Essay Abstract

Foundational problems are often approached from the point of view of the current theoretical framework. That is, taking our current understanding of the universe, and attempting to rework that understanding to satisfy the gaps in our understanding. I propose that many foundational problems would be better approached by starting at the origin of the universe and finding a process that results in our observed reality. As a part of this process, we would need to be open to questioning our assumptions. In this essay I explain how existence, in terms of something from nothing, may be the consequence of a dimension of constructiveness. This requires a rethinking of the nature of fundamental dimensions. If this dimension is fundamental, it may be common to both the laws of the universe and our own aims and intentions. I aim to bring both aspects of this proposed dimension into sharper focus, through analysis of the available evidence and examples of some similar metaphysical proposals.

Author Bio

Gavin Rowland is an Australian general medical practitioner. Outside of medicine, he has interests in consciousness, physics and psychology. He published his first book, Mind Beyond Matter in 2015.

Download Essay PDF File

Start with the EXPERIMENTAL confirmation of current models, add EXPERIMENTAL evidence that are anomalies to current models, and fins a model that describes all. I ended his with the Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE). DO NOT consider current models as having a partial truth. The goal is to predict more than current models.

Hodge

Dear Mr. Rowland

Your essay is written with full confidence in contemporary misconceptions. If you know the 7 major mathematical operations make sure in my essay that the universe is much simpler and rational.

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

By the way, there is an error in the title - it should say "From nothingness to value ethics." I hope the rest is error-free.

    Dear Gavin William Rowland,

    While you mentioned "value ethics" already in the title of your essay, you didn't get belonging comments. Why?

    I would appreciate any hint to other essays that are addressing responsibility. So far I am only aware of Wudu.

    Regards,

    Eckard Blumschein

      • [deleted]

      Dear Eckard

      My apologies, what do you mean by "belonging comments"?

      When you say responsibility, do you mean moral responsibility?

      Regards

      Gavin

      Nice essay Rowland,

      You said in the beginning "since 1965, when Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background radiation, most have considered the evidence to be overwhelming. It appears as if the universe began in an explosion (the "Big Bang") approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since"...................

      ................In your opening sentence ' ...microwave background radiation, most have considered the evidence to be overwhelming... ' is not correct, as they have not accounted for the microwave radiation emitted from Galaxies, Globular clusters and stars etc... see the essay on CMB in previous FQXi... There was no provision to eliminate this radiation in the WMAP satellite. See my essay...

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

      No Bigbang generated CMB detected; You can see Branko's( another author in this contest) solution here. http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0095

      I have another objection, you are considering this whole universe as expanding universe only. You are not considering 60 percent of Galaxies like blue shifted Galaxies and Quasars etc... Do you feel it is correct...

      Even though Bigbang is popular, it is failing at experimental evidences....

      For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

      Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

      With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

      Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

      Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

      Best wishes to your essay.

      For your blessings please................

      =snp. gupta

        Dear Gavin,

        I meant comments that address "ethical values". Wudu's cry for help makes Boko (which includes science and belonging education) Haram (= this is a sin) understandable. In the near future I envision again and again periods of starvation and violence in Somalia, Southern Sudan, Ethiopa, and other regions.

        I doubt that traditional moral is the appropriate solution to irresponsible growth of population. Help into a bottle without bottom has only one effect: Limitless exploitation of nature will globally destroy the environment.

        While global warming could be repaired by suitable technology, reckless "We first" will not provide enough job perspectives to the overpopulation in slum-cities each with more than 20,000,000 predominantly young inhabitants.

        Regards,

        Eckard

        Dear Eckard

        Thanks for your comments. I spent two pages on value ethics, but this mainly to argue the case for the mental dimension I propose. I defined value ethics as a regard for welfare of self, other and the wider world.

        Ethics needn't mean old fashioned thinking. We need a shift in outlook from both government AND the general population. A scientific understanding of consciousness would help - particularly if my view of fundamental physics is correct.

        Stephen Gardiner writes on environmental ethics - you may find his work of interest.

        I am not aware of any other essays that cover ethics. I'll let you know if I find any.

        Cheers

        Gavin

        Dear snp gupta

        Thanks for your comments. I haven't found any steady-state-type universe models convincing, but I will have look at your paper.

        Regards

        gavin

        Dear Gavin,

        Nice that we medical people are no longer leaving the task of apprehending reality to the physicists and mathematicians. They have been disappointing.

        I am in full agreement with you that to apprehend reality we should start from the very beginning. This is a task I have taken up over the years. Haven read your essay, let me now pose some questions or give some food for thought from my standpoint, which may of course be biased.

        Your description of 'Nothingness' was logical and brilliant. Indeed, there is no other option for a beginning from the quantitative information of the Big Bang as I show in my essay.

        Although, you discuss existence, and how it may have come to be, you did not examine whether ALL that exists as 'what-ness', was present right from the beginning or whether the 'what-ness' has been growing as the universe expanded. Since you agree on the flatness of the universe, I don't think you will disagree with my own assertion that, along with its spatial extent, the matter in the universe has also being growing. This is what makes the universe flat and remain within the range of its critical density.

        I agree with pretty much else in the essay. A very interesting contribution and I am rating it right away.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

          Dear Akinbo

          Thank you very much for this review. And it is nice to meet a fellow medical doctor too.

          Since I am proposing that the universe is engaged in an ongoing process of creation from nothingness, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that further matter and spacetime are being created as we go along. Hence the dark energy?

          I suspect i will have to defer to the standard position of cosmology today, as this question is beyond my expertise, but it is an interesting proposal. I will have a look at your paper tomorrow.

          Thanks again

          Gavin

          Gavin,

          I greatly enjoyed reading your essay. I think you are on exactly the right track. But, I have some suggestions that might be helpful.

          You said, "In this essay I explain how existence, in terms of something from nothing, may be the consequence of a dimension of constructiveness. This requires a rethinking of the nature of fundamental dimensions."

          I think you are exactly right and it is in that "rethinking" that I think I can help.

          You began by making the tacit assumption that the "universe" is identical with the Big Bang and its consequences. I suggest that you enlarge your scope and consider the universe to be much bigger, and older, and that our visible "universe" that resulted from the BB is only a relatively small part of reality.

          You said, "there is no special point from which the [BB-generated] universe originated." Using the familiar balloon-with-dots analogy to explain the anisotropy, this implies a large, extra spatial dimension in order for that balloon to exist. I would also point out in passing, that flatness vs curvature is different in kind from expansion vs contraction.

          You are absolutely right when you say that "the universe is very, very large." But there is a huge gap between "very, very large" and being infinite. It seems more reasonable to expect that the size of reality lies somewhere in that huge gap. It seems likely that reality is very, very much larger than our 4D BB-generated space-time continuum, and yet not be infinite.

          You said, "Nothingness as a cosmic origin has a certain appeal." Agreed. But even more appealing might be "ultimate simplicity". That would at least allow for some minimal starting point in case nothing really can come from nothing, and ultimate simplicity would be "neat and tidy" too.

          You said, "An underlying complexity dimension may be the trigger for the emergence of a very simple substance capable of information processing." Considering complexity as a dimension may be an error. What I would suggest is that the extra dimension(s) is (are) ordinary spatial and temporal dimensions exactly like the ones in which we find our phenomenal existence.

          And, here, I will offer my two most important suggestions for you: 1) Read Edwin Abbott's Flatland, or re-read it if you have already read it, and 2) look into the mathematical meaning of manifolds.

          1) Abbott's small book is a delight and is easily available for free on the Internet. It is a quick easy read, well worth it simply for the critique of British society, which I think was its real purpose. But what you need to gain from it is an understanding of the psychological problem that people (I suspect this includes you, along with A. Square) have in accepting the possibility of the real existence of extra, large, inaccessible dimensions. You will also get a feeling for the mathematical concept of manifolds, although I don't think he ever uses that term.

          2) The term 'manifold' has a very precise meaning in Differential Geometry, which is the study of calculus on manifolds, but I am not suggesting that you take a course in Differential Geometry (although it would be wonderful if you already have). The vernacular use of the term 'manifold' carries many of the important mathematical features, so there are many tangible examples of manifolds to make it easy for us to understand them. Here's the idea: A manifold is a special subspace that is embedded in a space of at least one higher dimension. A couple of characteristics make it special:

          The manifold must be smooth and connected. Smooth means that if you zoom in on any point in the manifold, it gets flatter and flatter. Connected means that you could traverse from any point in the manifold to any other point in the manifold without leaving the manifold. So, for example, the inside surface of the intake manifold on your car is like that. A sheet of paper is a 2D manifold embedded in your 3D office.

          The most important feature of manifolds for our purposes, is the fact that anything outside the manifold is, in principle, inaccessible to any structures or processes that are in the manifold. (You can't construct a plane figure on a sheet of paper that can reach into the room above the paper.) This is the real reason we can't see the extra dimensions, not because they are tightly curled up. It is what makes the extra dimensions inaccessible.

          If we consider that our BB-generated 4D world is an embedded manifold in a 5D, or higher space-time continuum, there is an enormous expansion of the possibilities for structure and function. This would provide plenty of room for that "deeper constructive dimension in psychology" that you are trying to understand. It would also provide a place for that primordial, ultimately simple, origin of reality to take place, and it solves the problems of evolutionary psychology that you noted. Unfortunately, everything outside of our manifold is inaccessible to scientific experimental and observational apparatuses so it gets ruled out of consideration by Popper and most scientists.

          You concluded your essay by saying, "I have argued that the universe could not have made a reality such as ours without a fundamental principal of constructiveness, and that this principle is best understood as a fundamental dimension comparable to space and time."

          I think you are on the right track. I would suggest that you consider this new fundamental dimension to be exactly comparable to objective space and time: as additional spatial and temporal dimensions outside our 4D manifold.

          In my essay, "A Proposal for an Expanded Paradigm", I have followed your lead but have gone ahead and done some speculating on how reality might have come to be in a higher-dimensional picture. I invite you to read it.

          Paul Martin

          Hi Paul

          Thank you for your extensive comments. In the earlier part of your post you list several possible points of contention (or exploration). I agree these are possibilities - the universe may her finite, may be older (eternal even), and dimensions may be 'hidden', perhaps as manifolds.

          Your ideas made me reflect a bit. Personally, i don't think of this complexity dimension as curled up in a manifold, and I'll explain why. I see the time, space and complexity dimensions as fundamental organising principles of reality. As the first steps in creating reality, i see them as necessarily prior to their expression, (which is in the form of the laws of the universe, and what we know of in our reality as space, time and complexity). So these fundamental dimensions are not actually these things - these things are their expression. The fundamental realities exist, to my mind, as a sort of Platonic level of reality. So we are in Plato's cave, and when we see the expressions of the dimensional reality, we are able to deduce the organising principles behind them, but will never actually see them. Does that make sense?

          By the way, i enjoyed your take on this whole question. You have obviously put a lot of thought into it also. I think we were perhaps reading and commenting on each other's essays at about the same time.

          btw I have added Flatland to my reading list/pile

          Cheers

          Gavin

            Hi Gavin,

            Your response to me was a delight. You are exactly the kind of person I hoped to find when I decided to enter the contest. Unfortunately, I am just about to head out the door to spend the rest of the week in the mountains. But when I return I will respond in more depth.

            Before I run out the door, and to give you something else to think about while I am gone, I will send along my definition of 'consciousness' for what it is worth. This was part of my essay that got removed in order to stay within the character count limitation. I had regrets later that I didn't cut something else instead.

            Anyway, here it is:

            We begin with the structure of consciousness. Here is a list of some, perhaps not all, of the features or components of consciousness:

            Awareness, experience, perception, the ability to notice, the self, thought, feelings, intentionality, attention, free will, purpose, imagination, conception, pattern recognition, memory, self-reflection, logical ability (reason), knowledge, comprehension, understanding, meaning, value, morality, wisdom.

            The list is arranged in the order the components would appear in a narrative I might deliver to answer the question, What is consciousness like for you? I might say,

            "I am aware that I have experiences, I perceive a world around me which just asked me a question about consciousness, and I notice that I need to use the word "I" frequently just to respond to the question. That "I" is my self.

            "I experience thought happening and among the thoughts I experience are many feelings ranging from pain to various other sensations and urges. My attention seems to be focused on one mental aspect at a time. Among the feelings are intentions, which somehow urge me to take some action. I take those actions by exercising my free will to redirect my attention so that I may achieve some purpose.

            "I can imagine counterfactuals by an exercise of will. I can recognize patterns and concepts among those counterfactuals. I can relegate those concepts, along with perceptions and other experiences to my memory and retrieve them later. I have the ability to consider concepts and infer new and different concepts as logical implications of the ones I am considering. I can reason.

            "In my memory I have accumulated quite a store of concepts along with myriad percepts which, taken together, I count as knowledge. I comprehend many of the interrelationships among the percepts and concepts that I know. Thus, I understand much of what I know. I seem to understand some of the relationships between what I know and the world around me, which gives that knowledge some meaning. Some of those relationships are more important than others, which gives them value. Applying those values to the world constitutes morality. And understanding morality constitutes wisdom."

            Warm regards,

            Paul Martin

            Dear Gavin,

            I consider your essay as a rare sober voice. Thank you. Indeed, as you said on my page, we have a lot in common, so our differences are rare and subtle. Let me focus on one of them. Your essay ends with "Thus our universal laws and our heartfelt intentions can be unified as expressions both of something from nothing." I am a traditionalist in that respect, I do not think that "something from nothing" is a reasonable idea, if this "nothing" is indeed a complete ontological nothing. I think the very special laws of nature is a clear signature of the upper Mind. Well, this is a rare disagreement, while I could quote many important places from your text, which I fully share. I consider you essay deep and to the point, so I score it high.

            Good luck!

            Alexey Burov.

              Hi Paul

              Yes it is good to talk to you too!

              I like your last paragraph particularly. You track a group of interrelated capacities of the mind - these are very important, but often neglected in accounts of consciousness. I think you put this very well.

              Enjoy your time away, and drop me a line with your reflections when you return.

              Gavin

              Dear Alexey

              Thank you for your encouraging words. It's good to hear that we are generally in agreement. It is exciting to think that there is a possibility of science turning the spotlight onto value.

              And yes, whether mind is present very early on or at the very beginning is a minor disagreement. My thinking is also compatible with an eternal cyclic universe in which mind persists from the last universe to the next.

              btw Alexey, if you haven't done so already, don't forget to vote. I am a little anxious my essay and its ideas will be lost in the pile!

              Best regards

              Gavin

              Dear Gavin

              I enjoyed reading your essay that concerns issues of great philosophical and scientific relevance. Thank you for submitting it to my attention!

              Just a question. You say that to explain the universe from nothing is easier than to explain it from something, because any sort of initial condition presupposes a further condition as its cause (the turtle's tower), while "an original state of nothingness, by contrast, should require no further explanation of prior states." But this means, in my opinion, to replace a difficult problem with another no less difficult. It means namely to understand how can something come out from the absolute nothingness . Leibniz, great mathematician and philosopher you very appropriately mentions, said that the biggest problem of metaphysics can be summed up in the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The answer of Leibniz was roughly "Because there is God who chose to create the world", otherwise it would be much more logical that there was nothing at all, since, as the ancient Greeks had understood, from nothing comes out nothing. But God seems to be outside of science, and therefore Leibniz question seems destined to remain unanswered.

              My best wishes for you!

              Giovanni