PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: FALLACIES FROM “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D. (Quantum Causality),

Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)

Cosmologists and quantum cosmologists seem to be almost unanimous (but happily today, a bit decreasingly unanimous) that, at the so-called level of the Planck era / quantum era of the original state of the big bang (of our universe, or of an infinite number of such universes existent in an infinite-eternal multiverse – whichever the case may be), where all forces are supposed to be unified or quasi-unified (but always stated without any solid proof), (1) either there did not exist and will never exist causality, (2) or any kind of causality is indistinguishable from the normal course of physical existents.

Is this sort of cosmological theorizing acceptable, where (1) the unification is supposed but is not necessarily physical-ontologically presupposable, and (2) causality and non-causality are taken in the mood of dilemma? This sort of theorizing is, of course, based on some facts that most physicists and other scientists agree on without much effort to search for causes of approval or disapproval.

But the adequacy of such reasons for this conclusion is questionable. The manner of concluding to non-causality or indistinguishability of causality and non-causality at spots in the universe or multiverse, where all forces are supposed to be unified or quasi-unified, is questionable too. The main reason is the lack of physical-ontological clarity regarding the status of causality and the status of unification of the forces.

In my opinion, this is based on the inevitable fact that whatever the mathematics automatically prescribes for such situations can be absolute only if all the parameters, quantities, etc. that have entered the equations are absolute. The prescribed necessity condition has not been the case in the physics that goes into the mathematical formulation of the said theory.

Even concerning the measurement that humanity has so far made of the speed of light is not exact and absolute. The reason for the fantastic cosmological conclusion regarding a volatile decision for or against causality and regarding a supposed verity of the supposition that all forces are unified therein, does not possess an adequate mathematical reason, and of course not a sufficiently physical.

The reason I gave is not strictly and purely mathematical, physical, or just generally philosophical. It is strictly physical-ontological and mathematical-philosophical. Things physical-ontological are not “meta-”physical in the sense of being beyond the physical. Instead, they treat of the preconditions for there being physics and mathematics. They being pre-conditions, not respecting them leads to grave theoretical problems in mathematics, science, and philosophy.

Hence, in my opinion, fundamentally mathematical-ontological and physical-ontological presuppositions and reasons are more rationally to be acceptable for the foundations of mathematics and physics than all that we have as strictly mathematical and physical in the name of foundations. I give here the obvious in order to assure clarity: I presuppose that physical ontology consists of the necessary presuppositions of anything dealt with in physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and other purely physical sciences, and of course of the mathematics and logic as applied to existent physical things / processes.

The main reason being considered for the so-called non-causality and indistinguishability between causality and non-causality at certain cosmological or physical spots seems to be that space and time could exist only with the big bang (or whatever could be imagined to be in place of it), whether just less than 14 billion years ago or doubly or triply so much time ago or whatever.

First, my questions on this assumption are based on an antagonism that I have to cosmologists lapping up the opinion expressed by St. Augustine centuries ago. That is, if space and time “exist” only if and from the time when the universe exists, then the question of space and time before the expansion of the universe is meaningless. These cosmologists presume that the expansion of the universe was from a nullity state, and that hence it could not have existed before the beginning of the expansion. What if it existed from eternity like a primeval stuff without any change and then suddenly began to explode? This is the basic premise they seem to hold, and then conclude that time, as an “existent” now, would not have existed before the expansion! What a clarity about the concept of existence! Evidently, this is due to the gaping absence of regard for the physical-ontological presuppositions behind physical existence.

Secondly, as is evident, some of them think that space and time are some things to exist beyond or behind all the physical processes that exist. Thus, some identify space even with ether. If we have so far only been able to measure physical processes, why to call them as measures of space and time? Why not call them just as what it is, and accept that these are termed as space and time merely for ease? After all, whatever names we give to anything does not exist; and we have not seen space and time at all.

Thirdly, is it such a difficult thing for scientists to accept the lack of evidence of any sort of “existence” of space and time as background entities? Einstein spoke not of the curvature of existent spacetime, but of the mathematical calculations within a theory of the measurementally spatiotemporal aspect of existent physical processes as showing us that the measurementally spatiotemporal aspect of the physical processes – including existent energy-carrier gravitational wavicles – is curving within mathematical calculations.

Now, if the curvature is of existent processes (including existent energy-carrier gravitational wavcles), then, at the so-called primeval spot in each existent universe (even within each member of an infinite-eternal multiverse containing an infinite number of finite-content universes like ours) where all forces are supposed to be unified or quasi-unified, there cannot be a suspension of causation, because nothing existent can be compressed or rarefied into absolute nullity and continue to exist.

This demonstrates that, even at the highly condensed or rarefied states, no existent is nothing. It continues to exist in its Extended and Changing nature. If anything is in Extension-Change-wise existence, it is nothing but causal existence, constantly causing finite impacts.

Why, then, are some cosmologists and theoretical physicists insisting that gravitons do not exist, space and time are entities, gravitation is mere spacetime curvature, causality disappears at certain spots in the cosmos (and in quantum-physical contexts), etc? Why not, then, also say that material bodies are merely spacetime curvature and cannot exist? Is this not due to undue trust in the science-automation powers of mathematics, which can only describe processes in a manner conducive to its foundations, and not tell us whether there is causation or not? I believe that only slavishly mathematically automated minds can accept such claims.

Examples of situations where causality is supposed to disappear are plenty in physics. More than century of non-causal interpretations within Uncertainty Principle, Double Slit Experiment, EPR Paradox, Black Hole Singularity, Vacuum Creation of Universes, etc. are clear examples of physicists and cosmologists becoming prey to the supposed omnipotence of mathematics and their unquestioning faith in the powers of mathematics.

It is useless, in defence of mathematics and physics, to cite here the extreme clarity and effectiveness of mathematical applications in instruments in space-scientific, technological, medical, and other fields. Did I ever question these precisions and achievements? But do the clarity and effectivity of mathematics mean that mathematics is absolute? If they can admit that it is not absolute, then let them tell us where it will be relative and less than absolute. Otherwise, they are mere believers in a product of the human mind, as if mathematics were given by a miraculously active almighty space and time.

All physicists need to recognize that all languages including mathematics are constructions by minds, but with foundations in reality out-there. Nothing can present the physical processes to us absolutely well. Mathematics as applied in physics (or other sciences) is an exact science of certain conceptually generalizable frames of physical processes. This awareness might help physicists to de-absolutize mathematical applications in physics.

Fourthly, the above has another important dimension. Physics or for that matter any other science cannot have at its foundations concepts that belong merely to the specific science. I shall give an example as to how some physicists think that physics needs only physical concepts at its foundations: To the question what motion is, one may define it in terms allegedly merely of time as “the orientation of the wave function over time”. In fact, the person has already presupposed quantum physics here, which is clear from his mention of the wave function, which naturally presupposes also the previous physics that have given rise to quantum physics.

This sort of presupposing the specific science itself for defining its foundational concepts is what happens when concepts from within the specific science, and not clearly physical-ontological notions, come into play in the foundations of the science. Space and time are measuremental, hence cognitive and epistemic. These are not physical-ontological notions. Hence, these cannot be at the foundations of physics or of any other science. These are derivative notions.

It is for this reason that I have posited Extension and Change as the primary foundational notions. As I have already shown in many of my previous papers and books, these two are the only two exhaustive implications of the concept of the To Be of Reality-in-total as the totality of whatever exists.