Email: [email protected]
Copyright, 2002
A long standing question in philosophy has been "why is there something
rather than nothing?". A possible solution is proposed in two accompanying
papers (1,2) and is summarized here. It is suggested that two other
accompanying papers (3, 4) also be read as background material. A summary of
the proposed mechanism for getting existence (ie, "something") from
non-existence (ie, "nothing") is:
1. Non-existence is defined as zero volume:
It is assumed that everything that could possibly be thought of as existing
(including physical objects, energy, space-time, vacuum, the mind,
mathematics, ideas, concepts, etc.) takes up non-zero spatial volume as
seen from our reference frame (ie, observation point). Therefore, what is
traditionally called non-existence must be zero volume (ie, the lack of
volume) as seen from a given reference frame.
2. The zero volume of non-existence meets the definition of a whole because:
o Does zero volume include all? Yes.
o With zero volume, is any volume, thing or part lacking, missing or
omitted? No.
o With zero volume, is there any thing anywhere else? No.
By definition, then, true zero volume, or what is traditionally called
non-existence, is indeed a whole.
3. Wholes have edges, or boundaries, indicating their wholeness, and "exist":
By virtue of its wholeness or completeness, the zero volume of what is
traditionally called non-existence must have an edge or boundary (wholes
without edges or boundaries, indicating their completeness, wouldn't be
wholes). Because it has an edge or boundary, a whole becomes something
that has substance; that is, it is a "thing"; it "is"; it "exists" (3).
The edge is not a separate structure but is rather just the wholeness or
completeness of the zero volume itself. The edge, and therefore the
existence, of zero volume can only be perceived from a reference frame (ie,
observation point) that can see the wholeness, or the edge, of the zero
volume. An observer in a reference frame that cannot see this wholeness
would continue to say that zero volume does not exist and is, indeed,
accurately labeled as non-existence. In other words, the same zero volume
can be said to both not exist and to exist depending on the reference frame
(ie, observation point) that it is viewed from.
Because it exists, zero volume can also be called the state of
non-existence. A hypothetical observer that could see the wholeness, or
edge, of the state of non-existence would view this state as a sphere
because the zero volume inside the edge is the same distance "across" as
seen from all perspectives (2). This is the definition of a sphere.
4. Edges have outsides. Assuming zero volume, what is outside the edge of the
state of non-existence? There can only be more zero volume (ie, a lack of
volume). That is, a second instance of zero volume in a new "location"
along the outside of the edge of the initial state of non-existence has
been formed:
~
Edges, by their very nature, have outsides. What is outside the edge of
the state of non-existence? Because we assumed zero volume, the only thing
that can be outside the edge of the state of non-existence can be "more"
zero volume (ie, the lack of volume). Therefore, the edge has caused the
formation of a new instance of zero volume all along its spherical
outside. Because there can be no distance smaller than the diameter of the
state of non-existence, the zero volume along the outside of the spherical
circumference of the initial state of non-existence is quantized into
chunks equal in size to the diameter of the state of non-existence. Each
of these chunks defines a "location", based on the definition of "location"
as the position of a whole, or volume, relative to the edge of another
whole, or volume (3). That is, "location" is quantized. Are each of these
new instances of zero volume along the outside of the edge of the initial
state of non-existence themselves wholes? While they are not the whole
amount of all volume everywhere due to the existence of the first state of
zero volume/non-existence, they are the whole amount of volume at those
"locations". That is, at that "location", the zero volume there is the
whole amount or entirety of all volume. This means that a second layer of
wholes and, thus, a second layer of existent states of non-existence has
been formed along the outside of the edge of the first state of
non-existence.
5. Each instance of the state of non-existence in the second layer (ie,
around the outside of the edge of the first state of non-existence) has an
edge with an outside that forms a third layer of instances of the state of
non-existence. This process continues ad infinitum.
The edge of each state of non-existence in the second layer also has an
outside, which causes the formation of a third layer of new instances of
zero volume and, thus, a third layer of new states of non-existence. This
process is repeated ad infinitum, causing an infinite set of states of
non-existence to expand radially outward from an initial state of
non-existence.
6. Each of the edges of the states of non-existence formed in the above
process is in a different location (relative to one another), meaning that,
between them, non-zero relative volume has been formed. Also, each state
of non-existence would look as real, relative to one another, as two
units/particles of what we call existence would look to one another.
Therefore, overall, a non-zero relative volume of "real-looking" existent
states (ie, "something") has been formed from the zero absolute volume of
non-existence (ie, "nothing").
While each state of non-existence may represent zero volume in absolute
terms, each of these states is in a different location because the edges
defining them are not overlapping. Therefore, relative to one another,
they take up non-zero volume. Furthermore, relative to one another, these
states of non-existence would look as "real" to each other as two
units/particles of what we call existence would look to one another. That
is, it is suggested that the difference between "state of non-existence"
and "unit of existence" is semantic only. Because we have no idea what is
"inside" the fundamental units of existence (ie, elementary particles,
photons, etc.), what is the difference between saying there is a "state of
non-existence" and "unit of existence" in there?
In conclusion, a mechanism for the expansion of the zero absolute volume
of what is traditionally called non-existence (ie, "nothing") into the
non-zero relative volume of existence (ie, "something") is proposed. In this
mechanism, the state of non-existence is the fundamental building block, or
quantum unit, of what we call existence.
In standing with this idea, the above process shows several similarities
to physics and cosmology as well as providing a mechanism for the presence of
energy (2). For instance, it shows similarites to the big bang process with
its early symmetry breaking, non-locality, the observer-observed relationship
of quantum physics, the holographic principle of string theory and time (2).
Set theory, the basis of all mathematics, considers the null set to exist
(5). If set theory is to be accepted and if mathematics has any relationship
to the real world, then the zero volume of non-existence, which is equivalent
to the null set (ie, it's zero volume with an edge/curly braces), must also
exist. Given that there is already a process for expansion of the null set
into a larger set of ordinals (6), it seems reasonable to expect that a
similar process exists for the expansion of the state of non-existence into
a larger set of states of non-existence, ie, the relative volume of existence.
The above process for the expansion of the zero absolute volume state of
non-existence into the non-zero relative volume of existence shares some
similarities with cellular automata (CA). That is, the initial state of
non-existence (or the null set) could be considered to be the initial cell in
a CA program. The rule for its expansion is that it forms new instances of
itself outside its spherical edge. Many others have suggested that CAs may
have some relationship with physics and the universe (7,8), so the mechanism
proposed here supports that idea.
While it is suggested here that a set of states of non-existence (ie, our
universe, or our existence) would appear, relative to one another, to occupy
non-zero relative volume, in absolute terms, the universe would still occupy
zero volume. That is, if one could peel away the veneer of relative volume
and existence in our universe, there would still be absolute zero volume
underneath.
All of this is, admittedly, only a philosophical argument for now and may
have no bearing on reality. But, it does seem logical and reasonable and
should at least be considered. It is hoped that further research will suggest
experiments that can either verify or disprove the proposed mechanism.
References
1. Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? Evidence that "Non-Existence"
Can be Considered to "Exist",
http://www.geocities.com/roger846/theory.5.html, 2002.
2. Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? Mechanism for the Expansion
of the Zero Absolute Volume State of Non-Existence into the Non-Zero
Relative Volume of Existence,
http://www.geocities.com/roger846/theory.6.html, 2002.
3. Why Do Things Exist? Proposed Definitions For the Terms "Existence",
"Exists", "What Is", and "Location",
http://www.geocities.com/roger846/theory.4.html, 2001.
4. Ideas and Concepts and Their Relationships to "Real World" Objects,
http://www.geocities.com/roger846/theory.3.html, 2001.
5. Devlin, K. The Joy of Sets: Fundamentals of Contemporary Set Theory, Second
Edition, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1993.
6. John von Neumman reference. Sorry I haven't gotten this yet.
7. Fredkin, E, A New Cosmogony, 1992
http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/new_cosmogony.htm
8. Publisher's Summary of "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram,
http://www.wolframscience.com/summary/
Email: [email protected]
Copyright, 2002