I mean the title of this chapter to be quite literal. The focus of this section is to develop the terms I will need to use to convey what I perceive the function of life to be from the perspective of my history on Earth. Charles Darwin in explaining his understanding of evolution of life on Earth talks about the branching from a given species to form another path taken by evolution. The first broad stroke in categorizing matter into workable compartments for consideration is the distinction between organic matter and inorganic matter. Life is primarily about organic matter, however inorganic matter is required to sustain life once it evolved. Organic matter evolved after inorganic matter so in this sense I choose to consider organic matter to have ‘branched’ from the inorganic matter that populated Earth before organic matter emerged.
On pages 348 and 349 of The Ascent of Man, Jacob Bronowski establishes his understanding which he dubbed, Stratified Stability.
“Nature works by steps. The atoms form molecules, the molecules form bases, the bases direct the formation of amino acids, the amino acids form proteins, and proteins work in cells. The cells make up first of all the simple animals, then sophisticated ones, climbing step by step. The stable units that compose one level or stratum are the raw material for random encounters which produce higher configurations, some of which will chance to be stable. So long as there remains a potential of stability which has not become actual, there is no other way for chance to go. Evolution is the climbing of a ladder from simple to complex by steps each of which is stable in itself.
Since this is very much my subject, I have named it: I call it Stratified Stability.”
There are significant statements within this citation that I wish to highlight. First is, “So long as there remains a potential of stability which has not become actual, there is no other way for chance to go.” This is my most favorite demonstration of the function of chance and randomness. When stability is added to the mix with random events and chance, Bronowski implies that ‘stability’ is a principle of evolution. Stability, as a principle of evolution, implies that there are rules whereby stability is determined. This is true because if the result of the event is not stable, it will degrade. If the result is stable then it becomes raw material upon which other random events move toward a more complex stratum of stability. In this fashion the function of chance and randomness is the continuation of the trial and error method for seeking success — that success being stability in this case.
The second item to address is Bronowski’s focus on ‘animal’ when he makes this statement: “The cells make up first of all the simple animals, then sophisticated ones …” When talking about cells in this situation, he neglects to add plant cells into this declaration because he is more interested in the evolution of animals, specifically, man. Plant life on Earth first occurred as simple cells as well. I remember my high school biology class during which we were to inspect pond water to perceive algae cells which were then compared to ameba cells which are single cell animal life. For readers of this manuscript, stratified stability includes both animal and plant single cell organisms from which more complicated animal and plant life evolved. Lastly, before he begins with, “…atoms form molecules, the molecules form bases…”, Bronowski relates that the naturally occurring elements (atoms) were formed in different stars. Lighter atoms (elements) were formed in stars like our sun which changes hydrogen into helium, but other, heavier atoms were developed in a different category of star to which our sun does not belong. Carbon is one such element (atom). The carbon atom is essential to human life. Hence, in sci-fi movies, humans are often referred to as carbon-based life forms. Our sun does not produce carbon. So, how did the carbon end up in human biochemistry? The simple answer is that stars have a ‘life cycle’ which ends for some stars in an explosion thereby spewing out their elements into the vastness of our universe to randomly encounter other elements ‘floating’ around to be used.
Juxtaposing Stratified Stability with the scientific understanding of entropy results in an enlightening perception. Stratified Stability is the evolutionary process of building up from simple living organisms to more and more complex ones. Entropy is the devolving of such an ordered situation into an increasing disorder situation. My death, if it is not the consequence of some tragic event but more the result of the natural process of aging, is, to my mind, the natural process of entropy working upon the closed, complex, dynamic system of my body, the body of Homo sapiens, that evolved over a multitude of events over billions of years.
The function of hunger is to alert the body that it needs more energy to fend off entropy issues. In the end, entropy wins out and the individual’s body cannot maintain the closed, complex, dynamic system that constitutes the physical body of that person. The infusing of energy into a closed, complex, dynamic system is a fundamental need, but why is it a vital need? In On the Origin of Time, Hertog comments on what the Hawking/Hertog scientific team’s assessment was for answering why questions.
“… the past is contingent on the present … what, exactly, is the role of a theory of the origin [of the universe] if we view the universe from the top down anyway? … a detailed understanding of the genealogy of the cosmos and its laws can be gathered from observations only — from the top down. … If top-down cosmology doesn’t seek a causal explanation for why the universe and its effective laws are what they are, if it doesn’t predict that the universe had to turn out the way it did, then wherein, exactly, lies its utility?
… In Stephen’s quantum universe … observership is at the center of the action … Any kind of tangible past in top-down cosmology is always an observer’s past. It is as if quantum cosmology conceives of observership as the operational headquarters in the unfathomable realm of all that might be.” (Pages 202 – 203.) However: Thomas Hertog points out on page 204, “I must emphasize, however, if need be, that top-down cosmology remains a hypothesis.” (Using bold type was my choice.)
So a choice has to be made: Which of the hypotheses to choose to use to build one’s world view? (There are assuredly quite a few.) I am putting my faith in Stephen Hawing’s top- down hypothesis because I do not see any other reality that exists in our universe where an observer (scientific or otherwise) is perched on a spot that provides a true bird’s eye view of our universe from outside that universe.
Of course there are those supernatural entities that the officials of the various institutionalized religions profess to be real and supreme. However, the official voice of any religion comes from a member of the same Homo sapiens from which scientists originate. So, again, I emphasize, faith is a matter of a choice. Remember, no member of Homo sapiens is omniscient. Consequently everyone relies on faith for every choice made because knowing everything about any choice is not possible.
The characteristic of possessing omniscience is the defining characteristic of the sacred realm that significantly distinguishes itself from the secular realm. Since I have declared my ultimate concern is that of a seeker, I have yet to encounter a believable human voice that has such a conduit to such a bird perched on such a roost outside our universe.
That said, I profess to be a spiritual human being who has a idiosyncratic spiritualism that functions to guide my moral code and judgements regarding the intangibles such as: justice, love, honesty, mercy, fairness, compassion, tolerance, equality, etcetera. I am a strong believer in spiritualism. There is much more to reality than the sensual tangibilities that populate our universe. There are the intangible principles that move the events of our lives persistently throughout each and every day that we live, even if we are unaware of them at the time. Tillich’s Ultimate Concern is far more functional and accurate in perceiving an individual’s true spirit, soul, or dominate personality that guides that individual’s actions and decisions.
So, in the secular world of science there are many hypotheses from which to choose for integration into one’s world view. Stephen Hawking made a significant shift in On the Origin of Time from the Archimedean, bottom-up point of view to the top-down point of view. Additionally, before I read On the Origin of Time, in every science class I took, I learned that the scientific method is employed to answer the questions of who, when, where, and how, leaving the why question to the metaphysical realm which was highly subjective and not reliant upon a rigorous proof of statements made as being absolutely true by philosophers and persons of faith. Additionally, the employment of the scientific method is significantly and critically based on mathematical measurements, equations and formulas as descriptors of the ideas embraced as factual whereas religious precepts are formulated primarily on faith in an authoritative voice making such proclamations. My ultimate concern as a seeker seeks to employ E.O. Wilson’s advice to perceive reductionism as a utilitarian means to increase our knowledge base but to transcend beyond the individual facts of our knowledge base to formulate the union of all known facts into a consilience of a consistent unified theory of existence. The merging of Tillich’s understanding of the Ultimate Concern and Hawking’s top-down hypothesis together with the UCFC (Uncased Cause of the First Cause) of Saint Thomas Aquinas is a perfect fusion to merge the precepts of religion (spiritualism) and those of science as well as those of the arts into a unified knowledge base upon which to build a robust evolving consciousness.
In On the Origin of Time, with the infusion of quantum mechanics that relies not on absolutes but the calculation of the average of probabilities for each and every probable possibility, absolutes disappear since no observation is ever absolute because of the principle of uncertainty. Because there is a principle of uncertainty, there are no more absolutes anymore. There can be a high probability that something is true but there is always some reality in which it may not be true. We just cannot be certain if we have encountered the exception that disproves the rule.
An intriguing point of demonstrative fact is the quandary that surrounds our own universe. In On the Origin of Time, Hertog presents the exploration of the multiverse theory. Under the term “multiverse” in the index of On the Origin of Time there is an extensive listing of pages reflecting a lengthy discussion of the multiverse theory. I will leave it to all readers of this presentation to choose to purchase Hertog’s book for his and Hawking’s review of this theory. The following citation found on pages 158 and 159 attempts to encapsulate the quandary to which I refer:
“… without galaxies the universe would be a lifeless place. Hence the fact that we exist, [Stephen] Weinberg concluded, naturally leads us to zoom in on those island universes with only the slightest trace of dark energy, lying in an extraordinarily narrow biofriendly window. … he concluded that the observed amount of dark energy shouldn’t be zero … but in fact as large as it can be, as long as it didn’t disrupt the formation of galaxies. … Within a decade, the supernovae observations proved him right. We inhabit a rare biofriendly patch picked out by the anthropic principle in a mostly lifeless cosmic mosaic.
He [Stephen Hawking] very much agreed with Susskind, Linde, and their followers that the universe’s conspicuous biofriendly design demanded an explanation. He profoundly disagreed that anthropic multiverse cosmology explained anything.”
This is a lengthy citation but I wanted to give a context to the simple sentence, “We inhabit a rare biofriendly patch picked out by the anthropic principle in a mostly lifeless cosmic mosaic.” Rare by definition implies a very low probability of occurrence but not the absolute impossibility of occurrence. The improbability of the emergence of intelligent life speaks for itself, but the fact that it appears that our universe has a proclivity for favoring intelligent life — by design? — adds significantly to the quandary of why.
I do not profess to possess any expertise regarding quantum theory. I am, at best, a novice but I consider myself to be, at the very least, a beginner who seeks to continue learning specifics as I encounter them in my endeavor to learn more scientific particulars. Readers need to have at lest a cursory understanding of quantum theory to navigate Hertog’s presentation of Hawking’s last foray into the search for a unified cosmological theory. I gained a bit of knowledge about quantum mechanics before reading On the Origin of Time but chose to research more aspects of quantum theory due to the rigor of said text.
The following is one of many notes that I made while working through Hertog’s book.
All knowledge is a perception. Some perceptions have a higher probability of being accurate to true reality than other perceptions. [Quantum Thinking]
I tagged this note Quantum Thinking to distinguish it from Quantum Mechanics. The function of my label is to alert myself that I was thinking about quantum, quanta, and qubits as related to my thought processes that builds and transforms my consciousness which I believe is my world view.
I could have written that my consciousness holds or contains my world view; but then, I remembered the issue of Tillich’s position of Ultimate Concern as being that which ultimately moves the individual’s life choices. Thus, while my ultimate concern is that of a seeker, my seeking is to understand the nature of existence that can then enlarge my consciousness to make better choices that I might best harmonize with said existence which is my world view. Unfortunately, writing and speaking are linear processes. Reality, however, is not one dimensional.
I executed three large choices concerning infusions made into my consciousness — Tillich’s Ultimate Concern, Hawking’s top-down hypothesis, and the UCFC of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas wrote enough to fill two large volumes (No. 17 & 18) published in the Great Books of the Western World. The main text of On the Origin of Time fills 266 pages, while the core of A Brief History of Time is 182 pages. The three large choices to acquaint myself with the information available by these three individuals covers a very vast amount of information expressing a plethora of ideas. Each idea was a point upon which I chose a) to integrate into my consciousness, b) to set aside for further investigation and reflection, or c) to dismiss altogether as not useful.
I have arrive at the point in this exploration to demonstrate the integration of Art in the Arts and Sciences that are central to achieving a robust consilience. Jacob Bronowski reflects upon Niels Bohr on page 340 of his The Ascent of Man:
“He [Niels Bohr] said to Heisenberg, ‘When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images.’”
As a poet, I concur with the observation of being more concerned with images over facts, however poets can also merge images with facts. Another aspect that this poet likes to utilize is the process of invoking multiple meanings with one word. The point at this point in my writing is to use the word, “point” to point out my answer to the question: How many possible choices are open to individuals possessive of complete freedom?
An axiom or postulate is an intuitive principle that is unproven but indisputable. One axiom in Euclidean geometry is that a line is made up of individual points. Hence many points make up a line segment. A line segment is composed of many points lying between two end points at either end of the line segment. The number line, however, is composed of an infinity of points and is designated by an arrow head placed at both ends of the line designating a forever movement in both directions. I gained this basic knowledge in my high school geometry class many, many years ago. By combining the Y axis with the X axis, two dimensional space is mathematically described. Three dimensional space is achieved by adding the Z axis. All three axises are joined at a point of intersection labeled the point of origin ( 0,0,0 ) at an achieved angle of 90 degrees.
This basic concept of infinity lasted all through my post high school formal education and some years after. At some point later in the continuing expansion of my consciousness, I perceived that the word “infinity” does not actually convey the extent of the statement that three dimensional space is infinite. Consider the basic number line below.
My aha revelation came when working with midpoints. Usually, I only considered midpoints while working on a single problem in which I had to locate a midpoint. For some reason during a mathematical reflection of some kind, I mused that there would be an infinity of midpoints such as: 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 . . . (n.5) onward to infinity.
Often when a student who responded to one of my questions with an answer that indicated that he or she was on the right track but not yet arriving with the precise answer to the query, I would continue with, “Good, now push that thought.” If need be, I would rephrase the answer given, using as many of the student’s own words, into another probing question. I had developed a strong habit of “pushing thoughts” with myself as well as with my students. So, I pushed my thinking about midpoints and infinity.
The mid-point between 0 and 1 is 1⁄2. The mid-point between 0 and 1⁄2 is 1⁄4. The mid- point between 0 and 1⁄4 is 1/8. Continuation of this process demonstrates that just as the number line of natural numbers or counting numbers is infinitely large so is the space or points between 0 and 1 infinite. If one wished, one could argue that between any two points there exists an infinity of points. It would be a point well taken. However, to keep this process simple and manageable, suffice it to say that infinity exists between 0 and 1 and that this same quantified infinity exists between every other unit between natural numbers (i.e. between 3 and 4; 65 and 66; or 2 x 10↑10th and 2 x 10↑10th + 1). I can therefore refine my understanding of the infinity represented by the number line thusly:
Since the spacial units between 0 and 1, 1 and 2 and so forth are infinite, the number line can be understood as an infinity of infinities. My understanding of infinity had magnanimously exploded. It took me some time to digest this new awareness. After the initial awesomeness wore down to a normal level of wonder, some modification needed to be made.
I am more a poet than an artist so please forgive the primitive artwork below. I would like readers to focus on the Z axis. It attempts to depict the movement toward the infinity of scales which the infinity of midpoints populate. The diameter of the next smaller circle is the radius of the larger circle preceding it. Pushing this thought further, the infinity of particles of the smaller scale is twice that of the previous larger scale. Add speed to this dimension as in the speed of subatomic particles verses the speed of atoms for instance, and I must yield to professional physicists to perform the mathematics of the relative difference of said particles with regard to the ratios of scale to speed. (Might this be a reflection of the energy levels between electron orbits in the electron cloud?) To my thinking, based on the reality that larger and larger particle accelerators are needed to research smaller and smaller particles, energy levels increase as particle scales decrease. Pushing that thought stimulates my wondering that particles moving at such high speeds would require a self containing border or boundary that would be needed to maintain the integrity of said particle. Hence the energy of the breached defining boundary of that particle together with the energy of the speed of said particle would be combined in the total energy released by disrupting the integrity of said particle. That would be the subject for future minds to contemplate.
We are on a much simpler quest to answer the question:
How many possible choices are open to individuals possessive of complete freedom?
Might this question be somewhat analogous to a similar question: How many positions are there in three dimensional space?
OR
How many points are there to consider when seeking to understand the nature of existence?
Embedded in an earlier citation presented in this text is the following , “It is as if quantum cosmology conceives of observership as the operational headquarters in the unfathomable realm of all that might be.”
SO,
How many points are there in the unfathomable realm of all that might be?
Since three dimensional space is represented by the intersection of the X,Y and Z axises at the point of origin at an achieved angle of 90 degrees, I am very comfortable with considering a point in space equating to a choice to consider. Infinity raised to the 6th power is as close to confronting my comprehension of the unfathomable reality that my current consciousness can muster.
Keeping in mind the infinity of scales, think of one step as one point. If I am standing exactly in the middle of a large field, then I must choose the direction in which to place my first step to begin my journey. While standing still before I step, I have 360 choices where to put my first step. My next step to take has an equal number of choices (360) to pick from because plotting my walking on the surface of Earth is a two dimensional process. Another way of perceiving this issue is to consider playing chess on the standard chess board.
While in college, I had a chance to play three dimensional chess which was composed of three thick plastic, transparent boards stacked one on top of another with spacers tall enough to easily maneuver the pieces to any space on your chosen board. I am lousy at simple chess. I abandoned three dimensional chess very quickly as a fruitless endeavor for me to pursue. A three dimensional chess game is a good visual to demonstrate movement in space. Movement in space is three dimensional whereas walking on the surface of Earth is two dimensional. Hence movement in three dimensional chess can be along any axis: X, Y or Z. Winning strategies in three dimensional chess must be spherical in nature, while strategies in conventional chess need only be two dimensional. My strategy as a seeker to gain a more robust consciousness must be spherical as opposed to being two dimensional. The potential for errors has greatly increased. I am easily over whelmed by the inherent responsibility of being absolutely free to exercise choice.
Fear not. In the realm of tangibles there are plenty of boundaries like those of the edges of a standard chess board that limit the number of possible moves to make during play. While our universe inhabits three dimensional space (or perhaps our universe defines three dimensional space), my tangible life has limitations determined by that tangibility. Limitations, imposed by tangibles which are critical elements populating my existence, restrict my opportunities for exercising choice. The total of infinity raised to the 6th power of choices has been reduced. Even though that reduction can still overwhelm me, it is minuscule compared to the total of possible choices available within the universe. From the top-down view, my life time choices will not be close to the number of all possible choices available in our universe. Then again, I have felt the awesomeness of the insignificance of my existence when juxtaposed to that of the universe of which I am a fleeting part when I laid back to ground and absorbed the effect of being surrounded by the shimmering Northern Lights.