Essay Abstract

Since the dawn of recorded history, and likely before, humans strived to understand the world into which they are born and from which they ultimately pass. Among the key questions that have pre-occupied the human desire to understand, two stand out. What is the stuff of which the world is made, and how does it work? These questions continue to baffle modern thinkers as much as they did the ancients. We are left with puzzles, including the one Eugene Wigner explored in his 1960 paper "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences." This puzzle is at the heart of the current FQXi essay contest "Trick or Truth". The Truth is that there is a hole at the center of creation, afflicting both mathematics and physics - an infinite void made visible to us in the form of ineluctable paradoxes. The Trick is that in pursuing fundamental questions on the nature of creation, of logical order, and of consciousness, we are led inexorably to an infinite void, a barrier to our ability to know, one that we cannot cross without reaching for a transcendent metaphysical explanation. This essay explores our failure to grasp the hole at the center of creation and explains its metaphysical genesis. I offer a creation myth that respectfully echoes the ancient sacred text of the Book of Genesis, while being grounded in what we now know about mathematics and physics. My goal is to provide a coherent and consistent explanation of the Hole at the Center of Creation, one that also serves as the key to the Whole that Encompasses Creation.

Author Bio

George Gantz is a retired business executive with a life-long passion for mathematics, science, philosophy and theology. He has a Bachelor of Science degree with Honors Humanities from Stanford University and now directs an internet Forum on Integrating Science and Spirituality (http://swedenborgcenterconcord.org) and blogs on related topics.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear George Gantz,

You've masterfully treated the hole in the center of creation. You've reviewed many of the standard ways of attempting to fill the hole, and then discuss the standard ways to avoid recognition of the hole - various forms of ignorance. In physics this bears resemblance to the philosophy "shut up and calculate" a non-committal, non-ontological non-interpretive approach [as described by Matt Visser.]

What you refer to of course is the mystery, which is the basis of all religion. It is certainly significant that many physicists, who have "outgrown" religion, and seemingly have no need to recognize mystery, nevertheless fill their quantum mechanics with mystery, from the collapse of the wavefunction to entanglement; things they don't understand - but have faith in.

You courageously state that the Emperor of science is naked, but many have been told that the intelligent can see the clothes, the forms. Yet the essence of the hole is emptiness.

I'm sure somewhere Templeton is smiling.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Thanks for the kind remarks! While the hole at the center may be empty, clearly the whole is bigger than the some of the parts. Regards - George

    I note the INTERPRETAION of the double - slit is wave particle duality. There are other interpretations such as Bohm that work as well (better I think).

    Secondly, My view of Zeno (as I discussed with Ojo) is that the human definition is not physical and is therefore full of problems (we might add the possibility of division by zero). I suggest that because multiplication may be a repetition of addition, the inverse of multiplication is repetition of subtraction. That is, division is not a physical based math operation.

    I think this means there is no hole at the center of creation, but there is a misconception of creation. Or, there may not be a creation (I don't accept this but it is a religion).

    Thanks for your insight and food for thought.

      Thank you John. As I indicate in the essay, many of the open paradoxes in physics may be answered - just as Zeno's were. But I don't think it is possible to duck the Hole at the Center as it is a fundamental property of recursion (math) and observation (physics), as well as consciousness. That said, one can choose to define it away as a misconception, or deny it. I cannot prove otherwise. My only riposte is to quote Wittgenstein again: "The world of the happy man is quite different from the world of the unhappy."

      Wishing you great happiness - George

      Dear Sir,

      Your essay is sublime and I am trilled by it. I read the Bible when I was studying in a Catholic school. I am familiar with the text but your explainaction is clearer and relevant to our discussion. What I enjoyed and what amazed me is that it is also consistent with Xuan Yuan's creation story, the Founder of Chinese culture and civilization 4712 years ago. You wrote: "This narrative outlines a metaphysical framework that presupposes a two-stage process for creation. Of course, the process is entirely outside of time and space, and therefore is not sequential. Yet the two steps are conceptually distinct reflections of the nature of math and physics. The first stage of the process is the separation of One {1} from the Void {0} --- a first metaphysical distinction. This distinction subsequently gives rise through Necessity (set theoretic constructions and logical operations) to the infinite logical space of Form --- mathematics in its purest sense, the potential state-space for the universe-to-be."

      Xuan Yuan invented the concept of Dao as the Creator of all things. The different is that this Dao is living in our space and time, not outside of space and time. The Dao embodies all, including us. However, these are minor difference but the story is almost identical except some languages and cultural meme distinctions.

      Here I wrote an Essay based on Xuan Yuan thought and I hope you will find agreeable as I am agreeable with your fantastic essay. Science must not ignore its creator, nor need to fear now.

      Let me know what you think.

      Best wishes and good luck,

      Leo KoGuan

        George,

        Like your essay. It skillfully helps to advance the discussion.

        "In physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory. In neurons, they play a central role in cell-to-cell communication." An outside impetus jump starts this action readiness. Your examples of a circuit's voltage potential and the flow of current. The circuit of creation with the potential of form and the flow of cosmos. remind me of the action potential of a brain cell before activated by an outside stimulus.

        "Work and the purpose of creation, the emergence of the physical universe... is accomplished" thru these processes.

        We provide the flow for good or bad.

        Jim

          Dear George,

          I find several interesting ideas and details in your essay. For example, the text is very effective in representing the fading of the optimism that characterised scientific inquiry up to the dawn of the 20th century. I was not aware of the naively optimistic (in retrospect) 1903 quote by Michelson; one lesson we get from from it is that we must always be ready for dramatic revolutions in fundamental physics...

          The core of your essay is your revised Genesis: first the step from 0 to 1 - perhaps, the hardest to be explained without resorting to some external metaphysical intervention (or the only one that actually needs it?) - then the appearance, through Necessity, of logic and mathematical form, and finally sound, for the physical Cosmos (good choice of icon!).

          "Physical reality begins to flow along a precise set of potential pathways available in the Form." Very nice formulation! The idea of a universe that is born as mathematical (and geometrical), and then evolves into a physical phase, is attractive - I find it even 'natural' - and can be also found, in various forms, in approaches that, unlike yours, try to avoid external purposeful interventions such as 'the voice'. This would indeed provide a simple and rather convincing explanation of the unreasonable effectiveness of math in physics, and one not too distant from Tegmark's conjecture. Personally, I do not see the step from pure math (and computation!) to a physical universe as requiring external and purposeful intervention, as much as the step from 0 to 1 (although quantum-mechanical arguments circulate that tend to explain also the latter).

          Chapter Omega is much harder than Chapter Alpha to grasp. You seem to suggest an identification of Void and Voice with, respectively, 0 and infinity in mathematics, but I spot a potential loop here: infinity (the Voice) is a product of mathematics, that is in turn created by the Voice... And one needs a well developed sense of myth for absorbing the image of the 'mutual self-reflection' of Void and Voice, its meaning, and its relevance for Creation.

          It occurs to me that your myth is basically binary (Void-Voice), while, under a Christian perspective, it should probably be ternary. Are the two compatible? Who might be the missing third person in the Void-Voice dualism?

          Regards

          Tommaso

            Dear George Gantz ,

            A business executive with multiple interests! No wonder, your balance sheet perfectly tallies. Spirituality with a central void, the void purposefully filled, would be symmetric to your physical/mathematical view.

            It seems you follow the latest developments in physics. I invite your attention to my alternate view: Starting with one type of fundamental particles, the theory explains everything physical. Please visit my site: finitenesstheory.com. I claim that I have reduced the void to the minimum: If space and matter exist, the rest follows.

              Leo - Thank you for your comment! While I am not familiar in great detail with Eastern philosophies, I do know that there are many similarities and points of intersection between East and West. I look forward to reading your essay!

              I would not necessarily place the Creator as "living in" our space and time, as there is little empirical evidence. But clearly in my metaphysical model, there is a sense in which the Creator is also a Sustainer. Space and time continue to exist and to exhibit the regularities that they do, and the dialogue between Void and Voice is always there.

              Regards - George

              Thank you Jim - I look forward to reading your essay. To borrow from your analogy, I think the concept of jump-starting is far more convincing than that of boot-strapping.

              Cheers - George

              Thank you Tommaso!

              Yes it is quite an interesting problem to "get it all started." We are all doing our best, but I'm afraid it will always fall short. Our finite human minds (even if aided by a very large but still finite set of extremely fast universal computing machines) will never fully grasp the elusive set of all sets, or the ultimate largest infinity, our, indeed, the essence of Void or Voice. The best we can do is tell each other stories!

              While there are two "stages" in my mythology it is actually a three-fold process, and in that sense maps to Christian theology or Hegelian idealism --- but I couldn't find a good way to craft if that way. The second and third folds are both part of the second stage - coming-into-being as space and the associated becoming as the arrow of time or intentionality. Another way to think about this is to view Form as Divine Wisdom, Cosmos (space) as Divine Love and Intentionality/Movement (and time) as Divine Action. In that sense the dialogue between Void and Voice (thesis / antithesis) finds its synthesis in the totality of creation (Form, Cosmos, Purpose).

              Regards - George

              Jose - Thanks for the comment. I look forward to reading your essay.

              Thanks for the reference to symmetry. Symmetry has a particulalry interesting role to play in the story of creation/existence that we are all trying to work out, and many essays are grappling with that.

              Interestingly, zero and infinity would both seem to have symmetry with infinite degrees of freedom. That is an interesting starting place, would you not agree? Symmetry breaks with the first metaphysical distinction of one from 0 - and the diversity of all mathematical forms arise. Symmetry breaks again as the Cosmos of physical reality (3 spatial dimensions, 1 of time) emerges.

              And yes, one can choose to look at creation as entirely physical by focussing on the 0, or as infinitely purposeful / spiritual by focusing on the infinite. Interestingly, in Reimannian geometry the "0" is point in real space, while infinity corresponds to the ultimate in imaginary space.

              Regards - George

              Dear George Gantz ,

              "Interestingly, zero and infinity would both seem to have symmetry with infinite degrees of freedom", (or we can say with zero degrees of freedom). Sure, in principle, that is a right starting point. But practically, we can start from zero, but never reach infinity. So zero can be regarded as a real point, and infinity an imaginary point.

              As pointed out by you, we can start from zero in both mathematics and physics. In maths, our zeros are the same. But in physics, my zero has a background where zero meets infinity: the three-dimensional space with reversible arrows and and the one-dimensional time with an irreversible arrow - the infinite time and infinite space together represent the zero in physics. I count 'one' only when matter comes. By adding up finite numbers we can never reach infinity; by adding up matter we can never reach infinity; infinity is unreachable. So my universe is finite. Since the staring point is where zero and infinity meets, there is no beginning: the universe never started from zero and never reaches infinity; it is in an infinite loop.

              So either there is no creation or the creator introduced an infinite loop. Both ways, it will appear to be the same. We cannot logically arrive at a conclusion regarding this by analyzing the regularities observable in the universe. Creator, if he decides so, can reveal himself by showing that there are arbitrary changes in this world.

              Jose - I think there is a fallacy in thinking about 0 as a real point, or as a place to start. The history of zero suggests that it plays a far more challenging role in the context of mathematics, which actually starts with 1. However, I would agree that the physical universe is finite - bounded at the very small by the planck scale - and bounded at the very large by expansion since the Big Bang. There is neither 0 nor infinity in physical reality, so they are both metaphysical concepts - or attributes of a divine creator....

              Cheers - George

              Joe - I have no idea what you are referring to. If a comment was posted here and reported as inappropriate and deleted, it was not by me.

              Yours truly - George Gantz

              Dear Mr. Gantz.

              You wrote in the abstract of your essay: "What is the stuff of which the world is made, and how does it work?" Here is my definitive answer.

              Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

              Warm regards,

              Joe Fisher

                Joe - Thanks for the reply. While you suggest your answer is definitive, I also find it incomprehensible. Yes, everything is unique, but everything is also intimately connected to everything else - and those connections and commonality and the regularities they reflect are the subject of physics. Math is the necessary form for all of that.

                Regards - George

                Dear George,

                As you will find out if you read my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL, everything is actually physically connected. Only abstract things are abstractly intimately connected by abstract mathematics.

                Joe Fisher

                Excellent essay George..

                This paper leaves me with a lot I want to add or discuss. In this installment; I'll start with the idea that the hole at the center is actually what drives the process of creation, in a manner of speaking. The torus or donut shape is the simplest free-standing form that will propagate in a single medium. Smoke rings are a common example. But did you know you can draw a 7-color map on a torus?

                I notice that your creation myth follows the Biblical example of a seven stage evolutionary process, and I've been studying that this has a strong connection with the Octonion number type. This fact could explain the Creation myth basis, and the seven stage phenomena cataloged by Arthur Young in his Reflexive Universe book.

                My version of the story goes like this..

                One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self.

                Have Fun!

                Jonathan