Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!


Copyright © 2000, Richard J. Hanak


The Universe On Trial

[EXCERPT]

CHAPTER 1

DOUBT

Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom.
Clarence Darrow

We never doubt the existence of food and drink because they are so familiar to us. They sustain our lives, relieve our hunger and thirst, and give us pleasure. We have direct experiences with them daily. Our language and sense of meaning are based on direct experiences. Since we can think and communicate only with a meaningful language, direct experiences are at the heart of our ability to obtain knowledge of our selves and of the world about us.
Though it seems almost as familiar to us as food and drink, the universe idea does not come from direct experience. With the naked eye we can see the earth, sun, moon, planets, stars, and even a few galaxies. We have detected the existence of invisible cosmic objects by the radio waves, infrared waves, x-rays, and gamma rays they emit, and by their gravitational effects. But no one has ever seen or sensed the universe, or detected evidence of its existence. Any evidence we have of the existence of electrons, atoms, stars, galaxies, quasars, pulsars, or superclusters is evidence of their own existence, not of the universe's. Nonetheless, we are convinced that there is such a thing as the universe.
Our dictionaries define the universe as the totality of the things that exist or as the whole of existence. Because the unknown can only be described in terms of the known, dictionaries define one word in terms of others, assuming that those others are already known. The definitions of the universe assume that we know the meaning of words like totality, thing, exist, whole, and existence.
If we are not certain about the meanings of the terms used to define the universe we must look up those words in a dictionary. Here are definitions of those terms: totality - a sum taken to a limit; thing - an entity separate from another or others; exist - be; whole - total or undivided; existence - all that exists. Most of those definitions seem straightforward, but not the definition of exist. A strange thing happens in the definition of the word exist as be. If we look up the meaning of the word be, we find it defined as exist. To exist is to be and to be is to exist. Now we are faced with a quandary. Exist and be circularly define each other. How can we find meaning for either of them?
Those two words had different meanings in the past. If we examine the etymology of exist we find that its Latin root meant stand out, as in a tree standing out of a forest. If a thing did not in some way stand out from all other things, we could never be aware of it; we could never know it; and as far as we are concerned there would be no such thing—it would not exist.
The verb be serves many uses in our language. Its most important purpose is to denote tense: the time of a particular action or state as with was, is, and will be. However, before we can know that something is in a particular action or state, we must first of all be aware of the thing itself. It must in some way stand out from everything else. Now we can see why be became used as a metaphor for exist.
From our direct experiences we know that there are things that exist or stand out. In the definition of the universe the idea of things that exist does not need clarification. The notion of totality with respect to the things that exist, however, seems murky. Let us analyze it with successive substitutions of dictionary definitions. The universe is the totality of the things that exist.
A totality is a sum taken to a limit.
The universe is the sum, taken to a limit, of the things that exist.
A limit is a final boundary.
The universe is the sum, taken to a final boundary, of the things that exist.
A boundary is a place where something ceases to be or another thing or things begin.
The universe is the sum, taken to a final place were the universe ceases to be or where another thing or other things begin, of the things that exist.
In the last extended definition of the universe we can immediately detect problems with the idea of a boundary. That notion of a boundary is even quite at odds with modern ideas of the universe. There can be no place where the universe ceases to be. The universe must include all space and all places; the universe can have no boundary in that sense. A boundary of the universe cannot be where something else or other things begin, since by definition the universe must include all things. The universe cannot have a boundary in any sense. There can be no limit to the things that exist, no sum of the things that exist, no totality of the things that exist. The definition of the universe harbors a covert self-contradiction; it requires a totality of something that cannot have a totality.
The notion of totality presents another problem unique to the definition of the universe. What should be included in that totality? Consider water, for example. Water is one of the things that exist. Some water is in the form of discrete aggregates of liquid such as oceans, lakes, rivers, quarts in bottles, or drops of falling rain, while some water is in the form or vapor or ice. Those divisions of water are not ultimate. We know, in addition, that there is hierarchical structure in nature. Water consists of molecules. Those molecules, in turn, are composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The atoms are made up of electrons and nuclei. Even those nuclei are not ultimate particles.
When we consider the totality of all the water that exists, that totality is only a part of all that exists. What, then, of the hierarchy included in that water, the discrete bodies, the molecules, atoms, nuclei, electrons, and so on? They are also things that exist. If they are also included in the grand total, the totality of all that exists, we seem to include the same things more than once: first as bodies of water, next as water molecules, next as atoms, then as sub-atomic particles, and so on. That makes for a very strange kind of totality that certainly goes against standard accounting practice.
A further problem lurks in the totality of all that exists. The notion of totality assumes some kind of limit. We have briefly glimpsed the natural hierarchy. All past ideas of ultimate objects, ultimate particles, and hierarchy limiting things proved to be wrong. Ancient Greek philosopher Democritus thought matter was made of things that could not be divided into smaller things. He called those things uncuttable things or atoms. We have no evidence of ultimate smallest or ultimate largest things. No line of reasoning shows ultimate objects as necessary. At the beginning of the twentieth century galaxies were thought to be ultimate things, building blocks of the universe. Now we know that galaxy clusters are larger. The recently discovered superclusters of galaxy clusters are larger still. Our knowledge of the largest and smallest continuously changes.
The ultimate particle assumption is not required by any theory. There are no ultimate objects. The natural hierarchy is open-ended at both ends: the large and the small. The idea of totality of things is meaningless for an open-ended hierarchy. For that reason alone there cannot be such a thing as the universe. But there are many other reasons. Unlike anything else we know, for example, the universe would be the only ultimate object.
Now the universe definition is faced not merely with a self-contradiction, but with a fundamental lack of meaning for the totality it requires. The definition requires a totality of that which can have no totality; and it requires an indefinable, unrealistic totality. That definition is in deep trouble.
The second definition, the whole of existence, must also be examined. The whole of existence is equivalent to the whole of all that exists. Whole has two kinds of meanings. The first is total, whose meaning, as we have seen, results in a self-contradictory and trouble fraught definition. The second kind of meaning for whole is entire or undivided. If we consider something as whole, we consider it as having all its parts. Now we run afoul of a puzzle. What are parts of the universe?
Atoms are parts of stars, not parts of the universe. Stars are parts of galaxies, also not parts of the universe. The same can be said for anything smaller than an atom and larger than a galaxy. Nature has an open-ended hierarchical structure. There are no ultimate parts that could be parts, or building blocks, of the universe. The idea of wholeness is meaningless in regard to the universe. The second definition of the universe has no meaning.
We have found that the universe has one self-contradictory definition requiring an indefinable totality and one meaningless definition. Since the universe can be neither the totality of the things that exist nor the whole of existence, it cannot be what it is defined to be, and there cannot be such thing as the universe. What a totally strange notion! It will take some time to get used to it.
Some critics may say that all of this is merely playing with semantics. I ask those critics how can we think about anything without knowing the meaning of the words with which we think? We are not born with the idea of the universe. We learn it from the words of teachers. Someone in the distant past created the idea of the universe, unwittingly embodying a self-contradiction in its definition. Why did that happen?
If the definition of the universe were the only problem with the universe idea we might be tempted to stop here and think of it no more. But we will see that there are many other problems with the universe idea, and those problems are not trivial. The universe idea itself is not trivial. People of the recent past have been excommunicated, imprisoned, or killed because of their ideas of the universe. Modern cosmologists devote their lives and use valuable resources in studies for theories based on the universe idea. They believe the universe to be our ultimate environment.
All animals must have knowledge of their environment in order to survive; so must we. Our environment includes the depths of space. We must know what is out there and whether or not we are in a universe. We have based several interpretations of our world on the assumption that there is such a thing as the universe. If there is no such thing as the universe those interpretations must be re-formulated.
Several religions include the notion of the universe in their teachings. That is where most people learn that there is a universe. Because of that religious connection, the universe idea has strong emotional content. Although emotions are a valuable and necessary part of our lives they are not conducive to clear, dispassionate thinking. We should not be surprised that there has been little questioning of whether or not there really is such a thing as the universe. In the religious and cosmological establishments there may be many people with a vested interest in sustaining the universe idea.
Philosophers and astronomers formulated the old descriptions of the universe. Modern professional cosmology was born in 1929 when astronomer Edwin Hubble disclosed the relationship he discovered between the red shift of light from galaxies and their distances from us. Albert Einstein and others had previously published mathematical models of the universe requiring that the universe either contract or expand. Hubble, therefore, interpreted his relationship to represent expansion of the universe. That relationship, now known as Hubble's law, is the cornerstone of modern cosmological theories. Is it possible that cosmologists are headed into a blind alley creating theories about a universe that does not exist? Could Hubble's law represent something other than expansion of the universe?
The universe idea is in trouble with more than just its definition. On further examination we will find so many things wrong with the universe idea that we will no longer find it meaningful. The evidence against the universe idea will be overwhelming.
Before the time of astronomers Nicolaus Copernicus and Tycho Brahe all evidence seemed to support the universe idea. That universe was thought to consist of five basic things: the earth at the center, next the sun and moon, then the planets, and outermost the stars. The stars were believed to be located on a distant spherical shell defining the boundary of the universe.
Copernicus showed that the earth could not be at the center and Brahe broke through the shell of the stars. Descriptions of the universe shifted to accommodate the new information. The establishment expressed its fear of those new thoughts as anger directed against the people who dared express them. Even today contrarian ideas evoke the same fear and anger responses. Nonetheless, radically new valid ideas are eventually accepted. We no longer believe that the sun and stars spin around the earth.
An ancient Roman philosopher said, " No thing comes from nothing." Even our ideas do not rise from a void of total nothingness; they are based on other ideas we already possess. Modern cosmology stands on a foundation built by its predecessors. Let us very briefly review that foundation. By examining where we have come from, we may be able to discern where we are heading.

[END OF EXCERPT]
HOME