On the Origins of the Universe

An inquiry into the implications
        that may be derived
                from the observation of our natural environs
                        regarding their origins.

To Lucasta, Going to the Wars
Tell me not, sweet, I am unkind
That from nunnery of thy chaste breast and quiet mind,
To war and arms I fly.

True, a new mistress now I chase,
The first foe in the field; and with a stronger faith embrace
A sword, a horse, a shield.

Yet this inconstancy is such
As you too shall adore…I could not love thee, dear, so much
Loved I not honor more!
Richard Lovelace

Preamble.

It’s paradoxical! Why are we constantly debating such an old question? Where is the wisdom of the ages? How is it that such an elementary matter has remained the subject of heated debate for generations until it’s reduced to little more than an exchange of rancorous rhetoric? Should I look to the illuminati for knowledge? Should I subscribe to the views of either side? I would like to. It’s safe there, hiding behind defamations and vituperation without concern for truth; and I would…loved I not honor more! So a pox on the prejudices of both sides…may your vilification grace your own heads…and may the truth out!

Let’s pose the question.

1. What is the question?

Let’s use caution. Any debater knows you can pose a question such that it invites the desired answer, but that’s dishonesty because it poisons the inquiry by suggesting the conclusion. Such technique seeks not truth, but only self justification. The proper starting point, the one that will have the greatest probability of leading to truth, is a question that, by its very form and nature, invites open and honest inquiry, including criticism from all sides. So to pose our question, we are going to reject the current form, not out of disrespect for the existing wisdom, but simply because the current form imposes inappropriate limits on the answer.

We’re not going to ask whether (1) God created the universe or (2) it just came into existence on it’s own. These questions are valid for everyday conversation, but they simply do not constitute a proper starting point for an honest and open inquiry of this type, and again, that’s because they contain the anticipated outcome in the statement of the question. A more honest and open question would be: “What brought the universe into existence?” This would allow us to conduct a more objective inquiry into the facts apart from the influence of the prejudices that tend to lead toward a premature conclusion.

Why is this important? Well, in addition to being the more honest approach, it also leaves us open to the fact that there might be other viable possibilities. For example: perhaps something definable created the universe, but that definable something was not God. If this is true, we would want to know it. If it’s true, we would want the facts brought out by our inquiry to lead us here. But then again, it may be that the universe never had a beginning but has always been here in a state of quasi infinite-omnipotent self-existence. Again, if this is the truth, then this where we want the facts, and our inquiry, to lead us.

The point is this:

That we should start by asking the real question, and then let an honest inquiry lead us to the most probably correct conclusion – even recognizing that we may not have the ability to reach a definite or indisputable conclusion at all! But if that’s our conclusion, then that’s the truth, the wisdom, we want to arrive at. It doesn’t mean someone else can’t do better, but that’s the result of the inquiry as it was conducted within the context of our abilities and resources. We don’t want to lie just because we don’t like our answer!
So we should be objective enough in our honest search for the truth to accept whatever conclusion we are led to, no matter what it is, because from the start we were only seeking the truth.

So let’s begin by stating the question as openly as possible. May I suggest the following:

What were the pre-existing conditions, if any, that generated the universe?

2. Now let’s analyze the question.

Inasmuch as this question deals with some of the most elementary (fundamental) truths imaginable, such as the very essence of our existence, we might do well to look first at who’s asking. We probably shouldn’t have to go here but, as you may be aware, there are actually those who seriously call our existence into question! …so if we don’t exist, who’s asking, and why bother to answer. So let’s start, as matter of necessity, with the Cartesian assumption (“I think, therefore I exist”) and extend it such that our personal and community awareness (such as it is, or may be…and whatever its essence) stands as adequate impetus for our inquiry (even if it can’t prove our existence to those whose existence is an illusion). Oh, by the way, I’ve always wondered: if you’re an illusion, which one of you is having the illusion? I mean, are you having an illusion, or is the illusion having a you? Never mind…
Okay, then, with the assumption that we exist – “we” including all parties to this discussion – let’s extend the notion of our existence out to include the universe as we commonly refer to it in casual conversation. That gives us ourselves to conduct the inquiry, and a universe to inquire about.
Now let’s turn our attention back to “the question” – but understand that we’re still working on preliminaries. We need to check our motives…why did we ask the question in the first place? Most fundamentally, because we’re curious creatures; but more than that, because we’ve already made some observations. For example, everything that we know of seems to be progressing away from its origins. There is nothing in the universe that is not involved to some degree in “progression” (that is, making progress from one condition to another) and every progression is moving “away from it’s origins” whether we know what those origins are or not. But are we sure? How do we know this? Suffice it to say that we, the human race, did not start our investigations into our surroundings yesterday…and after considerable observation we have never yet noted, recorded, or even hypothesized a progression of events that moves away from its conclusions and toward its origins. Again, we may not be able to offer absolute proof that no such thing has ever happened, but the high quality of consistency in the lack of evidence to the contrary sufficiently qualifies the idea as “reliable truth.” (Reliable truth is truth you can demonstrate to be dependable within the context of your own environs, whether you can determine it’s relation to the absolute or not.)
So now we exist, the universe exists, and we’ve validated our question because now we realize that, as curious beings. we’re simply looking for that single point of origin from which all progressions have their ultimate beginning. Oh, do be careful! Did we just make an undefined assumption? Who says there had to be a single point of origin? Why not multiple points? After all, considering the truly vast extent, the complexity, and the observable tendency of the universe to be highly repetitive in all its other activities (progressions) why would we not expect it to be highly repetitive in its origins as well? So what if it’s universally consistent in its appearance. If the conditions that generated the universe were consistent, then it’s reasonable to expect that which is generated to be consistent as well, isn’t it? Oops, another assumption! Why would conditions that generated the universe be consistent? Well, we don’t know, do we?...seeing we haven’t discovered those conditions yet. So that point is mute for right now…but let’s keep our minds open to all possibilities. Who knows what we might find?

3. Now let’s look at our strategy for answering this question.

We live in the universe. In fact, our very existence seems to be defined in terms of the universe. Yet we want to inquire into the conditions that spawned it! Now there’s a bit of a problem here, because to the best of our investigative ability to date no scientist or philosopher has ever been able to observe the type of generative event or occurrence we’re looking for – and it hasn’t been for lack of trying. But fairly early on in the development of the sciences, “laws” of nature were formulated declaring that no such act could occur! Hmmm…

The event has never been observed,
the fathers of modern science have stipulated “laws” that it can’t occur,
…and we’re looking for it!

Let’s think about that for a moment, because I don’t think the fathers of the sciences were trying to say the generative acts couldn’t occur. Rather, I believe they were just saying there was no means within the known universe for us to bring about such an occurrence. They called it the “conservation of mass and energy.” In a nutshell it meant that no matter how you induce the components of the known universe to interact, the sum total of mass and energy after the interaction would be precisely equal to the sum total before. That means you can’t do anything in the universe to induce a generative event…an event that results in more mass and energy after the experiment than before.

Now here’s an interesting point…everyone seems to be agreed on this. Of all the people involved in this debate about the origins of the universe, no one on any side even attempts to demonstrate the validity of their view by means of the performance of a generative act in the laboratory. So it would seem that the consensus of opinion on all sides is that, even if “creation” is occurring somewhere in the universe, or the realm that generates (or generated) the universe, it is not within the scope of our capabilities to become so involved. That’s why we’re all looking back, philosophically, to the “ultimate origins” to answer these questions, rather than pursuing the more usual methodology of laboratory experimentation! And since I certainly have no extraordinary generative capacity, unless the inquiry leads elsewhere, I believe (at this point) that this inquiry will be of a philosophical nature as well.

So now we know we exist, the universe exists, we’re working on a valid question, and we’re going to be working within the context of philosophical inquiry rather than laboratory experimentation - because we probably don’t have any means of observing, detecting, or otherwise interacting with the actual components of the generative “forces” that brought our universe into being. So there’s no point in talking about actual substance or action within that realm because we simply can’t hope to accurately imagine what the conditions or mechanisms might be (or have been). All we can discuss is the principles that necessarily had to be involved. That’s where we go next.

Oh, and by the way, let’s consent to one last assumption on which most parties to the discussion seem to be agreed – that the universe had a beginning. I’ve never seen a mainstream argument that the universe is self-existent, so at least in our initial inquiry, and until something indicates otherwise…inasmuch as the consensus of opinion is that the universe had “ultimate origin(s)” as indicated by its apparent universal progression away from its origins, we’ll start our inquiry in terms of seeking the causes and conditions necessary to that first event.

Finally, time to make the inquiry.

What were the principles necessary for a generative act
in any realm, real or imaginary?

Let’s start with the most fundamental principle of all, the principle of sufficiency which says, “if there was a set of generative conditions that were going to bring about the origination of the universe, or any part of it, those conditions (and that realm in which they existed) must be possessed of sufficient power or ability to cause the event(s) to the degree they did.” Simple enough, right? It just means that if one thing is going to cause another, it must be possessed of sufficient ability to do so. However, within the context of our inquiry, this principle suggests some interesting corollaries; such as:

Sufficiency. A principle of sufficiency, in and of itself, does not necessarily imply action. For example, explosive devices contain the sufficiency within themselves to cause dramatic events. However, potent as they are, they may exist for indeterminate periods of time without actually doing anything. Thus we note that the simple possession of power does not necessarily constitute cause. Couch potatoes are the same. They seem to have ability, but do nothing. To be a cause, a power must act. To act it needs a trigger. We may think of the trigger as the principle of necessity.
Necessity. We should not think of the principle of necessity as an absolute, but as a mathematical probability. An absolute would say that at a specific point, under specific conditions, something must happen; whereas the mathematical probability broadens the scope. In this way we recognize that while we can’t define the exact conditions under which the principle of necessity might trigger the principle of sufficiency, we still include it as part of the generative system and we know that it has acted because the universe exists. However, like sufficiency, necessity also comes with baggage – a corollary.
Complacency. In order for there to be a generative act, sufficiency (those conditions capable of generating a universe) must first exist in a realm of complacency which would be defined as a set of conditions in which there is no compelling need for the sufficiency to act. If this were not true, we would see sufficiency expending itself as it came into existence…at which point we would have to suspend our inquiry into the source of this universe while we sought the source of the sufficiency. That’s why we have to assume a realm of complacency that can hold the assumed principle of sufficiency until the principle of necessity triggers it into action.
The Trigger. But what triggers necessity? Where is necessity looking to detect an deficiency of such a degree as to trigger the principle of sufficiency into action? Let’s simplify. You have a realm, not a place, not a time, just a realm in which there exists the power to create our universe; but it doesn’t need to create the universe until some factor (in that realm or another) becomes so vacuous, so needy, or so deficient as to trigger the necessity for a generative act. Then we assume the necessity triggers the sufficiency which is already there. We don’t really need to know what this deficiency is, or any of the mechanics for that matter. As we’re working strictly with matters of principle, we need only stipulate that, to initiate the generation of our universe, there had to be a principle of necessity (a mathematical probability) detecting a degree of deficiency adequate to trigger the principle of sufficiency such that an act would occur.
The Regulator. But we’re not quite done yet. Given the nature of the universe as we observe it around us, we also need to know what system controlled or limited the generative act. While the universe seems infinite in terms of the vast distances over which it’s stretched, in reality it’s only a thin, barely visible cloud of dust when viewed in terms of the volume of space it occupies. So why wasn’t the rest of the space filled up? When the act was performed, did the principle of necessity function as a reverse feedback loop that shut down the principle of sufficiency when the deficiency was lessened to a certain degree, or satisfied? Or did the principle of sufficiency, what ever it was, once released simply expend itself until it was completely exhausted. In other words, could the universe have been made bigger, or more dense? Is what we got all there was, or was the generative act stopped (or slowed) as the deficiency was satisfied (or neared satisfaction) leaving the principle of sufficiency in place and fully capable of another act, should the principle of necessity happen to notice another deficiency?

Let’s create a mental picture of what we have up to this point. There are two resident principles, sufficiency and deficiency. These are not in contact and do not know each other. If they did, they would neutralize or destroy one another. There is also one connecting principle, necessity, that communicates the deficiency to the sufficiency, triggering it into action, and also acting as a feedback loop, signifying when the deficiency has been satisfied. It might look like this:

…where Necessity provides the detection and feedback that initiates and regulates the Generative act of the Sufficiency on behalf of the Deficiency. It’s really just as simple as that. We have two non-existent realms…they have to be non-existent: the realm of the deficiency is where the universe, which has not yet been created, is going to be; and the realm of the sufficiency can’t exist or we’d have to suspend this investigation in favor or searching for its origins, and those origins, and those origins, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. So again, we have two non-existent realms that are not aware of each other (there is no such thing as awareness – or each other for that matter) being connected by a nonexistent entity called necessity such that the realm of sufficiency generously and appropriately responds to the need of the realm of deficiency and voila! …you have the universe in all its magnificent glory!

I believe we can stop this line of inquiry now, not that the inquiry is invalid in any way, but we have described, in principle, a complex mechanism and attributed to it the ability to generate the entire known universe. Had our inquiry led us to a singularity, a simple and momentary phenomenon of nature, we might have accepted the conclusions to which this line of reasoning forced us; but a complex non-existent system, no way. When logic, even good logic, forces you to nonsense, you stop and rethink. We might imagine that a singular phenomenon of nature had no origin and was not involved in progressions as all of nature is, but a complex mechanism cannot be viewed that way. The principle of complexity necessarily implies progression, and progression implies both origins and continuation. Shall we seek the origins of the mechanism that gave us our origins? I think not. Even if we did, the logical process would be exactly the same, leading us to exactly the same conclusion. And where is that complex mechanism now, in its state of continuation? Don’t we wonder?

Or…is it really time to stop? Are we shirking our duty to the truth? Have we exhausted the possibilities, or are we turning away from the inquiry just because we don’t like its implications? The question was valid…we determined that at the start. If the question is valid, what are the facts telling us?

What else do we know? Let’s review…

There is no credible laboratory experimentation to demonstrate that generative powers reside in the properties of the known universe. (There is speculation that matter is being created in the cores of some of the densest galaxies, but that begs the question of necessity…why would matter be created where it is least needed? It might be true, but it’s counterintuitive, speculative, and offers nothing in terms of our question regarding the generation of the universe of which those dense galactic cores are only an extremely minute portion.)
The fathers of modern science gave us “laws” (statements of principle) that stipulated that generative powers do not reside in the properties of the known universe.
All the empirical, rational, and intuitive data we have seems to imply an origin for our universe…and all the most ardent supporters of all sides of the argument, such as it is, lean toward this persuasion.

Therefore we are again forced to look outside the universe for a source, a generative power. Furthermore, that source must – must – satisfy the principles set forth above. We did run through that exercise as a matter of inquiring into the truth. In so doing we spoke only of principle, and not of substance or mechanic at all, so the conclusions should be true, even if our first conclusion was a little untenable. Furthermore, in making our observations we made no attempt to credit or discredit any current views. However, the facts did lead us down a very specific path, one that discredited any notion that nature itself could have been the originator of the universe. So where else can we now look, but to God? So in fairness, let’s apply the test to God as we did to nature.

But before we do, we need to ask ourselves an honest question: why did our inquiry lead us away from nature (to a nonsensical natural solution) but not to God? After all, if God is a major part of the debate and nature is not the solution, shouldn't our logic have led us there. Not necessarily. We simply ended with nonsense in nature because, being natural and living within the realm of nature, we conducted our inquiry in terms of nature. This was not dishonest. If we were God, or like God, no doubt the inquiry, having been conducted in that realm, would have lead us to a conclusion in terms of the realm in which the inquiry was conducted – but we aren’t, so it didn’t. We need not be alarmed that the inquiry didn’t lead us to God. However, as intelligent creatures, and recognizing that we have access to information in that realm as well, we would be negligent to overlook the possibility, strictly as a matter of prejudice, that God might have been involved in the generative act that brought about the universe. So let’s do that next. It should be a simple matter…we have already determined the necessary working principles. Now we simply apply them to God. But before we do, let’s make some honest assumptions.

Inasmuch as we can’t see or otherwise detect God with our natural senses or instrumentation, let’s assume that God lives in a different realm; that God is not part of the created universe.
Inasmuch as hundreds of generations of mankind have believed that God has communicated with this realm, let’s accept the common wisdom and assume that God is a living person having the properties characteristic of intelligence.

I know that for many people these are highly controversial assumptions, but please bear in mind that we have not yet assumed God exists. We have only assumed certain reasonable characteristics, just as we did when evaluating the possibilities for nature which we also treated as not existing. Having done so, we can now apply our logic in this realm as we did to the natural realm. As noted before, the principles are the same. We don’t have to understand the substance or the mechanic involved for the principles to be true. So…

Does God satisfy the principle of sufficiency? The common wisdom says he does. The common wisdom says that same thing about nature, but we’ve already proven that to be incorrect, so lighten up. I haven’t violated any rules of logic yet.
Does God satisfy the principle of necessity? If he has indeed revealed himself from that realm to this, then he certainly satisfies this principle, being capable of perceiving a need where nothing existed (the principle of deficiency). Note, however, that to God the necessity was a matter of perception, not nature, and therefore the trigger was a matter of whim, not necessity.
Does God satisfy the feedback principle? Apparently so. It’s not apparent why he would expend the energy to generate such a huge universe, or why he would leave it so vacuous, but inasmuch as he still exists and did not completely expend himself in the generative act, we would have to say that he satisfies this principle.
Does God satisfy the problems of origin and continuation that plagued us in the natural solution? His communication says he does, being without beginning or end. Can we imagine that? No, but we couldn’t honestly imagine the natural solution meeting this requirement either. As we stipulated at the beginning, we may be led to conclusions that we don’t completely understand, even if they can be put in words, but our inabilities do not necessarily invalidate our logic. We’re still working in the realm of principle.

So it seems that God has satisfied the requirements of our inquiry - and nothing else has…but are we not pushing it just a bit here? We’ve already admitted that our logic is “of nature” and yet here we are applying it to God whom we have agreed is not of nature. Is that valid? Well, inasmuch as it worked, let’s say that it seems so – and why not? Is God offended by nature? Is God offended by logic? No, and no. Stepping away from the principle to the reality at last, we have only one step left to validate our necessary conclusion. Let’s check it with God to see if he agrees. His Word, Book One, chapter one, page one, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”

Draw your own conclusions...you will anyway. At the beginning I said we were looking for an honest and open inquiry so, if you think I cheated, or you see a flaw in my reasoning, by all means, please bring it on! …but be honest! Who knows what we might learn?