A Model of God more

TOE: A Model of God The first definition to consider in speaking of things that are real is that of ‘existence.’ Without a clear understanding of what it means to exist, it is impossible to propose, much less prove, the existence of anything. Plato ca. 360 BC writes: My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power … Any power of doing or suffering in a degree however slight …(25) Although Plato includes in the definition that which can “be affected by another” or “suffering,” this internal aspect of existence can only be verified by a subject, that is, it requires that an entity has an ability to prehend an environment, and integrate those prehensions into an internal perspective. One entity cannot verify the existence of this awareness in another except by analogy. The only way to verify that a given entity has the capacity to experience the world would be to somehow have a window into the “mind” of that entity. To the degree that this is impossible to observe much less measure, we shall provisionally set aside the notion of subjective experience as a criterion for existence. If we then limit “power” to mean the capacity to effect (originate) or affect (influence) actual behavior, then we must grant real ontological status to any proposed entity with that observed capacity. Thus, in this model, “existence” is defined as power, or the capacity to affect or effect actual behavior. The model presented here is chiefly characterized as ‘holographic.’ This is a generalization derived from a characteristic of a holographic plate through which light is focused to form a three-dimensional image, whereby any fragment of the whole plate will 2 produce an image, not of a specific part of the whole, but an image of the whole from a limited, i.e., less detailed, perspective (Wilber p. 2). Thus generally, the holographic principle may be stated as: Every part is an exemplification of the whole, but each part constitutes only a parochial (limited) perspective of the whole. As such, this holographic principle posits a necessary whole of which each part is an exemplification, thus it is ‘holistic’ in the sense that the wholes (societies) created through the integration of partial components are ‘more real’ because they have a greater capacity to originate and influence actual behavior than the singular, actual components (occasions) from which they are derived. This constitutes one digression from the ‘received interpretation’ of Whitehead, even though my reading of Whitehead, not only allows for this, but also, actually seems to require that the composite entities be understood as atomic wholes, i.e., actual occasions with their own non-reducible subjective unity transcending that of their constituents. This understanding then confirms Whitehead’s ‘reformed subjectivist principle’ and extends it to include all actual entities possessing a subjective unity. All actual occasions are subjects, and all subjective unities constitute actual occasions of various scales. There is no scale, either temporal or spatial, that applies to every actual occasion. In terms of Whitehead’s metaphysics, the clearest divergence regards eternal objects. With Whitehead, God’s primordial nature is the conceptual valuation of the multitude of eternal objects. In this model there is need of only one ‘eternal object’, which is identified as ‘contrast.’ Contrast here is a generalization of the more special notions of dipolarity, contrariety, opposition, complementarity, vibration, cycles, color, geometry and logic to name a few. Each of these more special notions requires an 3 actuality to have any meaning. The fundamental potential for contrast does not. Creativity (conjunction) is dependent upon a contrast existing between one actuality and another. Without the contrast no creativity can take place. Thus contrast is necessary to creativity, and creativity is derived from contrast. The contrast to creativity is destruction, i.e. a movement toward greater entropy (disjunction). The contrast to contrast is nothing. Thus contrast is the only pure potential (eternal object), all others are hybrid potentials and are here referred to as emergent potentials, which are relational forms of unity between a set of contrasting fundamental actualities. Relating this back to Whitehead’s eternal objects, then, God’s primordial nature is the fundamental potential for contrast, or the primordial contrast, and God’s emerging, consequent nature is mapped as a contrast of contrast in three contrasting dimensions of space, time and nature. A secondary characteristic of this model is its essential lack of religious perspective, since that which is religious requires an exclusivity forbidden by this model’s pluralistic inclusivity. Since every actuality is an exemplification of the whole, each bears witness to the truth of its actual world, but, by reason of its limited perspective, cannot lay claim to a ‘monopoly on the truth.’ The insights regarding the underlying order of nature provided by the plurality of serious religious scholars, teachers and prophets have value within the ongoing process of understanding the creative possibilities for conjunction, but the parochial, cultural institutions to which the popular forms of these religions have degenerated leaves little room for creative thought, since most of the energy seems to be spent in defending one’s faith against ‘the infidels,’ rather 4 than entertaining the notion that the many religious perspectives are in fact parochial perspectives of the same underlying, and overriding reality. Thus God’s primordial nature is identified with the acronym ‘TOE’ meaning, “theory of everything.” Although physicists conceive TOE as the single, underlying force, characterizable by a syntactical, mathematical equation, the search for this TOE has suffered some major setbacks in recent years. Of major significance is the gradual demise of string theory as a contender. As well, the current fashion of inventing new forms of ‘undetectable’ matter and energy to account for the failure of Einsteinian general relativity has stretched the credibility of the field of physical research as a whole. Although there is hope on the horizon in the form of Process Physics, as articulated by Reginald Cahill, it will take a radical revision of the fundamental concepts of physics, and a reform of the arrogant, bureaucratic approach to dialogue regnant in this field, to discover this form of TOE. As Stephen Hawking wrote in the thoughtful conclusion to his book, A Brief History of Time: However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we shall know the mind of God. (175) Coming from a man perceived as the quintessential “science warrior” it is ironic that this statement may prove to be prophetic when seen in the perspective of the Process Physics model of Cahill. This theory, and its discussion, has been banned by the dominant physics journals because of its refutation of General Relativity, in particular, because Cahill supports the concept of an absolute frame of reference, i.e., a quantum 5 fractal foam as the underlying structure of space. Ironic because in the model presented here, this quantum foam is the fundamental actualization of the ‘mind of God.’ The TOE of this model is not that of physics, but of philosophy, in particular, metaphysics and speculative cosmology. It is theological in its implications, but does not constitute a systematic theology, nor does it fit within any theological or religious tradition, but has resonance with all. In this model TOE is the conceptual pole of the universe providing the underlying potential for all actuality, and as such should be compatible with a plurality of perspectives. While science is replete with instances of ‘misplaced concreteness,’ theology seems to degenerate to the ‘fallacy of misplaced abstraction.’ To mistake the concrete actuality for the exhaustive possibilities of the abstract potential is the converse of the ‘fallacy of misplaced concreteness.’ This fallacy is the root of ‘idolatry.’ Taking the Bible as the exhaustive exemplification of the ‘word of God,’ or taking the human person, Jesus of Nazareth, to be the sole exemplification of the ‘son of God’ commits this ‘fallacy of misplaced abstraction.’ The same can be said for all religious perspectives seeking an absolute status for their religious icons. Relationality is considered fundamental, and as all relations have implications of ecological responsibility, that is, each part contributes value to the whole, the offhand dismissal or destruction of any part as trivial to the system is damaging to the integrity of the whole. Anything that can be called a whole is in effect a micro-ecosystem within a macro-ecosystem. Only perspectives, which do not ignore the micro&macro environment, are capable of generating sustainable (enduring) relationships. ‘Economics’ must become a subset of ecological relationships. “It’s just economics, it’s 6 not personal,” ignores the unseen effects of decisions that corporations make without regard to whether it is ethical, whether the decision is truly an advance of humanity or destructive of it. “What goes around, comes around,” is the only satisfactory reply. The complexity of the whole is intensified by the plural perspectives of its constituents, and these plural constituents are unified by the subjective aim of the whole. As Whitehead puts it, “The whole displays its component parts, each with its own value enhanced; and the parts lead up to a whole, which is beyond themselves, and yet not destructive of themselves” (MT 62). The activity of God’s primordial nature is proliferative, i.e., the creation from a single potential of a diverse multiplicity of contrasting fundamental actualities. Its mode is that of the proliferation of semantic information. The activity of God’s consequent nature is conciliatory, i.e., the conjunction (unity) of the many fundamental actualities into one emergent actuality. The means of this emergent potential is the transmission of subjectively (conceptually) prehended semantic information between the contrasting actualities. This transmission ideally produces a novel level of understanding between two or more individuals, and provides the basis of the synthesis of the plurality of perspectives into an emergent subjective unity. The principle expressed by Paul that, ‘all writing is inspired by God’ is here extended to ‘all forms of communication are inspired by God’s consequent nature.’ To the extent that these forms of communication help to produce a subjective unity of the many into one they are valuable, and become a creative agent in the consequent nature of God. To the extent that these forms of communication seek to separate individuals from each other, they become a reversion destructive of the consequent nature of God. 7 Actualization involves the temporal dipolar process of (0) nucleation of subjectivity, and (1) a systematic specialization of the many constituents into a unified whole. This whole, then, has become an actual occasion with its categoreal obligation or whatever of subjective unity. As an actual occasion it is irreducible to its constituents, i.e., it may not be divided further except in terms of its prehensions of its world. The actual constituents of the whole mediate these prehensions, but the agency of the whole cannot be explained solely by reference to its constituents. Emergence is the inclusion of other fundamental actualities into a nexus of actualities with the evolutionary capacity to become a fundamental actuality with its own subjective unity. This is quite consistent with Whitehead’s theory of societies, even though Whitehead never states it that way. The following extract, abridged and revised from an earlier work, lays out the basics of the model in a quasi-symbolic logic accompanied by a relational matrix, which serves as the categorical (categoreal) scheme. TABLE OF SYMBOLS Symbol “=int” “=” “∈” “E” =int =int =int =int Meaning “equals by interpretation” “is identical with” “is a member of a class characterized as” “everything” 8 “TOE” “0&1” “ “ “ “ “ ” ” ” ” ” =int =int =int =int =int =int =int “theory of everything” “a contrast” “the primordial” OR “the fundamental potential” “a fundamental actuality” “an emergent potential” “a consequence” OR “an emergent actualization” “orthogonal to” THE PROPOSITIONS 0: THE FUNDAMENTAL POTENTIAL TOE= 0&1 The theory of everything is the primordial contrast “0&1.” OR: The single natural force in all actual change is the fundamental potential for contrast represented by the expression “0&1”. 1: THE EMERGENT ACTUALIZATION Everything becomes actual through the interrelation between contrasts of contrasts, which are quantifiable along three contrasting dimensions: Space, Time and Nature. OR: Everything is an emergent actualization of the fundamental potential for contrast contrasted against contrast in three contrasting dimensions. Simplified yields: Everything is a member of a class of entities characterized as a consequence of (TOE squared) cubed. E ∈ (TOE2)3 9 THE RELATIONAL MATRIX 0,0 0,1 1,0 1,1 Mapped as: TOE= 0&1 0,0 Fundamental, Potential 0,1 Fundamental, Actual Emergent, Potential 1,0 Emergent, Actual 1,1 E ∈ (TOE2)3 To begin to apply some meaning to this figure we must begin with some basic, relevant notions. In this matrix are two basic notions each of which is expressed as a contrast. The first of these is the contrast of potential & actual. The difference between potential and actual is not a question of reality or existence; to the extent they are capable of originating or influencing actual behavior both are real, both exist. An actuality comes 10 into being through the complete determination of a potential. The potential is the unity of the contrast (0 & 1), whereas the actuality is the local determination of one of the poles of the contrast (0 OR 1). Every potential requires a minimum set of two possibilities constituting a superposition of mutually exclusive states. The actuality is the ‘collapse of the wave function’ localizing and determining the actuality. To suggest that the actuality is real while the potential is imaginary is to ignore the capacity of the potential to affect the actuality. The potential is universal to all members of a given class of entities. The actuality is the specific thing in itself with the characteristic of full determination of relevant potentials. An actuality is a temporal determination of potential, which evolves through time by the further determination of other relevant potentials. Each temporal occasion of determination of potential becomes a part of the internal constitution of that actual entity. Progression along the vector of actualization is the processive evolution of a fully determinate actual entity characterized by an increase in the specialization of its constituent members, increasingly centralized networks integrated into systems which service the whole and engender the emergence of the subjective unity of the whole transcending the subjective unity of the individual parts. In Whitehead’s terms, a serial route of occasions leading toward an individual enduring object with subjective unity. The second of these contrasts is that of fundamental & emergent. These two contrasting categories are always relative to each other. Fundamental refers to that which is the underlying actuality or potential of any given entity. 11 The principle of emergence, on the other hand, cannot be described by any analysis of actualities, but only by the synthesis of actualities. It is the synthesis of a multiplicity of fundamental actualities which creates an emergent actuality. Emergence here is consistent with the concept in the natural sciences of a coarsegrained behavior emerging from the interaction between a multiplicity, aggregate, nexus or society of individual actualities, and only derivatively as something which emerges within, or from, the evolutionary duration of any individual actuality. Inherent in any actuality is the potential to become part of an emergent actuality. The potential for this synthesis can only be determined relative to a set (minimum of two members) of existing fundamental actualities. Whereas the fundamental potential (contrast) is a pure potential (without reference to any actuality), an emergent potential requires a fundamental actuality, because it is the form of unity between two or more such actualities (nexus). The bonds (relationships) that are created by the full determination of relevant potentials in this synthesis between a group of contrasting fundamental actualities becomes a part of the constitution of the emergent actuality. This emergent actuality will exist on a larger spatial scale than its fundamental actualities; as well changes (cycles) in this emergent actuality take place on a longer temporal scale. It should be clear by now, not only the difference between the two contrasts (potential & actual and fundamental & emergent) as I have described them, but also, the difference in the categories used to describe the two contrasts. In this model then, these two categorical contrasts are shown as at right angles to each other since the one contrast cannot be described in the terms of the other. 12 What we have then is a contrast of contrasts, or contrast squared. For clarity sake, I will refer to the contrast of potential & actual as Poles and the contrast of fundamental & emergent as Categories. In a more familiar spreadsheet form this relational matrix would appear as follows: 0 1 0 0,0 1,0 1 0,1 1,1 By substituting the categories/rows and poles/columns for 0&1 we get the following spreadsheet: 0=Potential Fundamental, Potential 0,0 Emergent, Potential 1,0 1=Actual Fundamental, Actual 0,1 Emergent, Actual 1,1 0=Fundamental 1=Emergent This spreadsheet (relational matrix) provides the notions necessary to understand the structure of the model here presented and forms the framework of evolution. The natural progression is the same as that in mathematics, i.e., first-left to right and thendown the page. This progression, when averaged forms a line that moves from 0,0 to 1,1. This line forms what is referred to here as the natural axis of the relational matrix. Along this natural axis, the progression is from top left to bottom right. What makes this line proceed in this direction is a function of the growth of the universe. That which is a potential is actualized, and this actuality becomes the basis providing the potential for the emergent level of actualization. That which is the emergent actuality becomes the fundamental actual unit of the emergent potential at a 13 greater level of scale. As the universe progresses along this natural axis the other two axes grow as well. 14 The Natural Axis 0,0 0,1 1,0 1,1 Poles of Reality = abstract/potential=0 Categories of Principles =simple/fundamental/elemental=0 =complex/emergent/synergistic=1 = concrete/actual=1 This axis provides the first of three dimensions necessary for understanding any entity. The other two dimensions are those of time (temporal process) and space (spatial extension). These two dimensions have been treated by science since general relativity as four dimensions of spacetime (three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time). As well, in Whitehead, both space and time are conceived as elements of the extensive continuum, such that it is meaningful to speak of temporal extension and spatial extension. Because Whitehead’s usage of the term ‘extension’ refers both to time and space making the correlation to the Einsteinian spacetime ontology seem natural, in this model ‘extension’ is reserved to space, while time is always conceived as ‘process.’ In this model the dimensions are treated as equal in relevance, but none is reducible to the other two. The three dimensions we call space are subsumed as three relational directions within the spatial (extensive) dimension, and time (process) is treated as a separate dimension, which can only be logically mapped as lying at a right angle to the dimension of space. 15 The Temporal Axis 0,1 1,1 Poles of Duration = processive = eternal Categories of Sequence = prior 0,0 1,0 = subsequent The Spatial Axis 1,0 0,0 Poles of Locus = universal/non-local =0 = local =1 Categories of Scale = larger=1 0,1 1,1 = smaller=0 The processive (temporal) evolution from the one eternal object (unified contrast) creates the actualities whose relationships to one another create the potential for spatial extension. Thus time arises prior to space, but spatial extension provides the potential for the processive evolution (actualization) on a larger scale. Where this model differs from the scientific model is in the addition of a third dimension from which the other two are derived. This third dimension (the natural dimension) lies at right angles to the other two. Each of the three dimensions is thus orthogonal to the other two. These three squares set orthogonally intersecting along their diagonals to form an octahedron (see below) produce the complete relational matrix of explanation. 16 Any entity may be described in terms of this matrix, but even a thorough analysis of any two dimensions cannot fully explain the third. It is this third dimension, the natural axis, which constitutes the dipolarity of God; the progression from 0,0 to 1,1, from the fundamental potential to the emergent actuality, from the primordial nature of God to the consequent nature of God. This model is thoroughly abstract, and is not intended to suggest that every actual entity is an octahedron, but simply provides a logical framework within which the discussion of natural evolution can find a context. It is the progression through the matrix, the natural axis, that vector produced from the combination of the vectors of actualization and emergence, which has objective meaning in the universe, not the form of the matrix itself. 17 This is what happens when we take an offhand speculation without any real metaphysical foundation, and make of it a metaphysical doctrine. The first problem arises from ignoring or minimizing the use of the word ‘perhaps.’ This is not a typical word for Whitehead’s writings. For the most part he is didactic, laying out his scheme, comparing, contrasting with others, and making his final generalizations without the use of the word ‘perhaps.’ The conclusion I draw is that this should not be taken as a necessary development of a metaphysical principle, but an offhand remark in which “your guess is as good as mine” is the more precise definition of ‘perhaps.’ Very little of the language used in this statement derives from Whitehead’s technical language which he uses so eloquently, and deliberately in his exposition. The second problem involves Whitehead’s fairly consistent usage of single quotes around the word ‘empty’ when used in reference to ‘space.’ I take this as an implication that ‘so-called “empty” space’ is a fiction, an insight that is just beginning to find resonance in the cosmology of Process Physics. To speak of occasions as being “made of” empty space is a notion foreign to Whitehead’s theory of extension. That there could be actual occasions in the interstices of the brain or the interstices of an atom is quite Whiteheadian, but Whitehead’s cosmology was much more in line with the cosmology of Process Physics than Einstein’s. The third problem arises from the identification of ‘actual occasions’ as applying strictly to those sub-microscopic event-particles (nodes) of which space is made. This results in an inadequate understanding of the unitary society as nothing more than an aggregate, or at best, an amalgam of submicroscopic events rather than a nested hierarchy (hologram) with its own subjective unity. In this model ‘occasion’ refers to any event, 18 regardless of scale, which can be characterized as having an origin (data), an evolution (subjective process of integration), and an ending (satisfaction) resulting in the creation of an object of final fact (superject). This process is best understood as a holographic principle that applies to every actual occasion regardless of scale. At the smallest of scales, Whitehead proposes that there is a limit to the analysis (division) of occasions, and that ultimately every occasion is atomic, and any analysis beyond that will reveal only the prehensions of the subject of the occasion. Whitehead’s task was not to define the scale of the atomic actual occasion, but the metaphysical principles that characterize every actual occasion regardless of scale. Where Whitehead’s system differed from this model was in not emphasizing the irreducibility of a society of occasions in the same manner as the indivisibility of the sub-microscopic ‘actual occasions.’ It is the same process of integration of elements of perception (experience) into one singular, but complex, experience (subjective unity) that creates an actual occasion or a society of societies of societies …. The suggestion that a complex society such as the animal body may be governed by a dominant route of sub-microscopic occasions, even if the occasions last as long as a twenty-fourth of second, ignores the holistic final cause, causa sui, of Whitehead’s account and the manner in which these micro-events make up the reality of the macro-event, not by ruling the progressive becoming of the event, but by contributing energy over time to bring about the event. 19 Cosmology Without a clear statement of what or who God is, all statements regarding the existence of God are meaningless within a cosmology that leaves little or no room for God to act. Such is the state with the cosmology set forth by the work depending on and extending the tenets of Einsteinian general relativity (GR). Few theories, scientific or otherwise, have commanded the unquestioning obedience of a community of thought more rigorously than GR. The most devastating impact has been that created by the physics community itself in regard to any discussion of anything resembling an absolute frame of reference or absolute space. Less controversial, but more insidious by virtue of it’s ubiquitous popularity, is the conflation of the three dimensions of space with the dimension of time to create a four-dimensional manifold with time represented as one of the geometrical lines of this four-dimensional “spacetime.” Process Physics, a new model of space and time being developed by Reginald Cahill, provides the basis for a cosmology which is not only congenial to process thought of Whitehead, et. al. but may provide the framework for understanding the omnipresence of God in a fashion similar to Cobb’s regional inclusion while at the same time reinforcing Sherburne’s de-centered process. The iteration system has the form Bij → Bij - α(B + B-1 )ij + wij . Here Bij is a square array of real numbers giving some relational link between nodes i and j. Here B-1 is the inverse of this array: to compute this all the values Bij are needed: in this sense the system is totally self-referential. As well at each iteration step, in which the current values of Bij are replaced by the values computed on the RHS, the random numbers wij are included: this enables the iteration process to model all aspects of time. These random numbers are called selfreferential noise (SRN) as they limit the precision of the self-referencing. Without the 20 SRN the system is deterministic and reversible, and loses all the experiential properties of time. 21 References: Plato, Sophist, 360 BC, tr. Benjamin Jowett, Alex Catalogue, 1999. Wilber, Ken, ed., The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge of Science, Boston: Shambala, 1985.