INFINITE MULTIVERSE, FINITE UNIVERSE, AND COSMIC ORIGIN:
THE INFINITE CAUSAL EFFECTS (ICE) ARGUMENT
Raphael Neelamkavil
Ph. D. (Quantum Causality), Dr. phil. (Cosmogenetic Multiverse Causality)
The following paragraphs may look either surprisingly dangerous to some, or to some others too simplistic to render futile. But the question of cosmic origin (and of why something rather than nothing) being addressed here may compel attention. I attempt here a clear rendering of an argument that I formulated a few years ago and then forgot. As I revive it here, I believe that it is convincing enough.
I wonder today why I did not formulate it well years ago. I term it “The Infinite Causal Effects (ICE) Argument”. Its predecessor has been Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC), a cosmological argument for infinite-eternal continuous creation from a Source.
ICE is a natural causal problem that ends up demanding an answer to the question of cosmic origin. Possible answers to it can all be based on any valid form of reasoning or on any of the most essential principles of logic upon which all forms of logic and argument finally take refuge, namely, the principles of Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle.
The necessity of application of these logical first principles, even if questioned in various metaphysical and logical situations, are nevertheless inevitably to be taken recourse to, at least at the conclusions phase of any discourse, but most probably not there alone: in short, while deciding the setting of the arguments, at many places before approaching acceptable conclusions, and inevitably at approaching the conclusions.
Epistemologically, any natural problem involving logical procedures will have to be answered in the above general way by anyone who reflects of existents, naturally in physics, cosmology, biological and human sciences, and the foundational aspects and conclusions in logical theories and procedures, and, if not directly, then at least indirectly in a huge chunk of mathematical structures and theories.
Suppose that no part of the cosmos was created and, of course, the Law of Conservation of Existents holds. By reason of this Law, then, everything continues to exist into the future without annihilation into nothingness. Then there are two possible cases of content of the cosmos.
(1) The first is the case of the cosmos being an infinite-content multiverse. Concerning the most general cosmological questions, this would crystalize into the following. If every finite part of the possibly infinite-content cosmos is existent from the past eternity proper of each part, then, there exists an inner-cosmic causal paradox of infinities.
Each finite-content member universe of the infinite multiverse should have experienced a totality of infinite amounts of individually finite (even if not individualized by our minds) causal effects from an infinite number of other cosmic parts in the past, however finite and minute their actual matter-energy remainders in the entity have been and are.
This can be shown to produce the above-said paradox, because to obtain causal influences from an infinite number of universes, the one entity should have been present in or in the vicinity of an infinite number of universes. This involves each universe or part of it possessing an already realized history of having travelled infinite distances.
In other words, it is impossible for an entity to have moved an infinite distance to have had an infinite number of individual causal effects adding up, of course, to a finite amount of matter-energy remainders. In an already totally pre-existent infinite-content cosmos there are an infinite number of universes, and upon each existent entity (in any one of the universes) there should already have been causal influences from an infinite number of the universes – even if not from all, because an infinite-content multiverse could have an infinity of infinity of … universes or matter-energy parts.
Since these are supposed to have been realized causal influences, these influences should have been from both infinite distances and finite distances. But in a finite-content universe or part, realized causal influences from an infinite number of universes or parts thereof will be impossible, since the travel time taken for such influences should be infinite!
Hence, we have the second possible case within an infinite-content universe: Each cosmic part should have had only a finite amount of individually finite causal effects from a finite number and amount of other cosmic parts in the past, and so, each one of them has existed only from a finite past, and should have been created.
Clearly, causal influences realized supposedly from an infinite distance are totally untenable, because any causal influence from the causal past proper of any entity in a finite-content universe (and even of a whole finite-content universe in an infinite-content cosmos) would in fact have to be from a finitely measurable distance. Additionally, it works against any solution to the Gravitational Coalescence Paradox of GCC, which see in my [2018].
Hence, the contrary to case (1) above, i.e., only with a finite amount of causal influences, is tenable. This reduces each of the finite number of parts in the universe into something of origin in some finite past. That is, in case of existence of an infinite-content multiverse, the infinite number of parts of the cosmos need to be reduced into something of origin in a finite past.
The logical two-valued either-or choice becomes inevitable in any discourse at least by the end of the arguments approaching the conclusion here: Either we have a finite-content universe with its own past origin in the Source, or we have an infinite-content multiverse with each universe or matter-energy configurations within it having been created in a finite past.
This demonstrates continuous appearance or creation of universes or matter-energy parts of the cosmos from all past eternity. One may exclaim: ‘Non sequitur!’ I shall explain it after treating the second possible case.
(2) Consider now the finite-content case of the cosmos. Naturally, if in a finite-content cosmos all the parts have had only a finite number of causal influences, they all should be totalled into one, and since they needed an origin at a finite past, they must have been created, either together or separately.
Why should they have had a creative origin? Because, such a finite-content universe should experience expansion and contraction – for without both these, it would be a totally static universe – and this universe will constantly lose energy at the outskirts, which will decrease the available matter-energy in the phases of expansion and contraction, and hence, the universe will exhaust itself in a finite future proper time. This requires its origin in creation from beyond itself, and not by being mysteriously caused by and from absolute vacuum.
Please do not think that I hold the finite-content universe to be the true case. It cannot be by creation from the cosmos itself, because finitely active-stable parts of the cosmos cannot go on producing a finite or infinite amount of the same sort of substances. Hence the existence of a Source that is of infinite-eternal activity and stability in the state of infinite activity.
No amount of dark energy and dark matter can substitute the Source, because these are already considered to be part of the infinite-content cosmos, and the so-called mutual annihilation of matter and anti-matter, and energy and anti-energy, is no absolute annihilation, but conversion of forms of existence. Similarly, dark energy and dark matter cannot create fresh worlds or matter-energy out of nothing.
In scenario of infinite amounts of continuous creation by a Source, of course, the paradox of an infinite number of causal influences does not appear. Even though in the case of existence of the Source there is an infinite-content multiverse in existence from the past eternity, the causal effects upon each part of it would remain those from a finite number of them: because, each of the infinite number of universes or parts thereof would have only a finite past.
But then note that there is the problem of loss of energy at the outskirts of every finite-content universe at every expansion and contraction phase. In that case, neither the finite-content universes of the infinite-content multiverse nor the so-called sole big bang universe can exist as such into an eternal future as self-sustaining. So, each universe and its parts must have been created by a Source other than the infinite multiverse itself or the finite universe itself or by absolute vacuum. Absolute vacuum could not have given origin to anything.
Hence, in both case (1) case (2) above, an infinite-eternal creative Source is a must for the cosmos. Such a Source can only be infinitely and eternally active, and infinitely stable in the state of infinite-eternal activity, and hence, continuous creation of infinite amounts of matter-energy or universes by the Source becomes a must.
The cosmos, then, cannot have a cyclic temporality in each universe or part-universe. Each universe will have its own open spiral temporality due to its continuous loss of energy at the outskirts. Each of them, at any given time with respect to one universe or more, will be connected to a finite number of other universes of open spiral temporality, and so on.
If the continuously creating Source exists for reasons given in the above paragraphs (ICE), the cosmos cannot include the Source and the Source cannot be merely parallel in existence to the cosmos and remain inactive. The Source has been creating parts of the cosmos continuously, infinitely, and eternally, and remains connected infinitely with Itself and the cosmos through the Source’s infinite activity and infinite stability in such activity. Hence, the Source contains the cosmos. The cosmos can connect itself only finitely with the Source. This process can at the most grow into deeper connection with the Source, but never make itself form part of the Source.
This is the essence of Inter-dynamic Panentheism – based always on counterfactual thinking under the condition: ‘If the Source exists…’, which derives rational support not only from the ICE argument above but also from Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC) discussed in many chapters in my [Neelamkavil 2018].
good, this is a big question deserves considerable philosophical thinking.
Paul Kuei-chi Tseng
Thanks. In fact, as I formulated this argument a few years ago in two paragraphs, I did not feel it is of much consequence. Last week I saw the document again, read in, and felt I must revise the two paragraphs. That is when I felt this must be put up in ResearchGate.
Only you sent me a word about it. Practically nobody who happened to open it has paid attention.
If possible, give me your feedback about it.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/COSMIC_AND_METAPHYSICAL_SYSTEMIC_CATEGORIES_Raphael_Neelamkavil
Raphael,
Very beautiful logic and expressions in your statement. Thanks much.
Please consider this suggestion to address the profound question you clearly posed.
The resolution is actual direct experience of transcending the intellect to higher states of consciousness and ultimate Unity that includes all diversity.
You articulated key issues that are addressed in the concepts of 'Mithya' and 'Maya' in the ancient Vedic account, reflected in your statements on the relationship of God and the cosmos and, and "infinite-eternal activity and stability in the state of infinite activity" related to perspectives in different states of consciousness -- summarized in this quote of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in my 2021 Routledge book Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory (See page 164):
"Silence and dynamism -- they are one thing, not two things."
Many steps of logic are involved in this. On ResearchGate.net are full-text open-access papers that summarize key points given fuller discussion in that book. If you want to look at them, here's a start (I'd suggest in this sequence):
A Psychological Critique of Mathematicians; Evidence of Vedic Renaissance: From Veda to Modern Science and Back; Ignorance and Enlightenment: What's the Difference?
It would be fun to discuss these issues with you in the context of these materials.
Very best wishes -- again, wonderful points and question.
Bob (RW Boyer)
Raphael,
Very beautiful logic and expressions in your statement. Thanks much.
Please consider this suggestion to address the profound question you clearly posed.
The resolution is actual direct experience of transcending the intellect to higher states of consciousness and ultimate Unity that includes all diversity.
You articulated key issues that are addressed in the concepts of 'Mithya' and 'Maya' in the ancient Vedic account, reflected in your statements on the relationship of God and the cosmos and, and "infinite-eternal activity and stability in the state of infinite activity" related to perspectives in different states of consciousness -- summarized in this quote of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in my 2021 Routledge book Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory (See page 164):
"Silence and dynamism -- they are one thing, not two things."
Many steps of logic are involved in this. On ResearchGate.net are full-text open-access papers that summarize key points given fuller discussion in that book. If you want to look at them, here's a start (I'd suggest in this sequence):
A Psychological Critique of Mathematicians; Evidence of Vedic Renaissance: From Veda to Modern Science and Back; Ignorance and Enlightenment: What's the Difference?
It would be fun to discuss these issues with you in the context of these materials.
Very best wishes -- again, wonderful points and question.
Bob (RW Boyer)
Robert W. Boyer
Thanks. Your intervention does not seem to be on the issues being discussed in the text of the discussion. Nevertheless, I agree that most of the comments are in order for me.
Without having the books in hand, I cannot read them. If you have PDFs of the books, kindly send them to me. At this stage, it is not possible to buy them!
Thanks.
Raphael,
Thanks for the reply. I listed three (free/easily accessible to you) papers on ResearchGate.net as an alternative to purchasing the book I mentioned -- can you access the papers directly on ResearchGate.net?
I can send you them in an attachment if you send what email I should use to get them to you. The papers are indeed quite relevant to your question. Please let me know what led to your seeming to think they do not relate to it if you want me to discuss it briefly to help you 'see' the connection (though that's what the papers and book do in much more detail).
Best wishes,
Bob (RW Boyer)
THANKS. Got them in email. I will read them and get back.
Raphael
Preprint INFINITE MULTIVERSE, FINITE UNIVERSE, AND COSMIC ORIGIN: THE...
Raphael
I have just come across your Infinite Multiverse, Finite Universe and Cosmic Origin subject on which I have some rather abbreviated responses culminated over quite some time, but not having yet attempted a specific summary of various conclusions reached over decades of indecisive consideration. I alaso have to say that the expression of ICE and infinite casual effects is not a subject that I have previously comes across.
I also have to say that my response to the question as to whether the Multiverse is a likely possible answer to existence, when I first came across it years ago, was then, and still remains, as certainly not, which was doibltes an instant intuitive gut response which still remains with me having consdered it more at leisure over time since then, and even amused that such a suggestion should be taken seriously: just too complex.
Every now and then humanity comes up with a solution from an Anaximander, a Galileo, a Newton, a Darwin, or a Planck which then resolves formidable unknowns, just like that, in principle at least, albeit it might take a century or so before such fundamental truths become universally acceptable. But when they eventually do achieve credibility, they transpire to be almost obvious in retrospect. It seems to me that this is now under way for Planck's inspired discovery of quantum dimensions, in that a cenrury later we still remain fumbling hesitantly with its possible implications.
Anyway, as a more specific answer to the problem of the multiverse, it has recently occurred to me humanity exists within the observable universe, and which implies to me that the latter might be regarded as a closed system, and if so, this has serious implications for the actions that the second law and entropy has for existence, This occurred to me a few years ago when I read an essay by Stephen Wolfram, in which he explained in a very simple, almost non mathematical manner, how classical physics could be reconciled with QM in terms of the operation the second law (a major problem) but only if the universe could be considered as a closed system. This reinforced my anticipation that as far as humanity was concerned, the observational universe was indeed a closed system.
I then wrote to Wolfram, and some months later, one of his more senior colleagues responded expressing some interest, but nothing transpired from that, doubtless not impressed by my lack of appropriate academic background. So I left things there, but more recently I read an article in Quanta last October about the John Wheeler's last unresolved problem which he described as that of observer particpancy. This he summarised as "What troubles me more than anything else, is how different observers combine their impressions to build up what we call reality."
Well, I have admired John Wheeler hugely since I first read his apposite quote "Behind it all, is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it, in a decade, a century, or a millennium, we shall all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise." Thus I was delighted to read about his last unresolved problem, especially so, as I have in mind a possible answer to his observer participancy problem. This is involved with the stellar motion within the closed universe combined with my explanation for the way in which I explain intuition might operate by momentarily blanking off the activity of the brain's cognisant neurons, into formless random activity.
However I have managed to defer drafting a written description of this conjecture, which I really ought now to complete, having been diverted by discussions with others attempting to explain why apparently mass attracts other mass: gravitation. The latter is obviously a huge unknown, for which we have no agreed explanation as yet, despite LIGO, the most expensive experiment ever funded by the American Government. Another unknown which really ought to be resolved sooner rather than later, and which I reckon is almost bound to be tied up with a solution for dark matter as a gravitational effect. The latter is a subject which I have drafted a few attempts at resolution.
www.mindandmemory.net
Nicholas Greaves
You have written here many general reflections and finally given your website address. What did you mean to discuss here? Except in the first part of the first long sentence, I found no indication to what the theme of my lead text of discussion is. Some general reflections about many things, and nothing connected to the matter! Since I have seen this tendency of yours for a few years now, I thought first of not responding to you. But it is not good to ignore a person unless clearly malafide. This is why I wrote my response here.
Raphael
Raphael,
Thanks for your rapid response and apologies if you found it irrelevant to your discussion. Initially, I noted your comments on the cosmos being infinite, the content of the multiverse etc., and the various possibilities thereof, which is a subject that has fascinated me, and on which I have very recently made a few specific conclusions from a previous subjective miasma of conjectures, on which I am suddenly enthused to attempt an explanation.
Doubtless they seem unlikely to be similar to yours: no surprise there really since the question of the existence of the multiverse as opposed to a finite universe, really does require resolution, perhaps more than any other it seems to me. This is especially so in the light of my own attempts to explain dark matter as a gravitational effect resulting from the structure of the universe.
In this respect and almost coincidentally, I have almost completed the reading of Frederico Faggin’s excellent new book, Irreducible, and much impressed by its content, I would not hesitate to recommend it to anybody with an interest in consciousness and free will. As a result, I was almost coincidentally encouraged to respond with my own views on this intriguing subject, which depends in part on the implications of the structure of the universe.
You have your more detailed approach to the infinite multiverse, and/or the finite universe, different to mine, not that I have yet considered in much detail the resulting varying possible cosmic origins or causal effects.
However, I was gratified to read that you were at least absorbed by the subject, albeit in a very different manner to my rather broad brush approach and its implications, somewhat similar to that of Faggin, or so it seems to me. However, I have yet to complete the reading of his excellent publication. If you have already come across his work and the results his distinguished career, then do let me know your opinion of it.
Nick
Nicholas Greaves
Thanks. Of course, I am interested also in the question of consciousness. You can very well find in RG my PDFs and discussions on that.
In the present text I do not claim that our cosmos is an infinite multiverse. I discuss both the possibilities (an infinite-content multiverse and a finite-content universe), and then ask what the possibilities of causal influences in both these types of cosmos would be. This is a strategy, and I am not averse to the cosmos being infinite-content or finite-content. In both the possible cases, I show that the history of causal influences should help us demonstrate yet another fact. That is what these 1.5 pages discuss.
I do not have the work of Faggin. If you have a PDF, kindly tell me whether I could also get it. Thanks.
Raphael
Raphael
I fear I do not have a copy of Faggin's book, and I purchased it in paperback from Amazon two day's ago. I have to say that in any event, having reached arrived on this Earth in the middle of WW2, I find it far easier to read the printed page rather than off a screen. Most of the members of the google discussion group to which I occasionally contribute comment, were nearly all complimentary about the book: a rare endorsement.
Nick
There are certainly some interesting logical points to make about infinity. If may quote from my own work,
"Suppose we had a machine that could shoot out ping-pong balls into infinity forever. Even at a variable rate, however long we ran the machine there would always be an infinite amount of space still to fill. Infinity is not a place filled with events; it is mostly empty, diluting the manifestation of an event to (almost) nothing. Humans seem to have assumed, however, that infinity has already been filled with everything, which seems to be the current assumption of cosmologists because we need infinity to calculate things like potential energy of gravity and of charge. But spatial infinity, if it is real, can't actually be full of events as the ping-pong ball gun demonstrates. Even if it lasts forever it will never get full. If we take the expansion of the universe as an expansion into the space of infinity, then either all potentials should be continuously variable or infinite which is no help. Only if the universe is not infinite does the cosmological constant which describes a constant energy density to the expanding universe make any sense."
Universes can be finite in extent but infinite in time = cyclical.
All finite universes must come to a conclusion, that is, to a determined end. The end of a finite in extent universe but within an infinite omnium must also be a beginning of a universe. Hence cycles without end or beginning. Makes the most sense, God or no God.
Andrew Kennedy
I did not say that the present, immediate universe of ours is of infinite content. I spoke of two maximal possibilities, none of which I claimed to be THE TRUTH. If there are other infinite number of universes like ours, then the cosmos is an infinite-content multiverse. If not, then we have only the immediate big bang (or whatever) sort of finite-content universe.
And then I try to draw maximal and minimal possibilities from these 2 assumptions, from both of which types one special sort of cosmogenetic conclusion derives.
Now about your "Universes can be finite in extent but infinite in time = cyclical." I have stopped givíng value to this sort of Einsteinian (so-called "Riemannian" assumptions about the extent of content in the cosmos. Because, it has to do not with content, but with a sort of time, which in fact is epistemic. For Einstein during his time of formulation of the General Relativity it was an easy way of keeping the universe finite in content and still maintain some sort of infinity about it. The giant astronomical discoveries regarding the expanding universe began after all these theoretical assumptions produced the GTR.
Hence, uni-centric finite-content universes making cycles looks grand and highly Vedaantic, but, in my opinion, an ancient generalization without substance.
Nicholas Greaves
It is all right. I shall continue with the books I can get from the universities.
I take what you say but it seems to me that your text does not reflect what you say you mean. For example..".Hence the existence of a Source that is of infinite-eternal activity and stability in the state of infinite activity." You are simply transferring infinite in time to an external. Not very scientific. Also some of your 'ifs' are just that. The point you make about the infinite causal steps is Olber's paradox in a new guise. I agree there is a puzzle but until there is an observation to clear the air I guess I will stick with the Vedas.
Since the text is meant to be short, I did not elaborate the manner of concluding. For someone already in the know of the various cosmological and ontological arguments in the tradition, this would not be difficult. That is why I did not mention that part. But I admit that this is lacking. I will work it out in a later elaboration of the text, but I have no time for it now.
But to say that this is related to or similar to Olbers' (note: Not Olber's but Olbers') paradox is not acceptable at all. Let it be, if you want to stick with the Vedic concept of cyclic universes and think that is scientific, go on. I do not object. I said my opinion, being a person who studied the religions and philosophies of India in a detailed fashion during my BA and MA, and having guided many dissertations in Indian philosophy. Go on, well, bye.
Andrew Kennedy Nicholas Greaves Robert W. Boyer Paul Kuei-chi Tseng
I have revised the discussion's lead text above, after an intervention by Andrew Kennedy. Kindly read it again. Thanks.
Raphael
Preprint (Revised) INFINITE MULTIVERSE, FINITE UNIVERSE, AND COSMIC O...
Andrew Kennedy Nicholas Greaves Robert W. Boyer Paul Kuei-chi Tseng
Here above you find the link to a revised version of this discussion in PDF form.
Further evaluations are welcome.
Raphael
Thanks for the revision. I do agree that the source of the universe will be outside the universe from the perspective you lay out. There is another possibility, however: that the entire universe is caused at once and time makes us see it linear fashion. In this way infinity has no causal significance but is as empty a concept as it would be in reality. In, for example, Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, subdivision into infinity, while logical is clearly not true enough. Achilles wins the race.
Andrew Kennedy
This seems to be a mathematical sort of argument, treating time linearly. But existent matter-energy's causal processes could be pictured spatiotemporally solely in terms of some sort of curves. These curves need to be open, since there is no absolute return of causal processes to the starting points. Even when there is such a return in human experiences, it is not exactly the same, and hence there is spatiotemporal openness towards the future of every causal process in itself. Hence, the curvy representation of causal processes, however veiled in their exactness of conceptual and theoretical representation using mathematical methods, can only be like a spiral, of which no one unit wave is to be identical to any other in their measuremental extents. That is, not the time, but the spacetime of any process, and any universe, must be sinusoidally spiral, never exact at any part with any other part of the representation.
Now about there being only one finite-content universe. The causally spatiotemporal openness of such a universe demonstrates the inability of the central blackhole to bring back the whole energy propagated off at the outskirts of the universe. In this case, there is a constant -- but again mutually unequal -- quantity of energy-dwindling in the total available stuff of the universe for sinusoidal recycling via concatenated expansions and contractions. Hence, this our universe -- or all its parts separately -- must have had a beginning at a finite past. Such a beginning should be from a Source, since neither absolute vacuum nor the universe itself can create another universe, since the whole stuff of this universe must somehow get evaporated outwards in finite time.
Here we have another possibility: that the cosmos consists of an infinite number of such universes. The case with it has already been treated in detail in the document. Here again, you will find that the Source is inevitable. Such a Source can only be continuously productive of universes....! This looks weird, but the spatiotemporal conglomeration of such universes will be one of open sinusoidal spacetimes, in each such conglomeration there being only a finite number of such spacetimes, because there is no infinite-content conglomeration that sticks together by actual gravitational contact! In an infinite-content multiverse cosmos, there can be an infinite number of such spacetime conglomerations.
All of it are causal universes, and hence, in effect, what there are, are not mathematically spatiotemporal conglomerations, but instead, causal conglomerations. Each of them is of finite-content, however big each conglomeration is....!
(I did not re-read what I wrote here. Hope it is clear enough.)
Raphael
Paul Kuei-chi Tseng
Here we are doing the philosophy of the cosmos, not religion as such. Better not to go to the book of Genesis, then do its exegesis, etc. I understand that you are for it. No problem, you can do that. I have not studied those matters much.
Preprint COSMIC-METAPHYSICAL SYSTEMIC-AXIOMATIC CATEGORIES Foundation...
Preprint QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY AND RANDOMNESS AS MATHEMATICALLY EPISTEM...
Preprint GRAND UNIFICATION BY CAUSAL STRINGS: PROBABILISTIC QUANTUM D...
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Solution by Phenomenal On...
Preprint (Revised) WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY'S MYSTERY OVERHAUL: Physical...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology