Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Table of Contents
- Part I. Ontological and Epistemological Revisions Towards Cosmogenetic Philosophy
- Chapter 1. Towards a Philosophy of Cosmogenesis
- 1.1 Widest Possibilities in Cosmogenetic Science and Philosophy
- 1.2 The Proposal: Generalized Cosmogenetic Philosophy and Science
- 1.3 An Interpreted Pre-history of Cosmogenetic Generalization
- 1.4 Necessity of a Cosmology of Maximal-Medial-Minimal Possibilities
- 1.5 Systemic Purpose of Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC)
- 1.6 Statement of the Main Theses of GCC
- 1.7 Entities Relativized, or Causal Processes
- 1.8 Process as the Primary Nature of All Existents
- 1.9 Extension-Change, Space-Time, Stability-Activity: Not Equivalents
- 1.10 Ontological Basis of Space-Time Connection and Difference
- 1.11 Real Possibility in Processes as Causal Possibility
- 1.12 Infinite Spiral-Dimensional Extension-Change, Spacetime, Eternity
- 1.13 Convergent Propositional Regress Theory of Truth Probabilities
- 1.14 Procedure and Rationale of the Inquiry
- 1.15 Gist of Arguments in GCC
- Chapter 2. Cosmogenesis and the Law of Causality
- 2.1 Law of Causality and Types of Processual Entities
- 2.2 Epistemic-Statistical Causality and the Law of Out-There Causality
- 2.3 Some Epistemological Presuppositions
- 2.4 Glaring Defects of Traditional Cosmological Arguments
- 2.5 Critique of ‘Cause’ in “Everything has cause/s”
- 2.6 Critique of ‘Cause’ in “The whole needs a cause”
- 2.7 Critique of ‘Cause’ in “The cause of the whole is not itself”
- 2.8 Critique of ‘Cause’ in “The ultimate cause is unchanging”
- 2.9 Universal Causality: Constitutive plus Originative Causality
- 2.10 Domain of Reason Accessed and of Questions Posed
- Chapter 3. Causal Horizonal Research: Methodology of Cosmogenetic Ontology
- 3.1 Token Processes, Natural Kinds, Universals, Modality, Causality
- 3.2 Preliminaries to the Notion of the Causal Horizon
- 3.3 Cosmological Concept of the Causal Horizon
- 3.4 Characteristics of the Causal Horizon
- 3.5 CHR and Mathematics as Tools of Physics and Cosmology
- 3.6 Basic Ontological Laws of Physical Processes in CHR
- 3.7 CHR as Explication of the Law of Causality in Cosmology
- 3.8 Generally Causal-Horizonal Questions in Big Bang Theory
- 3.9 Prospects of Causal Horizonal Research beyond Cosmology
- Part II. Physical and Astrophysical Context of Cosmogenesis
- Chapter 4. Universal Causality and the Quantum World
- 4.1 Ontological Commitment in Causal Concepts
- 4.2 Definitions: Particular-Scientific and Universal Laws of Causality
- 4.3 David Hume, Nancy Cartwright, and Judea Pearl on Causality
- 4.4 Step I: Causal Ubiquity in EPR Entanglement Experiments
- 4.5 Step II: Observables, Algorithms, and Perspectival Absolutism
- 4.6 Laplacean Causalism, Duality-Complementarity, Concreta-Abstracta
- 4.7 Causal Solutions in Double Slit Experiment and Uncertainty Principle
- 4.8 Superluminally Local-Causal Solution to Entanglement Experiments
- 4.9 Superluminal Causality as Permissible in STR
- 4.10 Superluminal Causality and the Infinite- / Finite-Content Cosmos
- 4.11 Micro- and Macro-Cosmic Causal Realism and Continuity
- Chapter 5. Cosmogenesis in the Big Bang Universe Theory
- 5.1 Early 20th Century Causal Cosmology
- 5.2 Causal Big Bang and Non-causal Inflation?
- 5.3 Causal Big Bang Black Hole: Singularity, Expansion, Contraction
- 5.4 Finite- or Infinite-Content Singularity and Universe?
- 5.5 Cosmologically Causal-Horizonal Big Bang Strings and Superstrings
- 5.6 Cosmologically Causal-Horizonal Nature of Singularity
- 5.7 Cosmological Horizon and Extension-Change Finiteness
- 5.8 Causality in the Inflationary-Gravitational Data of Cosmic Evolution
- 5.9 Causal-Horizonal Problem: Origin of Open / Closed / Flat Cosmos
- Chapter 6. Cosmogenesis in Quantum Cosmology
- 6.1 Primordial Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations: Classical or Non-classical?
- 6.2 Self-Generating Universal Quantum State?
- 6.3 Universal Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations and Matter-Energy Creation
- 6.4 “Spontaneous” and Universal Particle-Antiparticle Creation
- 6.5 Vacuum Fluctuation and Universal “Potential” Dark Energy
- 6.6 Absolute Vacuum, Expansion of Space, and Creation of Energy
- 6.7 Finite Symmetry Breaking and Infinite Non-causal Quantum Creation
- 6.8 Quantum Tunnelling and Extra-Spatial-Dimensional QM Cosmology
- 6.9 Everett’s Parallel Universes Critiqued
- 6.10 Transcending Quantum Decoherence and Parallel Universes
- 6.11 Causality in Trans-World Identity and Parallel Universes
- 6.12 Continuous Causal Coalescences of Local Inflations and Deflations
- Part III. Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology and Cosmogenesis
- Chapter 7. Cosmogenetic Mathematics and Physics of Big Bang Singularities
- 7.1 Big Bang Black Hole and Mathematical Singularity
- 7.2 Physical Existence, Mathematical Perfection, Whole-Part Fallacy
- 7.3 Origin of Matter-Energy in Infinity-Zero Mathematical Fields
- 7.4 Graphical Dilemma of Perfect Symmetry in Causal Cosmology
- 7.5 Extension-Change Nature of Macrocosmic Causality in Singularity
- 7.6 Physical Examples of Mis-absolutization of Mathematics
- 7.7 Equating Extension-Change and Mathematical Singularities?
- 7.8 Solution: Causal Ubiquity in Big Bang Causal Horizon
- Chapter 8. Cosmogenetic Ontology of Mathematically Dimensionless Physical Singularity
- 8.1 Physical Ontology of the Singularity Cosmos
- 8.2 Philosophical Cosmology Based on Singularity Cosmology?
- 8.3 General-Ontological Laws and Mathematico-Cosmological Existence
- 8.4 Mathematico-Logical Epistemology: Mis-absolutized Infinities-Zeroes
- 8.5 Renormalizing the Causal Horizon of Singularities
- Chapter 9. Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology: Part I
- 9.1 Riemannian Geometry vs. Infinite Multiverse Cosmology
- 9.2 Generalized Philosophical-Cosmological Questions on Dark Energy
- 9.3 Generalized Philosophical Questions in Cosmogenetics
- 9.4 The Broader Scenario of Dissidence against the Big Bang Solution
- 9.5 State of the Cosmos beyond Big Bangs and Singularities
- 9.6 Philosophical-Cosmological Support for GCC
- Chapter 10. Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology: Part II
- 10.1 Rationale of Transition from Cosmology to GCC Cosmogenetics
- 10.2 Theoretical Necessity of GCC and Its Range of Applicability
- 10.3 Preliminary Arguments in GCC Elaborated
- 10.4 Riemannian Solution of “Finite-yet-Unbounded” Universe: Summary
- 10.5 Leading to the Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP)
- 10.6 The Problem: Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP)
- 10.7 GCC: Infinite-Eternal Pan-creativist Pan-concretist Pan-en-theism
- Chapter 11. Universal Causality: Constitutive and Pan-creatively Originative Causation
- 11.1 Cosmological and Philosophical Prospects of GCC and CHR
- 11.2 Redefining the Universal Law of Causality
- 11.3 Law of Causality, Scientific Causality, Non-causality
- 11.4 Universal Causal Continuity and Non-causality in Cosmology
- 11.5 Science, Philosophy, and Philosophical Cosmology
- 11.6 Continuous Creation, or Continuous Originative Causation
- 11.7 Pan-creativist and Pan-concretist Pan-en-theism
- 11.8 Nature and “Limits” of the Source
- 11.9 Nature and Necessity of Consciousness and Soul
- 11.10 Rationality of Ethical Responsibility and Religious Action
- 11.11 A Summary of the New Philosophical Cosmology
(Mentioning where they appear primarily)
‘Everything existent is extended and changing’. “Extension” is the abstract there-being-multiple-parts in anything existent with some activity and stability; and “Change” is the abstract aspect of anything whereof it is in the state of projecting impact elements within and without. These are two essentially general- and physical-ontological categorial Laws or nomic a priori presuppositions at the general intersection of existence and of experience and knowledge of existent processes. These are measured epistemically as space and time respectively. Time is the measure of change with respect to stipulated measurement criteria. A temporal relation is that between two results of measurement of change. This relation is “earlier and after”. Much philosophical literature wrongly substitutes time with temporal relation. Time and temporal relation are epistemological.
‘Extension-Change’, when appended to existent processes, is already Universal Causality if it means that any group/s of multiple events are in the extended-changing / processual togetherness, where causation means that each near-infinitesimal part of matter-energy is the process of projection of impact elements to many other such. Such togetherness can only be connected if it is non-vacuous, and this connection is irreducibly equivalent to calling it continuously causal. Hence, causality is not merely sufficient but also necessary for all non-vacuous existence. In the present work I add to such categorial Laws various arguments in favor of causal ubiquity in micro- and macro physics.
In the light of the causal and correlated categorial Laws (categories), what would cosmology, metaphysics, and philosophy as such look like if there are infinite number of universes in the cosmos? To think in these terms, maximal-medial-minimal generalizational possibilities of Extension-Change must be covered in the theory. The result is a Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC) that treats most general gravitational cases of causation (an act-noun / process-noun) in a finite-content and infinite-content cosmos at any given moment and seeks the best possible solution for the origin of the cosmos in cosmology, metaphysics, and philosophy in general. ← 21 | 22 →
For decades I have alternatively been enthused and distressed by the cosmogenetic theories of the 20th to 21st centuries and the more than two millennia of ontological, modal, philosophical-cosmological, and design arguments for cosmogenesis. The work at hand is the result of more than three decades of reflection on my new cosmological argument, including of my attempts to disprove to myself my own cosmogenetic theory. By presenting these new arguments, I hope to bring a reasonable solution for and thus some clarity to the perennial question of cosmogenesis: the Source-World-Self problem. My work will do no more than shed some light into the puzzle or provide merely a partial solution.
The six-pronged question addressed by the present work is cosmogenetic in essence: What QM-physical, astrophyisical-cosmological, QM-cosmological, physical-ontological, and general-ontological justifications may be offered to suggest that the finite-content universe / infinite-content multiverse is precisely conceivable as (1) eternally uncreated / self-created, (2) eternally being created by QM vacua, (3) eternally being created by absolute vacua, (4) created by an external Source wholly once into a finite- or infinite-content universe, (5) eternally being created by an external Source by converting itself into matter-energy, or (6) eternally being created in infinite volumes ex nihilo by a Source that is infinitely-eternally-intensely active and is absolute in such activity?
While acknowledging the merits of delving deeply at a practical and/or ideal concept, theory, and action from a single well-developed perspective, I propose a more powerful to approach to the themes from various points of view and, in this process, address the nature of concept, theory, and action more systemically and holistically, though these are never epistemically fully exhaustible in the ontologically committed object/s of discourse and their concepts in themselves. Such concepts, theories, and actions are likely more adequate and applicable to Reality-in-total than the “indisputably definite” achievements and clarity of analysis. Such synthesis in the light of analyses is the highest aim of thought: it is called system-building. I shall follow this principle of scientific and philosophical reflection, however pragmatically more feasible isolated analyses could be at a given juncture.
Hence, by adopting the “out-moded” attitude of system-building it is possible to attain superior truth probabilities in science and philosophy. My endeavor here, I shall therefore claim, is systemic. I seek systemically acceptable cosmological and philosophical answers to the six-pronged interlinked question above and follow the analytic-to-systemic patterns set by attempts to transcend some of ← 22 | 23 → current metaphysics, philosophies of science, and analytic ontologies in order to find a solid place for system-building beyond them.
The book culminates in a cosmogenetic theory based on the maximal-medial-minimal implications of holding any set of versions of – the big bang, oscillating, cyclic, steady state, inflation-deflation, QM-cosmological, parallel universes, brane worlds, branching universes, and infinite multiverse – theories of the genesis of matter-energy into a physically finite-content universe and/or infinite-content multiverse. The finite or infinite extents of content and evolution of the cosmos are never empirically decidable. Hence, we take up each maximal, medial, and minimal possibility of content-and-evolution range of the cosmos to theorize best into GCC with the best available truth probabilities. I believe that this strategy heightens the validity of the truth claims made by this study.
Space and time are measurementally epistemic categories. Their ontological counterparts are the existential-processual ones, Extension-Change. Extension-change existence is extended change of all parts of anything existent: every part of it, hence, is an instance of impact-projection, i.e. Causation. Constant causal togetherness with a finite or infinite amount of stability in activity is Process. Existents / processes are inevitably extended and in change, measured respectively as space and time. These two facts are formulated as categorial Laws: ‘Everything is extended’, ‘Everything is changing’. Hence, Extension-Change are the two essential, general- and physical-ontological, categorial Laws or nomic a priori (introduced in Chapters 2–3) presuppositions at the general intersection primarily of all forms existence and secondarily of “experience and knowledge” of existent and “non-existent” processes.
Only such purely general-ontological categorial Laws supported by the more fundamental To Be of Reality-in-total denote the invariance-aspects of existent processes. The invariance-aspect of any “true” natural law is no absolute invariance with respect to all existents but instead locally essential invariance of the measurements of constants in all possible but relevant circumstances, if it is “proved” measurementally beyond all doubt for that locality. But if a general- or physical-ontological category expressed as a Law is determined as ontologically universal and a priori, it is an ideal-dimensional fact about all that exists, despite its increasingly superior explicability-definability. This is the difference between lack of absoluteness in physical laws and the absoluteness in ontological Laws. Measuremental natural laws are therefore laws obtaining in patterns of measurements of ontological-categorially subsidiary facts related to processes already obeying certain ontological categorial Laws. ← 23 | 24 →
The gravitational constant [for proofs for the existence of gravitons, see 10.1.] for the earth is the acceleration that objects experience at the earth’s surface, due to the cumulative gravity that all the atoms together at the straight line between the surface and the center of the earth exert on the object at varying distances from the center. Its generalized value is rounded-off from values at various points of longitudinal and latitudinal intersections at the surface. Thus, e.g., the empirically determined gravitational constant for the earth at the poles differs from that at the equator. If the moon were to fall onto the equator in the Pacific, the gravitational constant measured with respect to the earth in general will change greatly for measurements at that spot and gradually less for other points. Any physical-measuremental law in the universe is different from place to place for measurements, e.g. gravitational force of objects on the surface of a planet differs however minutely from atom to atom for distances from the center.
Extension-Change, when combined with the principle of universal gravitation (caused by a real universal attractive propagation: gravitons) and that of constant non-attractively propagative diffusion of other energies from all existents indicate that cosmological objects / processes in the vicinities and at distances of objects / processes form ever-widening gravitational coalescences in the process of extended-changing existence (in measurable space and time) along with immediate vicinities. Gravitation is not a general-ontological but a physical category epitomizing the general-ontological categories of Attraction-Repulsion.
The general categories of Attraction-Repulsion are purely ontological. These are a priori and simple regarding relevance to all existents like Extension-Change. Any two extension-change-wise existing elements exercise some, not infinite, mutual attraction and repulsion when they are in sufficient mutual vicinity. I shall discuss these two categories not oftener than gravitation, since (1) ours is a cosmological work, and (2) the categories of Extension-Change can do the work for us to keep it as causally scientific as possible. The former are secondary and subservient to Extension-Change.
Reasoning along these categories, the categories of Universal Causality and Process that derive from Extension-Change and the principle of universal gravitation together produce (Chapters 9–10) an inevitable Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP) regarding the tendency of clusters of galaxies, universes etc. to gravitate together in time into ever broader coalescences. These categorial presuppositions and GCP together demonstrate (Chapters 10–11) infinite-eternal and continuous – not merely virtual (literally, “effective” due to the working by seeming, in opposition to “real”), but really out-there – creation from an infinitely-eternally and infinitesimally intensely, and thus, together, ubiquitously ← 24 | 25 → active, fully within itself freely causally active, and absolutely conserved Source. The Source is existential-dependence-wise external to the finite-content or infinite-content cosmos with respect to gravitational (attractively propagative) or other (non-attractively propagative), merely physical propagations. I call this theory ‘Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology’ (GGC), a name I developed over two decades ago.
I use the term ‘cosmogenesis’ under the substantive meaning of kosmos (“order”) as “the orderly universe”, and of the verbal meaning of genesis as “origin”. I mean by it the process of origin of the finite-content universe / infinite multiverse in its finite or infinite amount of parts and in the final analysis in its totality. I do not mean here merely the development of order in the universe as in ancient Greek and other traditions, or as commonly meant. [David Layzer 1990; Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “Cosmogenesis”]
I undertake this study aware of the somewhat stagnant state of old and recent versions of cosmological arguments for causal creation and design of the universe and for the existence and nature of the creative Source. GCC is a new strain of cosmological arguments based on the following: (1) overcoming some elements that debilitate generalizations in mathematical, QM-, and astrophysical theories of cosmogenesis and cosmodynamics, where physical theory is compelled by universal probabilistic interpretations to steer clear of the notion of universal causality regarding certain phenomena like those behind the experiment that yields the uncertainty principle, the double slit expermiment, the entanglement experiment behind the EPR paradox, the notion of cosmological singularity, the concept of QM-cosmological inflationary (exponential expansion) vacuum etc., and (2) showing that a solid solution to the above cosmological infirmities can demonstrate that the origin of matter-energy of the universe / multiverse is from continuous creation. QM-cosmological inflationary vacuum, as will be seen in Chapter 6, is the state of equilibrium between particle-antiparticle creation and annihilation, where creation is not emergence out of nothing, and annihilation is no reduction into nothing: both are just conversion processes requiring the interplay of energy from within and from finite distances of the processes in question.
A few statements under the caveat that these would be re-read after one has read the whole text: If (only if) a Source is thought of in the light of GCC as existent, it cannot be a one-time creative Source due to such contradictions as: ‘It ← 25 | 26 → cannot be bodily and must at the same time act once as if it were bodily’, ‘It cannot suddenly be active at an act like creation if it were inactive before and after the act’, etc. As will be evident by the end of Chapter 10, it must be conceived as causal in the aspect of continuously infinite existence-giving / originative causation. This function alone is rationally acceptable as creation, not the constitutive creation of particle-antiparticle pairs supposed in QM-cosmological vacuum fluctuations theory (Chapter 6) to create energy “anew”. QM vacuum fluctuations of real quanta cannot duplicate themselves or create others finitely, infinitely, or eternally, but only yield a conceptual seeming of originative causation in terms of a partially or fully statistically non-causal QM, where QM vacua are no real vacua producing extension-change processes endlessly. QM cosmology works without emphasis on the categorial Law of Causality. Every existent is in extended (space) change (time) by element-transfer from within towards processes within and to others. I shall not detail more than a short Source-interpretation of originative causation where such causation does not transfer but creates elements afresh, and not attempt much to understand the rationally imaginable nature and structure of the Source or discuss theism, deism, non-dualism, qualified non-dualism, dualism etc.
Is it worthwhile so to speculate on maximal-medial-minimal mathematical and cosmologically measuremental boundary possibilities or processes between the large-scale finite-content universes in an infinite-content multiverse? I submit that it is justified if it can result in sufficiently rational conclusions under various maximal-medial-minimal conditions and possibilities. If one sticks to observational conclusions in cosmology and labels them as final truths, such and similar attitudes in science and philosophy are nothing but perspectival absolutism and scientism, rejecting advancements in discourse. So, I use maximal-medial-minimal cases in philosophical-cosmological arguments, thus to favor rationally and thus mathematically and physically more tenable conclusions from an effort to avoid conceptually mathematical pitfalls in big bang-, oscillation-, QM-astrophysical-, inflation-deflation-, parallel universes- and other cosmologies.
“According to General Relativity, a repulsive gravitational field is produced by a material with a negative pressure. Modern particle physics predicts that at high energies there exist states of matter with negative pressure – in particular, states for which the energy is dominated by the potential energy of a scalar field.” [Alan Guth, URL accessed on 6 April 2015] “Inflation” (1981), according to Guth, is a universe-specific later-than-big-bang act of more than normally accelerated expansion. The scalar (characterized by the absence of direction in action) nature ← 26 | 27 → of dark energy, as a substitute for the cosmological constant Λ and as decaying slowly as a function of time [Matts Roos 2015: 238], makes it unlikely to be an agent of negative action (requiring a direction impossible in scalar quantities), or lack of action (due to its mathematically presumed inability to interact physically).
Inflation energy is presumed to be “dark energy” – a term coined by Michael Turner to account for the acceleration of expansion of the universe, which was calculated from the difference of observed and expected values of brightness of supernovae. This is thought of by some (1) as a scalar repulsion force causing the expansion of the universe, or (2) as expressing the negative potential energy accrued by gravitation in the course of expansion, or (3) as the special vacuum energy that powers the hypothetical QM-cosmological fluctuations everywhere in the universe, causing endless creation of fresh energy. It is termed ‘dark’, since it has so far been sought only through gravitational effects: not by any form of bright radiation.
Now consider: What would cosmology and philosophy look like if our universe were not existing in isolation and if there were infinite other universes possessing multiple or infinite number of planets and forms of life in it? If the elements attract each other gravitationally, would not, finally, also ever larger cosmological objects and processes – finally universes – attract each other gravitationally and exist in clusters? Should not attraction be due to transfer of attractive causal elements? What are the most general cosmological and philosophical alternatives if the universe is finite and if it is infinite in content, extension (space), and change (time)? Can everything in the world be disconnected from all else, except in imagination, within or by the action of a hypothetically new real or virtual but conspicuously negative (“somehow” working against gravitation) force initially labelled as negative-valued or negatively active, scalar-based, non-dimensioned dark energy, without itself gravitationally connecting its parts with each other in a whole new interactive (positive!) manner? Would it thus not reduce its negative value into just a manner of scalar discourse incumbent upon the gravitational accumulation at the universe’s contraction? These and similar questions cannot be answered directly by science but can be by a science-based and science-compatible philosophical science. It is philosophical cosmology. The leading argument therein is GCC, as Chapters 9–10 attempt to demonstrate. ← 27 | 28 →
Ancient, medieval, and modern (till the end of the 19th century) thinkers and scientists (except a few mathematician-physicist-philosophers like Leibniz) were not able to generalize thought beyond the finite limits of their immediately available, mechanistically theoretical, and practical reason with respect to the general cosmogenetic question, because scientific knowledge was still in infancy. The difficulty in answering such questions today reflects the physical-ontological categorial deficits in the philosophy and science of the foregone centuries and today. Even 20th century philosophers and scientists shy away from questions of the like in cosmology due to a lack of clarity as to what the cosmogenetic question should indicate if seeking causal relations beyond the universe does not bespeak anything scientific, meaning without being science-compatible.
Hence, GCC is proposed here as a generally science-based, future-science-compatible, and general-ontologically tenable cosmological theory that provides a rational means of transcending the maximal-medial-minimal forms of all possible cosmogenetic theories and necessitates infinite-eternal originative causation / existence-donating creation alongside physically constitutive causation. GCC provides a novel approach over and against the history and pre-history of cosmological arguments and the limiting of causation to the physical world.
Concepts like ‘infinite-content multiverse’, ‘ever-broader worlds’, ‘ever-broader attraction-repulsion strata’, ‘infinity’, and ‘zero’ have existed in inadequate but highly influential forms in the West and East, but mathematics-based scientific precision in imagining infinity and zero has not. Hence the dearth of inquiry after the “ever-broader” in philosophy even today. At least as early as Anaximander the Greek concept of apeiron (a-peirar / a-peras), “the non-limited / boundless”, was existent. Most probably Anaximander did not take apeiron to mean the archḗ, “the beginning / origin (as a being or thing)” or as the substance underlying things [Paul Seligman 1962: 28–29], but merely as a symbol of a dimension of thought and things. We could generalize from here and state that no special object or entity is understood, but rather, something qualitatively general or total. That is, apeiron could at the most denote something unlimited or the dimension of non-limitation, both of which indicate that limitlessness was already a scientific and philosophical concept in Anaximander and thereafter.
The question then as to how limitation and particularity “originated” was addressed by Anaximander (Greek, a-peiron, “without end, limit” < Ionic Greek, peras, “end, limit, boundary”) by indicating that they are metaphysically insignificant in the sense that they originated from the non-originated “non-limited”, ← 28 | 29 → or that they did not originate. Later thinkers such as Parmenides and Aristotle have commented upon the 6th century BCE thinker Anaximander and argued both in favor of and against the meaning he assigned to the concept or what they thought he meant by it. [Paul Seligman 1962: 28–29] Solutions of the concept of origination that indicate that (1) things originated from the All (or from the gods), (2) they did not originate at all from the All but instead were parallel to the All, (3) the experience of origination, differentiation, and the like are due to nescience, etc. are particularly true of one or the other of the Vedāntic and non-Vedāntic philosophies of the cosmos and of the Divine, as is well known in Indian philosophical systems.
Before the Greeks the concept of infinity and nullity existed to the north of the Indian sub-continent among the minority Āryans (including the Brāhmíns and sages) who, based on the physiological geography, must have stemmed from the North, and not from North Africa or the Middle East. They probably partially inherited some clarity on the already existent seminal concepts of infinity in the process of their convivium with the local, more ancient (made decadent by then or soon after) Mohen-jo-daro, Harappa, and Sarasvatī cultures that probably possessed pre-historic continuity from some North-African and Middle Eastern civilizations. This conclusion may be supported by the facts (1) that the surprising philological similarities between some North African, Nordic, and Dravidian languages must have been from before the Aryan movements and (2) that this fact should demonstrate that their confluence must have produced some pre-Aryan cultures at their confluence points. The inheritance could thus have been from a mixture of the ancient cult of the Mother-Earth (and Father-Life) and the Northern Vedic tendencies to posit an unchanging Abstract-All-Being away from the concrete gods, both conceptually in the shape of the power of that or those which are responsible for all cosmic changes. Thus, the concepts of infinity and nullity existed in a vague form in some Vedas and of course thereafter.
Proofs for the infinitization of the Abstract-All-Bráhman (with accent on the first ‘a’ and representing impersonality at least from the Upaniṣadic periods) and of identification of the Ātmán (with accent on the last ‘a’ to stress its personal substantive nature) with Bráhman through thought-level mutual differentiation and the resultant transcendental contemplation of the identity are numerous in the early and later stages of evolution of Proto-Saṁskṛt into Saṁskṛt, the language of the Brahmáns / Brāhmíns ( “the greats / grown-s / highest-caste member” with the person-denoting accent at the end). This bears more from the Indo-European stem than (1) from the ancient (extremely pre-Iranian and hence pre-Saṁskṛt) north-Saharan language groups to the unique Elamite language, the latter of ← 29 | 30 → which pre-historically may have emerged from a common proto-language along with the Northern version of the ur-ur-Dravidian, the Finno-Ugric, and other related cultures and languages, or (2) from southern ur-Dravidian forms that too seem to attest many ur-forms from the north-Saharan stems. [For some details, Dravidian Encyclopedia, Vols. I–III] The claim of attestation in (2) is highly controversial due to lack of enough evidences and the political and religio-cultural aversion to laboratory-based genetic-anthropological tests. Hence, we are not in a position to trace the Brahmanic concepts of non-limitation backwards to the previously existent cultures that they encountered in the North and NorthWest of the present India.
The Saṁskṛt cognate (via Proto-Indo-European) of the Greek apeir-, “non-limited / boundless”, is a-pari-, where a- is the negative particle in both, and pari- means (1) “round, round about, about”, (2) “towards, in the direction of, opposite to”, etc. Thus, a-pari- means “non-limited” [Monier Monier-Williams 1899: 591; V. S. Apte 1958: 970], usually attributed to an ideal All-Entity, Bráhman, the Impersonal Absolute / Totality that in fact exists as “Growing / Grown (the broadest)” by reason of its being the highest and broadest in the sense of “(the most abstract) theoretical truth” (pāramārthika-satya, where parama is “the highest, highest limit etc”, and artha is “that for which”).
Aparimita, “unmeasured, unlimited”, aparimāṇa, “immeasurable, immense”, aparimeya, “illimitable”, apariviṣṭa, “non-enclosed, unbounded”, aparisāmāptika, “not to be brought to an end, unending” etc. are instances where the negative a- is prefixed to each concept to obtain the extensive or infinitizing sense in the Upaniṣadic and abundantly in later periods. Some of these are at times intended to characterize the cosmos as well, since it is conceived to be in some sense co-infinite and coeternal with the All-Entity, Bráhman, that somehow appears in pragmatically cognitive (vyāvahārika-level) expressions in the cosmos. In short, something in the direction of the concept of the infinite and eternal as maximal has been within human conceptual powers from the inception of philosophical thought in the north of the Indian sub-continent, and surely also elsewhere. This tendency perhaps traces itself back to about 1500–1000 BCE or earlier. The Upaniṣads should be at the most as old as these. [For a philologico-archaeological evidence for the dating of the Vedas and some of their gods in general, see Jules Block 1965: 11, 12.]
Now I come to the Modern-era sciences and present-day astronomy. The freedom and the means to generalize unto the outermost possible reaches of physical space and maximal-dimensional reason concerning the cosmos via concepts of infinity and eternity applied to the cosmos have been hindered by ← 30 | 31 → Western religious cosmologies for more than two millennia by too much caution by mathematicians, physicists, and even medieval thinkers concerning erring in philosophy or physics. This was until Newton and Leibniz began to grapple with spatially and temporally physical infinities and finitudes in their calculi. More than two millennia passed until the possibility of cosmic infinity was without substantial commitment inculcated in the astronomical and cosmological work of Edwin P. Hubble in the 20th century with his observational substantiation of the existence of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. He cannot have had rational or scientifically precise proofs regarding the finitude or infinity of the content of the universe, since the astronomical knowledge of these possibilities was not sufficiently developed at the time.
Now to infinity in astronomy and cosmology: In the 1920 “Great Debate” of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., Harlow Shapley (Mount Wilson Observatory) held that the Milky Way was the only existing universe. This was in fact perspectival absolutism and scientism. Heber Curtis (Lick Observatory) viewed the numerous nebulae like Andromeda for galaxies as the Milky Way. Einstein’s first version of GTR was aligned with the mainstream opinion of a static universe [Mike Perricone 2009: 7ff] that most probably possessed finite content. The fault in rational thinking here lies in not even considering rationally based yet highly speculative guesses as potentially acceptable alongside the state-of-the-art astronomical observations, in order to obtain possible results from comparisons with maximal-medial-minimal cases – which should have pointed clearly enough toward the dimension of fairly available truths, by stating truths from within these limits and conditions.
The same fault seems to typify the attitude of some physicists and cosmologists today when they “perspectivally” absolutize the present state of knowledge available in the present intellectual reach into the ever broader and the ever more minute. This attitude is common in certain scientific fields. Such scientists hold the already achieved perspective and methodology to be fully valid and true without ontologically foundational qualifications that answer broader questions.
For example: the ways in which allopathy (bio-chemical medicine) is considered the only possible medical science under the assumption that treatment via medical causation at the chemical-molecular interaction level is final; the bio-chemical industry ignores the ever-broader causal environment and more-minute-than-micro causal effects; probability theory absolutizes methodologically epistemic percentages of recognitions of causes and substitutes itself for causality in the sciences; QM does not consider possible deeper than micro-level causes as the explanation for its alleged non-causalities; cosmology does ← 31 | 32 → not theorize in terms of limits of applicability of mathematics to science and in terms of the possible infinite-content causally-ubiquitous multiverse being the case, etc.
The tendency is thus to avoid venturing beyond the limited versions of currently available experiment-based causality and its rationality proper and to avoid generating alternate results under maximal-medial-minimal cases. These maximal-medial-minimal generalizations are also within human capacities and hence must be followed up for their rational implications for existing sciences and philosophies. This is very important also in cosmology since without such generalizations cosmology cannot progress. Such efforts yield not merely possible advancements but also the facility to push the limits of cosmology rationally.
Methodological limits of empirical cosmology have stymied the growth of understanding of the limits within which science can venture and beyond which philosophy and science still can have access. Thus, despite the wariness of these fields it is entirely justified to consider the possibility of an existing Source (if it exists), the measure and modes of the processes of origination and ending, general-ontologically acceptable modes of evolution etc. with the help of already achieved cosmological knowledge and the available extents (higher or lower in mutual comparison) of truth probabilities of cosmological theories. I move thus in the direction of permissible ontological generalities in cosmology although at this time the evidence is only partial and rarely of high empirical value to address some of these questions sufficiently well.
I suggest a new theory of cosmogenesis and a philosophical cosmology that relies exclusively upon empirically permissible and rationally feasible modes of measure (finite / infinite) of processual (with respect to extension, change, attraction, repulsion, conservation etc.) limits in the finite-content universe / infinite-content multiverse. I hold that such a philosophical cosmology with additional truth probabilities made available by use of maximal-medial-minimal possibilities will enhance the cause of cosmology and of all philosophical endeavors.
The history of philosophy proceeds towards increasingly broadened and generalized theory based on empirical facts and their maximal-medial-minimal possibilities, in contrast with the more mythical perspectives of ancient thinkers of the past millennia: famously, e.g., Newton held that God just created and provided the universe with sufficient energy, does not provide even a minute impetus to the universe at present, but only exercises an abstract and inactive ← 32 | 33 → dominion over the universe without affecting it bodily because he has no body. This is because after having accepted that God just created the universe without involvement of his body and possessing vacuous dominion over it, one cannot reconcile God’s non-bodiliness and bodily action – for which Newton uses the inherited scholastic jargon: “He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot exist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God.” [Isaac Newton 1846: 505]
Likewise, his reasoning for the perceived lack of gravitation-based catastrophes in the universe because of God’s placing the celestial bodies at immense distances, comes across today as mythical and naïve:
- ISBN (PDF)
- ISBN (ePUB)
- ISBN (MOBI)
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 2019 (April)
- Quantum and Astrophysical Cosmology Universal Law of Causality Continuous Creation Gravitational Coalescence Paradox Branching Worlds Philosophy of Mathematics
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2018. 647 S.