The Hole at the Center of Creation by George Gantz

Dear George,

I like the idea to create your own creation myth without ignoring our knowledge about nature. I would lke to share a myth, that I like sometime to tell to my kids, that are still very young and got a new brother only recently.

"At the beginning they have been in paradise. And they where naked and not ashamed. But then they ate from the tree of knowledge and could distinguish between true and false. Between good and bad."

The myth seems to tell the difference between the simple cognition and the reflective cognition, which creates the separation of subject and object, of perception and acting. It creates the distance needed to comprehend the word objectively. With the loss of the ability to participate with world, with life.

It is beautiful and sad to see my kids slowly leaving paradise.

Best regards and thanks for your nice comment in my forum

Luca

Hi George--

Your essay was a joy to read. I loved your lyrical touch. I now see why you took the time to read and comment on my essay. We approached infinity in complementary fashion. You chose to use infinity in a metaphysical way, which is perfectly excellent. My approach was simply to kick physical infinity off the physics island. I'd like to think that we are both right. I also loved your use of both "hole" and "whole" at the center of creation. Nicely done!

In the small world category, we are both Stanford grads (me, '77) with Honors in Humanities. Only later did I go on to get degrees in physics (at other institutions).

Best regards,

Bill.

Dear George,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Hi George,

very enjoyable and creative essay. I think your desire to provide optimism rather than despair is admirable.

I wonder if, while digging ever down, looking for truth, and reaching a void, the meaning within all of the absolute relations of the elements of reality are discarded- and that is perhaps the dwelling of absolute truth and agape love. Not a voice in the void but omnipotent and omnipresent relation. Just food for thought.

Good luck and kind regards, Georgina

George,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 3/8, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

Dear George,

Your essay is very special: it combines depths of mystical poetry with a sober diagnosis of the spirit of time. You write:

"In that day, many saw the Void but knew it not. Some cast themselves into despair and were

consumed. Others hid in caves and tunnels, unwilling to look upon the face of the Void"

For two millennia reason lived only in the minds of great, spiritual thinkers. However, when science, which was the fruit of their work, has made reason's power obvious to all, many people became lost in its cult.

I give your essay the highest rating. Most likely, you already rated our essay; otherwise, please take it as a friendly reminder.

Good luck in this contest and all the best!

Alexey Burov

George, I've just signed to the announcements at your web site. We'll keep in touch!

Alexey.

George

I enjoyed reading your essay. And while I agree that it is up to each of us to formulate our own stories that serve to fill the gaps in our knowledge, I find myself tending toward the "truth" side of this debate--though I am not 100% convince of that either. I remain unconvinced of your main point: that there exists a "Hole at the Center of Creation," and thus that the wonderful success of mathematics in describing nature is a Trick. The arguments you present do not support that conclusion. Furthermore, I noticed that in addition to formulating an argument for the "trick" side of the debate, you also seem to have woven in an exposition of your personal beliefs--what you think we should all do, given the existence of this alleged Hole. This seems a bit unnecessary and off topic.

I found some factual errors in your essay that you should probably be aware of. First, in the first graph of page three you say:

"Thus, Greek mathematics and physics converged on a common metaphysic, that abstract numbers and the space they represent are continuous and infinitely divisible, ultimately setting the stage for Newtonian calculus and classical physics. That orderly metaphysical framework became conventional wisdom for nearly two millennia - until relativity and quantum mechanics tore it to shreds."

You provide no source for this statement, and I would challenge you to find one. The statement is simply incorrect. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics did not "tear to shreds" the notion that abstract numbers and the space they represent are continuous and infinitely divisible--quite the opposite in fact. Special Relativity and General Relativity are classical theories in that they both treat space and time as...continuous and infinitely divisible! And Quantum Mechanics does not even approach the nature of space and time at all--continuous, discrete, or otherwise. In fact, the QM of the time actually treated space and time as absolute in the purely Newtonian sense! Later of course, in the late 40's and early 50's, Feynman, Dirac, and others managed to reinterpret QM within a relativistic framework, and thus gave birth to something resembling modern quantum field theory, but even to this day no one has produced a viable scheme for quantizing space-time.

Next factual issue:

Under "The Emergent Black Hole" you begin to make a case for your Hole of unknowability. The argument seems to comprise a list of developments in physics, mathematics, philosophy, and other fields that serve to demonstrate that there are aspects of nature which are inherently unknowable, and that this new reality caused the "optimism" of the 19th century to begin to falter and get replaced by...the opposite of optimism I guess. Let me start with that last bit because it too is factually incorrect--and I have been unable to find any source whatsoever that would support it.

The only people unhappy with the emergence of the new paradigm were members of the old guard--many of whom resisted these changes until their dying day. This is a perfectly natural response to a paradigm shift. All the reading I have done however indicates that everyone else was ecstatic, excited, enthralled, and amazed. When the first experimental results came in confirming General Relativity, Einstein became an instant world-wide celebrity--a celebrity unknown for any scientists before or since. The accomplishments of Einstein and the "young turks", the fathers of the new paradigm, were repeatedly splashed across newspapers around the world, accompanied by very optimistic headlines. Invitations to lecture at Universities, invitations to social events and private parties of the social elite flooded in. Professorships and Nobel Prizes, lauds and laurels, parades and brass bands punctuated the history of this revolutionary period, not the opposite of optimism. This all occurred amidst the back-drop of a western culture witnessing the last gasps of the dying age of monarchy and the birth of the age of democracy. If one had to describe the general mood of the people who were coming of age during this period, and one was forced to use one word; that word would have to be: optimistic--the Spanish flu and WWI notwithstanding. Heck, the 20's was one big, long, drunken, party.

Moreover, there is only a tiny segment of the population that fully understands that a paradigm shift has even taken place, and it is only a very few of those that have rejected it outright. And this tiny segment of a tiny segment does not a society make. Western culture is not, cannot be, awash in nihilism or some sort of depressive malaise brought about by the loss of meaning as a result of the development of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Godels incompleteness theorem, black holes, or the big bang theory. Instead, it is widely accepted that it was the "certainty" (as you call it) of Newtonian Mechanics (and the rise of science in general in the 19th century) that gave rise to a mechanistic world-view that served to winnow down the space occupied by God.

Of course, optimism, or its opposite, is really beside the point. Your main goal was to credibly establish the existence of a Hole of unknowability living at the center of our understanding (or potential understanding) of nature and all its workings. And that the existence of this hole demonstrates that the amazing correspondence between mathematics and nature is a mere trick of the human mind. You attempt to do this by listing a number of intellectual developments that you use to define the edge of that Hole. You seem to contend that it is these ideas that set the edge of the "knowability" map, so to speak, and beyond which "there be, unknowable, dragons."

Your list includes:

1) "In physics, the concept of unchanging, predictable Newtonian space and time became twisted as Einstein's relativity theories took hold. Relativity integrated time and space but also undermined the intuitive comprehensibility of the physical world. Time is now an "illusion", a function of both motion and position."

2) "...findings of quantum mechanics included wave-particle duality and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The probabilistic features of ultimate reality they revealed unraveled confidence in our ability to know and predict. Quantum physics also discovered puzzles in the relationship between observer and observation, leading to speculation that consciousness is integral to reality."

3) "In cosmology, steady state theories failed in light of findings confirming the universe began in a Big Bang."

4) "Black Holes, infinitely dense and impenetrable discontinuities in the fabric of space and time were first theorized and then identified."

5) "Findings in chaos and complexity theory confirmed that there are processes we cannot model, trajectories we cannot predict and details we will never know about the world."

6) Strange properties of infinity

7) Curious logical paradoxes such as "this statement is false"

8) Godel's incompleteness theorem

9) Turing's computability dilemma

10) Cantors paradise of multiple infinities

I will confine myself to dealing with just a few of these.

The development of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics did not set limits on what we can know--just the opposite in fact. Relativity and QM have blown the doors wide open to new discovery. We have hugely increased our understanding of the universe, and all its interesting, and intricate, workings because of the development of Relativity and QM. They have given birth to the Standard Model of quantum physics, and the Standard Model of cosmology (LambdaCDM), not to mention most of the electronic and radiological devices that have become ubiquitous in every home, school, business, and hospital across most of the planet. Both Relativity and QM has given us manifold avenues of research that our scientists are happily, and persistently, pursuing. Dozens of new papers are published every single day.

Even this very second, the LHC is smashing protons together at their new energy level, looking for physics beyond the Standard Model. I just read an article in the Cern Courier indicating that some initial results are already showing tensions with the SM! (They're only at the 2 to 3 sigma confidence level thus far, so it is far too early to claim a discovery (5 sigma), but still very exciting!). If that isn't enough, aLIGO (advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) began a new observing run in September at (finally!) a sensitivity level where theory predicts we should see something. Everyone is waiting with baited-breath. The next few years could be huge for General Relativity (or possible extensions of such), and if detections start to come in, we will have a whole new window on the universe. This could be really big. Every other time we have found a new way to observe, be it radio, microwave, x-ray, etc. we have without exception discovered new astrophysical phenomena.

The development of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics has not served to set limits on what we can know. Instead, it has given us much, much, more. And all this--all of it--has come about, not because human intuition has guided us, because you are right, human intuition is not entirely suited for some of the more interesting aspects of Relativity and QM (after all, our brains evolved over millions of years on the plains of Africa to be expert at surviving in small hunter-gatherer groups, not roaming amongst the stars). Though it was human intuition that guided us to Relativity and QM, since then human intuition has taken a back-seat to mathematics. Mathematics alone has been our guiding light. It has been the math that has provided the key insights in what to do, and where to go next. Moreover, it turns out that "elegant" math, "beautiful" math, tends to successfully point the way forward more often than otherwise. And if that doesn't send chills down your back, you are not human.

That's enough about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They clearly cannot be signposts at the edge of an alleged Hole at the Center of Creation that declare, "abandon all knowability, ye who enter here!"

Godel's proof is fascinating. All finite axiomatic systems (systems with a finite number of axioms), if consistent, cannot be complete. Way cool. He devised a way to encode logical statements within a specific system into special numbers, and then decode those numbers back into the original statements. Any given statement had a unique "Godel number" counter-part. With this in place he could then begin forming statements--proofs--within the system that spoke to the regular mathematical features of those special numbers! And since those numbers were themselves statements, he got the system to talk about itself--paradox! As I understand it, there was some pretty pissed off people--Russell in particular.

Does his proof call into question all deductive proof? No. What he said was that all consistent systems with a finite number of axioms must have statements that are self-referential, and those statements cannot be shown to be true or false. The best translation of his proof into language that I have seen goes like this: a valid deductive proof that says, "I am unprovable." It's the mathematical twin of, "This statement is false."

Does Godels Proof fit our criteria of defining some region of unknowability? Well, no not really. Thanks to Godel, we now clearly know and understand that self-referential statements within a system of finite axioms can produce paradoxical statements--statements we cannot deductively prove true or false. This is new knowledge we can include in our ever-expanding mathematical took-kit. Will that particular tool prove (sorry, couldn't help it) to have future utility? The answer is an unequivocal... yes!

Enter Alan Turing. He went on to extend Godel's work into the area of information theory. With it he was able to provide a proof for the "Halting Problem." More specifically, he showed that there cannot exist a general algorithm that could, provided any computer program and an input, decide whether or not that program would ever halt. He did this by showing that any general algorithm of this type must inevitably contradict itself! Sound familiar? So Godel's work was useful after all. It successfully extended our knowledge.

Is there a region of unknowability living somewhere in all that? We now know we will never be able to deductively prove that a paradoxical statement is true or false. Does this finally betray a limit to the axiomatic system? Again, no it does not. Instead, Godel successfully used the axiomatic system to give us a formal mathematical description of self-referential paradox. And that is not a limit; it is a spring-board that has propelled us onward.

Moreover, in your essay you seem to contend that Godels proof about logical systems with finite numbers of axioms allows us to say the same thing about the Universe. In the third graph under 'The Emergent Black Hole' you state:

"If we accept that the universe we are in is consistent (a strongly held metaphysical belief - Aristotle's second principal), then there are truths we cannot prove. "

There is absolutely no rational reason for asserting this. You cannot get to that statement from Godel's proof. The mathematics that describes all of nature's intimate workings could very well be supported by deductive proof. For any given consistent logical system there is far, far more statements that are perfectly provable, than there are paradoxical statements that can't be proven true or false. There is simply no reason to assume (based on Godel's proof) that the number of individual mathematical statements that is necessary to describe all of nature's workings must contain unprovable statements. If you can find one, please let the world know. It will put you on the short-list for a Nobel Prize.

The remaining items in your list are ill-defined, vague, or just simply incorrect.

None of the developments you have listed in you essay definitively establishes an ultimate limit to knowledge about our universe. If you insist on contending that we are unable to think about the unthinkable, because it is unthinkable, well I guess I am forced to agree. But there really is no rational argument against that is there? The revelations about the nature of reality brought about by our ever-expanding sphere of knowledge about the universe is constantly informing and updating the answers to some of our deepest philosophical questions. Thousands of years from now, when all is said and done, will we discover that there are some answers that are forever beyond our reach? Perhaps. But it is far, far too early to throw in the towel and abandon reason in the search for truth, and make that metaphysical leap of faith into the waiting arms of unknowable angels--or to re-write the book of Genesis for that matter.

I hope you don't mind. I seek clarification on some of the things you said. But first I would like to tell you a brief story.

Once upon a time, many millennia ago, we all sat huddled around small campfires, and all that was known to us was just what was inside that small circle of comfortable, warm light. Next to the fire we felt warm and safe. Our little illumined world was known and predictable.

We also knew a few other things. We knew where and how to find food, and we knew how to make rudimentary tools that aided us in that pursuit. We possessed the knowledge we needed to survive, and one little piece of knowledge that we knew on an instinctual level was that the unknown is potentially dangerous. The known is safe and predictable, and the unknown less so. We tended to fear the unknown. New things were naturally suspect, and only explored with caution. Yet we needed to know; to render the unknown, known--to help us feel safe.

Why was there night and day? Why were there rain and sun, flood and drought, winter and summer? What was lightening, what was thunder? What were the moon, the stars, birth, and death? These were the great unknowns, the greater mysteries to us.

We naturally yearned for explanations, and so we told stories about the night and about the day, and about the sun and the moon, and about the thunder and the lightening, and we told stories about birth, and death. We told stories of powerful beings that caused these things, and since we knew only ourselves, and the other animals around us, the beings that held power over the rain and wind, day and night, resembled ourselves. They had thoughts and feelings, purpose and intent. They could be happy and pleasant, when the sun was warm and food was plentiful, they could reward those who acted rightly, and punish those who committed acts contrary to the needs of the group. And they could be as angry as a thunderstorm smashing the hillsides outside of our cave; outside of our firelight. We knew our world, and our place within it. Actions and events had purpose, life and death had meaning.

Then slowly, ever so slowly, we began to understand the day and the night, the sun and the moon. We came to understand what lightening was, and what caused thunder. No longer were these things the faces of powerful beings that looked and behaved as we do. Slowly, ever so slowly, the list of things that were caused by the Gods decreased in number. The irresistible drive to render the unknown, known, slew all the dragons and sea-monsters. It made the world round, and the twinkling stars were turned into distant suns. Physics taught us matter was made of atoms, and atoms made of weirder stuff beneath. Biology told us of our ultimate origins, and evolutionary psychology taught us that our drive to know and understand is our hard-won heritage; one of the fruits born of our need to survive in a dangerous, and unknown world.

The end--almost.

Some resisted the death of the old gods. They felt that without them, they would not know where their place in the world should be. To them, the known was being rendered unknown again. Intent rendered intent-less, purpose rendered purposeless, and meaning, meaningless. They struggled to hold on to the old explanations, but soon the sun no longer circled the Earth; the center of all things. Angels retreated before gravity, devils and possessing demons fell beneath the surgeon's scalpel, but still the old believers hung on crying, "where will we find meaning when all the old ways are gone?"

I think you get the gist. The movement away from "mythical" explanation and towards rational explanation has been ongoing for centuries, if not millennia, and there has always been an element in our various cultures throughout the ages that have desperately clung to outmoded belief systems--the last gasp of which is inevitably, and fatally, fundamentalism. This is clearly evidenced in this country by pushes to deny evolution and include intelligent design in science classrooms, the outright denial of climate science, insistent beliefs that the world is 6000 years old (and other literal drivel), bombings and shootings at abortion clinics, etc. Relativity and QM are just modern faces of a centuries-old social evolution--and they aren't even modern really. For modern developments we should be looking to Superstring Theory, Super Gravity, Loop Quantum Gravity, and the like. Thankfully, truth always wins in the end--at least it has thus far. We can only hope.

The clarification I seek is about your claim that you don't mean we should "throw in the towel" while at the same time you ask for an acknowledgement of the "greater mystery of existence, humanity, and consciousness." (?) What does this mean? Should science not pursue these mysteries? Or are you asking that science should acknowledge that it can't, even in principal, address the nature of these mysteries? And here's the thing: you must be aware of the fact that science is already speaking volumes to essential aspects of all three. Evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and evolutionary psychology (among many other -ologies) already have a firm grip on the "humanity" mystery, and that grip is inexorably tightening--dozens of new papers are published every day, examining who and what we are, how we got here, how and why we do the things we do, etc. Huge progress has been made in the last 20-30 years, and there is no end in sight. Should we stop?

Have you heard of the Human Brain Project, or the Brain Initiative? (It was born of a previous initiative entitled the Decade of the Mind) If not, I strongly recommend you investigate. Their stated goal is to uncover how Mind arises from brain. That's right. They want to understand the fundamental nature of the consciousness process. Hundreds of millions of dollars is being spent here in the U.S. The Europeans are spending even more. This is a multidisciplinary effort, some working from the bottom up, some working from the top down, all wanting to 'drive that golden spike'. Neuroscientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, logicians, psychologists, you name it. They all believe this goal is within humanity's reach. This project has been popularized as being similar in scope to the moon shot, the race for the atomic bomb...that sort of thing. Along the way whole new technologies need to be invented that will have huge ancillary benefits for the economies that produce them--not to mention the health benefits. Google, Microsoft, and other tech biggies are getting in on the action. Should they stop?

Tens of thousands of men and women, virtually all the scientist actively engaged in these various pursuits, feel an unending amazement, great purpose, and find deep meaning in their lives, as they stand in awe of the mystery of it all. You must ask yourself: why aren't you among them?

Tod

(genevehicle)