Ontology of the Universe.
This essay
will show a approach for exposing the metaphysical substance and cause of the
universe using a strict ontological analysis and reduction on our scientific
knowledge in order to separate in it the elements that are created by the
observer from those proper to the universe. In doing so, a number of
correlations will be made with known concepts of physics in order to complete
the ontology of the universe.
The title
of this essay is Ontology of the universe and not “The” or “An” ontology of the
universe. This is because, unlike the empirical system where there are as many
descriptions as there are different experiences and points of view, ontology must by definition, come up with a
single description for the underlying source of many experiences. The
ontological system allows only one logically backed answer; there is only one
true substance and process behind the various description of an experience.
It is
customary to choose a method of investigation and then to elaborate a question
whose formulation and expected answer lies within the allowed subject matter
for that method. This way of proceeding implies that the subject matter,
related questions and scope of the answers is already limited and set the very
moment the method is chosen.
What we
will do here is the reverse. We will bring up the question of interest first,
and then, we will choose the method that is required to answer it.
The present
question is: what is the universe made of, and what makes it work by itself.
This twofold question is essentially about what substance makes up the universe
and about what could be the internal cause that motivates its evolution. Since
most of the universe is the vacuum or space-time or space, we will consider at
first, the ontology of the vacuum.
This
question appears to be simple, but it actually is fairly complex. First, can we
even ask these questions about the universe? The answer is yes. We can ask
these questions based on the fact that the universe existed and was evolving
long before we ever showed up. This means that the universe is not just an
experience that we have, but it has substance and a built-in cause. It can
exist by itself and happen by itself. To study and look for the true nature of
something is called Ontology. Ontology is precisely about describing something
as it is, by itself, outside the scope of our experience. Of course, it is
almost impossible to produce an ontological description without using some
words or symbols that relate to some experience. But a few concepts of logic
and mathematics can be salvaged as being themselves some form of ontological
descriptions that pervades and hold true in all views, sciences etc. without
contest.
The ontological
process cannot start from nothing. We have to apply this process to some body
of knowledge. The surest knowledge or body of information we have is the
scientific knowledge we have acquired over at least 300 years. The first
problem we encounter with science is that it is empirical and essentially
expressed in empirical terms as scientific knowledge is gained from experience.
The second problem is that there are no clear and accepted distinctions between
the various logical groups of information based on their origin, and no spoken
rules dictating their interrelations. Too often we mix information from two
different groups and not surprisingly we end up with a paradoxical statement or
context. Therefore, we will now address the partition of the three main bodies
of information of concern here.
It is taken here that our perceptual reality,
all of it, is created by how we experience the real ontological universe.
Consequently, it is up to us to identify in these experiences what is inherent to the universe and what is
created by us, our vision, our thinking etc.
We may
recognize here three different sets of information, each internally consistent
in its logic, based on the origin and processes that produced that information. The first one (A) is the real
(ontological) universe that is what is by itself and happens by itself. There
is our reality (B), which is defined as the information created by the direct
experience of the real universe trough our senses, the processing of their
signals by our brain and our consciousness. The third realm is about our
scientific knowledge(C), its models and analysis of (B) that involves the
processes of the universe described in terms common to our reality.
Three
realms are described above. The first one is the real universe (A) described as
what things are and do by themselve. The second one is our reality (B),
described as our straight daily experience of the first realm (A). The third
realm (C) is our scientific analysis of our reality or of the second realm (B).
It would appear that each realm comprises elements of information gained or
produced in the same way and that they are, for that reason, internally
logical. For (A), its generating process is taken as a Big Bang process. This
may sound a bit hard to grasp so I will go on with an example. In the evening,
I can go out in the evening and see at the same moment, the sun setting, the
moon and a few stars. This is our reality (B). On the other hand, our
scientific analysis (C) of this experience reveals that the stars are a few
millions light-years away and consequently millions of years away. The sun is
about eight minutes away from us and the moon is half a second away. Since one
cannot logically consider these subjects to be both “at the same moment” and “away
in time”, an exclusive choice has to be made that defines these two separate
domains (B) and (C). Logic dictates that both views are not logically
compatible. ( Do not let these large distances fool you! There is no set lower
limit to this fact. Contrary to the perceptions of our reality everything is
away in time from you and from everything else. Because no communication is
instantaneous, there is always some time, no matter how little, between any two
points.) This example shows that our analysis of our reality produces
information that is not logically compatible with the straight perception of
our reality. Similarly, we can’t use our scientific models to describe the real
universe because these models are descriptions in terms of experiences. These terms
have no meaning or existence in the real universe because they would imply our
required presence to ‘live” these experiences. That would be contrary to a
proper ontology where things are understood as existing and happening without
any reference to how we experience them.
Still, much
understanding can be extracted from all three realms as long as we respect
their logical limits. We can establish mathematical correlations between (B)
and (C) as science is about, as long as we don’t attribute any logical status
to these correlations. Doing so would open the door to paradoxes of the type
shown above with the stars and sun….
It is now
clear that the ontological process would have to work on the scientific
analysis
(C) of our
reality (B) in order to remove from it elements purely created by our
experience. Since we are to remove elements of experiences from the scientific
information, the ontological analysis will be a subtractive and reductive
process leading to a simplification. Also, most of what can learned from
science is not written down yet. It will have to be logically inferred or
deduced from this knowledge. This ontological analysis will form a new body (D)
or set of information with its own internal logic provided that we keep a
consistent approach. We could say that realm (D) is the least altered version
of (A), owing the slight and necessary discrepancy to the usage of words of our
own to describe this realm.
The
ontological analysis starts by removing dimensions created by our experience.
In the example above we showed that there is always time between any two
points. If any of these points are on the standard meter, the principle still
holds. This means that a moment in time,
defined as a group of points all at the same moment or, without any time
between them, is just a small single point. The whole meter cannot fit inside a
single moment. The consequence of this is clear and unavoidable. The
ontological analysis of our own
scientific analysis of our reality reveals that space does not exist in
the real universe. It is strange that both time and space are calmly dealt with
in our scientific models, while the very meaning of space-time and of a speed limit in the universe readily forbid the
existence of space in the real universe. From this we can conclude that space
is just a tool we create in order to navigate and position ourselves in our
reality. It makes sense that space plays no role in the universe since atoms,
for example, only react to what touches them, as they have no ideas of how far
things are. In science, the use of “space” allows us to come up with background
independent equations, describing events just as if, like us, atoms new how far
things were from them.
Since I
just pulled the space carpet right from under your feet, I owe you some
explanations as to how we create the “carpet” in the first place. In the
example above about the stars, sun and moon; what did these three subjects
appear to have in common? They were seen at the same moment or their light
signals coincided at the point of observation. Our point of view is just that,
a coincidence. The observer is at the center of a sphere of coincidence. Any
light information happening to coincide at our point of observation is deemed
as at “the same moment”, irrespective of when these light rays started their
journeys. Similarly, we perceive the standard meter as one full object at one
moment because we can’t perceive that the object is away in time from us and
that all the points of the meter are away in time from each other. Basically,
we create space by the integration of perceived coincidences. By integration I
mean that we are slow. If we were extremely rapid and discriminate we would
perceive each incoming photon separately. But in doing so we could not
accumulate them in a sufficient number to form a picture. Luckily, we are slow
and like a photographic emulsion, we accumulate or integrate enough to form a coincidence space. Why three dimensions?
As said above, we are at the center of a sphere of coincidence, and a sphere
just happens to divide well according to three axis. This is literally a point of view which comes from the fact
that we are not spreaded all over the place but ponctual and in one place. So,
we are forced by our very nature into one point of view. There are no
dimensions in the real universe, not this kind at least. At this point it is hard not to continue
with the concept of perceived time.
If we
compare two successive coincidence spaces and denote a non-coincidence we say
something changed. These changes, motion etc are non-coincidences that are our
clues about the passage of time. The coincidence spaces can be visual, auditory
or any other senses. Any changes or non-coincidences between two successive
spaces are our clues about the passage of time. This is why, in the process of
perception, we can say that a coincidence space must be formed before a non-coincidence can be
perceived between two coincidence spaces.
Let’s
resume our ontological analysis. We just knocked off “space” from the real
universe. This subtraction leaves us with “time”. This ontological time is
obviously very different from the perceived non-coincidence of the hands on a
clock between two coincidence spaces. We have from the theory of relativity
quite a few clues about the properties of time that are indications of a true
ontological substance. First of all, we do not perceive the passage time per se but rather its effect on the rate
of evolution of various processes. Since we cannot experience it directly but
by virtue of its effects on processes, it does already have an essential
quality of a substance; this (ontological) time is not a direct experience.
Secondly, it is known from the Theory of Relativity that the rate of passage of
time is slower in a gravitational field and that consequently, its rate varies
vertically above ground. Something that has at least one property, a rate of
passage or evolution which can assume different values in different places does
present itself like a substance. In the example of clocks in the gravitational
field, we must understand that the same clock can be moved up or down and it
will consequently go faster or slower compared to a second clock. The inference
to be made here is that the clock only gives an indication of the rate of
passage of time where it is located and that there is a true (dynamical
substance) underlying the measurement of time.
The passage of time appears as continuously extended, variable and of a
dynamic nature.
So, we have
substance, and as the passage of time, it is a dynamic substance. What about a
cause? For us to find an ontological cause, we have to apply the question to a
dynamic process or experience. For this, it would be wise to choose a
spontaneous process because this removes any causality from our part in it. The
gravitational fall of an object remains the best laboratory for the study of a
spontaneous process.
(The word
“cause” is not well defined. It is a recursive concept that can go back to the
creation of the universe. But the cause
of a specific event is more about the rules dictating the outcome given a
specific context. The most likely contender for these rules is LOGIC. This is
because, no matter how we view these underlying processes, these processes have
to obey or not contradict simple rules of logic. Logic regroups unavoidable
facts about this universe that can’t be transgressed either in (B), (C) or any
other epistemological domain. The rules of the universe are, in some way,
hidden under de veil of our own pragmatism. A substance cannot be and not be in a certain state at the same time. This simple rule of
non-contradiction is only one of a few basic rules of logic the real universe
(A) has to go by. On that account, we did not invent basic logic! Because logic
transcends all domains, we just took it from the experience and observation in
(B) as a set of consistent behaviors and expectations from the universe. Since
(A) is the ontological origin of subsequent domains, it is primitive and
unique. What the substance of (A) is, and what rule/cause that makes it evolve is not a transform or point of view
anymore. In (A), the irreducible description is the actual mechanism. The key to this conclusion is that a
spontaneous event is only possible by way of it own internal substance and
causal context.)
Here are
two ways to consider the gravitational fall of an object. The first one is to
experience it in our reality (B). An object released above ground will, by
itself, fall to the ground. The second way to consider the same event is by
using what scientific information (C) we have about the context and background
of this event. We know that the rate of passage of time varies in a
gravitational field. This is evidenced by its effect on various events like
clocks as demonstrated in many experiments about General Relativity. The
gravitational field varies and weakens as we move away from earth.
Consequently, the rate of passage of time increases as we move away from earth.
( A clock is but a spontaneous event, the rate of which is dependant on the
rate of passage of time where the clock is located. We know we can’t rush time
and accordingly, all time measuring devices are based on a spontaneous event.
Examples of this are the sand falling in the hourglass, the spontaneous
electronic transition in an excited atom, the mechanical relaxation of a quartz
crystal etc….)
The
ontological analysis of these two views (B) and (C) about gravitational fall
will create a new logical set of information. By combining the ontological
concepts of the two previous views we may create a third interpretation (D).
The event can now be described in the following way. The object appears to move
spontaneously from where the rate of passage of time is faster, and the motion
is toward where the rate of passage of time is slower. In
this way, we have just made the process context dependant. This spontaneous
fall is not a certainty since I can stop it or slow it, as can any other
influence. We may say that this process is a probability. This spontaneous
motion appears as a probability of something that is higher towards the ground. But a probability of what?
In order to
answer this question, we will first introduce the probability aspect found in
Quantum Mechanics (QM). Many
interesting concepts come from QM. The one that is of interest here is that a
single particle is successfully described as a cloud of probability of
position. This is partly due to the fact that particles appear to be animated
with an incessant motion around a central position. This is consistent with
known models in gas kinematics. For this reason, we will accept that this is an
accurate representation of the actual particle, as it is by itself. This cloud
of probability of position is usually spherical in shape because the particle
spends on average an equal amount of time anywhere around that central point.
Thus, the shape, position and motion of this cloud depend on the uniformity or
non-uniformity of the rate of passage of time in that location. Since
everything is made these particles, we will consider as valid the extension of
this principle to whole objects made of them. From here, we need one more
concept to tie up things together and this is “Existence as a function of time
of residence.”
Existence: Time
Telling Where Things Should Be.
The concept
of existence as a function of time is explained as follow. If an object is in a
place P for 5 minutes and then moved to place Q where it stays for 10 minutes,
we then say that the object existed twice as much in Q as in P. There appear to
be no visible difference in the object. This is because the difference is in
how the universe was changed by the stay in P and in Q. The gravitational
message or signature of the object has travel twice as far when it was in place
Q then when it was in place P. This has in some way a similarity with Mach’s
principle. But here, because we assume that time passes everywhere, we
recognize that how long an event takes to happen or how long something stays in
one place does matter to the universe. How long an object stays in one place
does change the way the universe sees this object. This principle is similar to
the center of mass of bodies in orbit like the Earth and the Moon. Similar to a
Keplerian orbit around the Sun where the time of residence determines the
position of the long focus. The center of
existence is, for example, that point where a single jiggling particle may
never find itself and yet, may appear to be as seen by the whole universe.
Since existence is a function of the time spent in one place, a particle
subjected to a differential in the rate passage of time will also experience a
differential in its existence. Because its existence will be more probable in a
specific direction, the object will exist more or move in that direction. But in which direction shall it move? Shall
it move towards a faster passage of time or towards a slower one?
To answer
the above question, let’s consider what happens in Earth’s gravitational field.
We know that in a gravitational field the rate of passage of time increases as
we move away from Earth. So to speak, time runs faster at our head than at our
feet. If I let an object fall, it will consequently be understood as moving
spontaneously from a place where time runs faster towards a place where time
runs relatively slower. We have our answer. An object subjected to a
differential in the rate of passage of time shall move in the differential in
the direction of slower passage of time. In other words, the object tends to
exist more where it stays longer, which is similar to the above example with
places P and Q. This is a simple logical consequence and there are no other
reasons for the gravitational fall. The logical answer to how gravitation works
is also the internal logical cause, or why, it happens spontaneously.
Our reality
is a function of how we relate to the universe. Physics studies this relation
in order to find out clues about the real universe. But this knowledge is based
on a relation that collapses if we remove one end of the relation or, the
observer. Logically, in order for us to even consider that the universe existed
long before we ever showed up, we have to admit substance and permanence to
some of our scientific concepts. In other words, in order to understand how the
universe works by itself instead of -appears to work-, we have to admit its
independent existence in some form, as well as an independent built-in
causality for its spontaneity. - One interesting consequence of using the
concept of existence is that it is truly universal. A differential in the
probability of existence will affect anything that exists. As we know,
everything is equally affected by gravitation. Another consequence is that
pretty much everything that exists has some mass/matter and therefore creates
its own surrounding little time rate gradient, in the same way that the Earth
does. In a way, everything attracts everything else to some degree. These two
consequences make this explanation as universal as gravitation is known to be.
Logic transcends the levels and views from QM to GR and this view applies
equally to existing subatomic particles, people, planets and galaxies.
Early in
this essay, I said that we would look for the ontology of the universe in its
most abundant constituent; the vacuum or space. We have presented the notion of
a substance that is dynamic and that evolves in a spontaneous way. In the above
description, the process of gravitational fall was described as a higher
probability of existence affecting in one direction the probability of position
of sub-atomic particles. In turn, whole objects were deemed as well representing
the behavior of these sub-atomic particles that constitute them. In the end,
the exercise may have been superfluous since a probability of existence will
affect anything that exists, whether taken at the sub-atomic level or as a
whole. This approach presents us with an additional insight. Because the
ontological passage of time is a substance, it does also exist. Therefore, the
passage of time should also be subjected to the (local) passage of time. And it
does! How else would the presence of earth affect the moon at a distance (and
vice-versa)? The passage of time in one place is a spontaneous event, like a
clock, subjected to neighboring rates of passage of time. The behavior of a
fluid under pressure is a good way to visualize this. But matter does appear to
us as existing because we can interact with it. Could it be made of the passage
of time as well? Yet, nowhere in this
essay have we described matter as being made of the same substance as the
vacuum.
There are a
few different ways in which one may come to the conclusion that matter is in
fact made of some variation of the
passage of time. In a first method,
for example, if the presence of matter slows down the passage of time as shown
in General Relativity, it may be because it replaces or substitute itself
locally to the passage of time. And it can do so logically and by itself only
if/if matter is of the same nature as the passage of time, but a different
species or dynamic variation. The rule of non-contradiction would forbid the
passage of time in one place to be both “passage of time” and “variation” of
the passage of time. This simple rule of logic in fact prevents the universe to
be same whether matter is present or not. This approach is apparently holistic
and definitely background dependant.
The first
way or method involved the dynamic substance and variations of it and the rule
of non-contradiction. This second method
is based on the intrinsic causality of a spontaneous event or phenomenon. In
this method we make use of our scientific models, themselves, a pre-ontological
appreciation of the universe. In the gravitational process, the motion of the
object is explained as the logical resolution of an existential differential
created by a differential in rate of the passage of time. The differential in
the rate of the passage of time around a mass is what we experience as
gravitation. In other words, the differential in the rate of passage of time is
the cause for this spontaneity. We will therefore transpose this structure to
another entity that travels in a spontaneous way; the photon. In this way, we
represent the photon as a single cycle sine wave composed of a front depression
in the rate of passage of time and a back hump of an increase in the rate of
passage of time. It is a traveling wave of variation in the rate of passage of
time. This model present many interesting features. First, its motion is
spontaneous and it travels by itself because its time rate structure, as shown
in the gravitational field, is that of motion itself. Secondly, it is also
directional because of the alignment or sequence of the two time rate
variations of which it is made. Thirdly, this presents us with a photon that
travels at the “speed of time”. This
suggests that the speed of light is also the speed of expansion or evolution of
the passage of time! This would effectively account for the fact that it is the
fastest speed possible.
We need one
more correlation in order to complete our second method. This correlation uses
the process of pair creation. In this process, a gamma photon turns into an
electron and positron. This is creation in the sense that energy is converted
directly into matter. The ontological interpretation of this process is that
matter is made of the same nature as the photon. An ontological substance
cannot change its nature. In other words, (this) ontology does not recognize
any process capable of changing the nature of a substance. That would be
against the “nature” of a substance. So, the path of this second method is as
follow. The photon is very much functional as a time rate variation. Matter is
of the same nature as the photon. Therefore, matter is also made of some
species or variation of the rate of passage of time. A quick Third method is to say that the whole
universe coming from a single extremely small point as in the Big Bang would
have to be in all its parts of the same nature since no further post Big Bang
processes would be capable of changing the nature of anything. Another quick fourth method says that if the universe
follows logic it would have no logical way of how to deal with more than one
substance/nature. No basic operational logic exists for the interaction of
substances of different nature. ( This the old apples & oranges principle)
Up to now, this
essay has linked in a way or another many concepts of physics to this ontology
of the universe based on the passage of time and its variations. These concepts
are; gravitation, the photon, electric and magnetic field, the speed of light,
the nature of the vacuum and matter. This last association of matter to this
group allows a total integration of these concepts at an ontological level in a
scheme based on one dynamic substance and its variation, guided in its
spontaneous evolution by simple but compulsory rules of logic.
Many
refinements are still required within the methods presented as well as more
research in these few rules of logic that drive this universe. A more complete
characterization of the passage of time can be extracted from both Quantum
Mechanics and General Relativity. I believe this ontology has an interesting
future as the meeting place of science, logic and philosophy.
Marcel-Marie
LeBel
2005-07-03