your trash, you need not worry about your compacted garbage blowing up.)

Is there a point in the theoretical compression of the universe or your garbage at which it might be transformed from a real universe, or real garbage, into a mysterious singularity? Neither garbagbe compaction technology nor Big Bang theory defines such a point. They cannot, because the theory of physics which describes transformations between singularities and mass-energy does not exist.

Such a theory will never exist.

Are we to believe that the once-real matter and energy of an enormous universe can be transformed into an indefinable mathematical absurdity by the proclamation of a few confused astronomers?

Renaming the micropea is analogous to what religions have done by declaring their God to be a non-physical “spirit.” The words singularity and spirit cannot be pinned down to any real world meaning, leaving them free for invention by professors and priests.

Whether our previous arguments against the God concept or these against Big Bang cosmology convinced anyone is not as relevant as that such arguments can be fairly made. Please note, once again, the similarities between fundamental beliefs shared by religionists and and scientists alike:

• Neither precursor to the beginning can be identified by the instruments of science.


• Belief in either precursor is entirely inferential.


• No direct evidence of either can be found today.


• Declarations about the nature, properties, and other characteristics of the precursor are entirely the province of experts, either cosmologists or theologians.


• Each side of this ideological fence has devised improbable theories to explain the development of biological life.


• Neither side has developed an effective explanation for human consciousness.

Why not? Many well educated and intelligent individuals have addressed both sides of these questions. Why have they failed to come up with explanations for the beginnings of the universe, origin of life, and the nature of the conscious mind which are beyond argument?

Perhaps it is because they all accept the importance of simplicity yet misunderstand exactly what it means.

TRUE SIMPLICITY

The principle of simplicity has long been close to the hearts of logical thinkers, and has been formulated in many ways. Occam's Razor, for example, is a centuries-old principle which advises economy and simplicity in scientific theories.

This principle is commonly interpreted as a preference for whichever theory depends upon the fewest assumptions. And except for zero, what could be fewer than one?

Christianity and Big Bang theory share this worn out patch of common ground, each assuming that the universe began with a single thing— apparently the simplest possible assumption. But is achieving the fewest assumptions the optimal form of simplicity? What about the inherent simplicity of the assumptions themselves?

FALSE SIMPLICITY

Neither the omnipotent God of Creation nor the micropea/singularity of Big Bang theory have turned out to be simple.

• God comes fully equipped with infinite intelligence, omnipotent power, and absolute knowledge of all things, past, present, and future.


• The micropea comes equipped with all the mass-energy in the universe and the physical laws which insure that everything comes together— oops! we mean blows up— so as to build a proper universe which includes a group of sentient lifeforms confused enough to believe that this is possible.

An Excess of Simplicity

If the alleged single precursor to the beginning of the universe was simple, it could not have produced a universe. Single and simple things cannot do anything.

The principles of logic support this assertion. A formal geometry (such as the Euclidean system you may have learned in high school) cannot be constructed from a single axiom. At least two are required, plus principles relating them. The same is true for mathematics.

The belief that the universe could have come into existence from the action of a single thing or entity is not supported by logic, your personal understanding of how things work, or by any laws of physics.

The first wonderfully simple law of physics was discovered by Galileo and later presented by Newton as the first of his three laws:

• A body in motion remains in motion, in a straight line, unless acted upon by an outside force.


• A body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

This means that a billiard ball placed on a perfectly flat and level table will stay there forever unless it is struck by another ball, poked by a stick, thrown at an annoying bar patron, or otherwise forcibly moved from its position.

It means that an interstellar space probe launched with enough velocity to escape our solar system will continue onward into deep space until it collides with something or is swept up by an alien trash collector.

It means that at least two things or two forces are required to make something happen.

Galileo's and Newton's simple law of motion applies to more than motion. It applies to every known event in the physical universe.

EVENTS

Our most acute senses and our finest observing instruments can only detect change. Unless something changes, events do not occur. Put simply, without change nothing happens.

The Binary Requirement

The requirement that at least two things are required to produce a physical event is implicit in every equation which describes physical behavior. All such equations describe interactions between two or more physical quantities or forces.

There are no equations in physics which describe one simple thing spontaneously becoming two things.

Although large, unstable atoms such as U-235 can split into two smaller atoms in a process known as nuclear fission, this is not an example of two things created spontaneously from one.

Composed of multiple tiny “particles” zinging about in a balanced interaction with one another, atoms are not single, simple things. The internal balance of an atom can be disturbed by the addition of extra mass or energy, making it unstable enough to split apart.

Nuclear fission is no more an example of one thing becoming two than is a house with a gas leak.

In light of the knowledge that a single thing will do nothing by itself, a scientific approach to theorizing about the beginning of the universe would have been to trace known interactive forces back to an initial pair of things which might have interacted to become the universe. Or, scientists could have done exactly what we will do here: make a guess about the pair, call it a tentative hypothesis, and see if anything interesting comes out of it.

More Miracles

After all, any cause-effect chase back into time must reach a dead end somewhere. But where, exactly?

Since one thing cannot change of its own accord or produce a physical event without an interaction with something else, the alternative is to hypothesize that at least two uncaused things interacted to produce our universe.

This is also a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. After all, if one uncaused thing can have existed, why not two?

At first look, the idea of a universe which began with two things might seem to make the problem of determining anything about those things twice as difficult. This will not be so if each of the things involved are inherently simple.

A complaint might be lodged that the existence of two uncaused things is too improbable. To evaluate such a complaint we need to know the probabability that one uncaused thing can exist.

The universe exists. We do not know of any cause for its hypothetical precursors. This makes the probability of the existence of one uncaused thing exactly 1.

There is no reason to suspect that the probability of a second and even third uncaused thing is any different, especially if these things are required to construct our universe. The probability of multiple events is the product of individual events. For three events this is 1 x 1 x 1, which equals 1.

There are some interesting implications to some elements of this argument. Later, perhaps.

We can hypothesize two or more Absolute Miracles via the same reasoning as for one: Something capable of becoming the universe must have existed and we are allowed to make guesses as to what they might be. One Miracle does not do the job, so we will add more until the simplest mixture of ingredients capable of forming a universe is obtained.

Skeptics might argue that this line of reasoning is specious because it allows one to hypothesize an unlimited number of Miracles— not much different from belief in an omnipotent God who is capable of producing miracles at will. They would have a point if our theory required more than three Miracles or even one omnipotent God.

The Three Miracles

The nature of these substances is such that upon their combination, an interaction between them was inevitable. However, we have not devised a reason to declare that their combination was inevitable. Therefore a third Miracle is required.

Real world experience indicates that before an event can occur, the things which interact to cause the event must be proximate and within a shared space. (A game of pool requires that the balls are on the same table.)

In summary, we propose that the universe came into existence from the interaction of two formless substances possessing neither intelligence nor structure. Each still exists, but now in more structured forms. The structure appears as a consequence of the third Miracle, a collision within a common space leading to the dance between mind and energy in which we participate today.

Keeping It Simple

To put our alternative ideas into perspective, let us first review the most common hypotheses which declare a single but complex thing as precursor to the universe.

• The omnipotent God of modern religions, possessing all knowledge and infinite powers of creation, cannot be a simple entity.


• The micro-pea precursor to the Big Bang contained all the mass and energy in the universe, plus the wonderful laws and four known forces governing their interactions, or the potential to create these wonders. This thing may have been tiny, but how could it have been internally simple?

Although our theory has the seeming disadvantage of requiring three Miracles, it compensates with four kinds of simplification.

1. The things which we hypothesize are composed of unstructured “stuff” or substance.


2. This stuff or substance does not include anything that might remotely be interpreted as an intelligent entity.


3. Each manifests one and only one force.


4. And a personal favorite…

   Every bit of the original stuff of the universe hypothesized by our theory is physically detectable. Completely non-mysterious, it still exists, and remains an essential component of our universe.

Mon 07/06/09 19:18