Logical Foundation
Preface
Before we embark on our journey of understanding, there are some key concepts that are important to comprehend beforehand if the reader is to seamlessly follow along with the explanations. These key concepts form the basic argumentative structure of a scientific examination of reality. A good understanding of them is therefore required if we are to build coherent and logical lines of reasoning.
Key concept 1 - The act of understanding automatically requires us to assume certain premises to be true.
Key concept 2 - The logical combination of two or more premises is what generates conclusions. A simple example would be that if “A equals B” and “B equals C”, we would conclude that “A equals C”.
Key concept 3 - A conclusion is fundamentally flawed if any of the supporting premises is flawed.
Key concept 4 - A true understanding of reality begins by defining the most fundamental premises we can assume to be true.
Key concept 5 - A true understanding of reality works its way up to a conclusion by only using probabilities to determine the supporting premises. This is also called inductive reasoning.
Key concept 6 - In order to reach conclusions that do not contradict themselves, we must be aware of hidden premises. These are premises that are often not stated clearly in the line of reasoning but are nevertheless required to reach the final conclusion. Overlooking hidden premises is what usually leads to performative contradictions.
While some of these key concepts might be hard to fully grasp right now, a basic understanding of them is enough to start our exploration. On that note, Part One will already delve deeper into the intricacies of reality. If at any point during the reading experience questions arise, revisiting this introduction might help clear them up.
What is The Essence?
When setting out on an exploration of reality, we want to start from the essence of the essence. We want to establish our understanding on the most fundamental premises and make sure that we build a coherent line of reasoning from the very beginning.
So how would one go about finding this essence?
This is where things get interesting. Because even asking the question is already assuming that we are able to ask ourselves the question, which requires a certain framework to do so. Not only do we need to exist, but we also need, for example, to be in the possession of a functional brain, including the ability to speak, memorize and structure beliefs (all factors which depend upon well-defined consistent patterns)
So before we answer the question, we have to take into account that both our existence and the presence of consistent patterns are required to even ask the question and should thus be incorporated in our line of reasoning as the two most fundamental premises (not doing so is what often leads to contradictions in our rhetoric.)
Our existence and the presence of consistent patterns are often also called hidden premises.
Consistent patterns are here defined as the regular and intelligible patterns that underlie the structure of reality (such as the ones observed in nature). An in-depth explanation of what these patterns consist of (and of how they likely come about) can be found later in this chapter.
Are We Asking the Question?
As we have explored before, the act of asking the question automatically requires certain premises in place. At first glance, this realization might not seem so significant but it does bring up an important point. If our ability to ask the question is intrinsically dependent on other premises, to which extent can we be sure that we are indeed asking the question?
Even though this may sound like an absurd proposition, if we consider some of the necessary premises for us to be able to confidently claim that we are asking the question, we start realizing that maybe it is not so absurd after all.
One of the most important is the existence of time and space. For us to know with full certainty that we are asking the question, we would have to assume that there is a time interval within which the question is being asked because, without this time interval, we simply could not know when (or if) we were asking the question in the first place.
The problem is that, while our natural tendency is to automatically take both time and space for absolutes, there are very concrete scientific observations that contradict this assumption. If we look, for example, at quantum mechanics (a field of science that studies the smallest building blocks of our universe) and we observe the exquisite behavior of particles popping in and out of existence and going back and forth in time, we start realizing that time and space are concepts which are a lot more abstract than one would initially think.
This understanding is all we need to answer the question with which we started this topic. Within a framework where time and space seem to possess elusive properties and we are not able, as a result, of accurately pinpointing the time interval within which we would be asking the question, we are essentially left not knowing whether the question is being asked in the first place.
Naturally, all the given assumptions about time and space also hold true for any statement we make. In the same way that we do not know whether we are asking the question, we also do not know whether we are verbalizing anything at all.
This realization brings about a very strong logical pillar, one that deeply defines the core of our argumentation: In a reality where we do not know if we are verbalizing our statements, we have to automatically assume that those statements might be wrong. We simply cannot be absolutely certain of the truthfulness of our statements when the very words that bring them about are potentially not being spoken. Of course, one could still question if concluding that we cannot be completely certain of our statements is an absolute truth - because if it is, we would be contradicting ourselves. But the thing is that we just don’t know. Even saying that we cannot be completely certain of our statements is, in itself, an assumption.
Can We Be Sure We Exist?
As we have explored before, in a setting where we do not know if we are verbalizing our statements, we also cannot know with full certainty whether those statements are true. Although simple, this is an understanding that greatly defines the course of our entire exploration because not only does it bring forth the assumption that absolutes do not exist, it also leads to an unexpected, perhaps even unbelievable realization - the fact that even our own existence cannot be proclaimed with absolute certainty.
Now on the surface, this can, of course, sound very absurd. Judging by our own experience, it would only seem natural to conclude with absolute confidence that we are alive, aware and interacting with the world. Claiming otherwise would even be somewhat paradoxical.
What is very important to be aware though is that, even if for some reason we disagree with the argument that absolutes do not exist, the reality framework we are subjected to is still one that does not allow our existence to be absolutely proven.
This is mainly because, as weird as it may sound, even if we would want to make the case that we definitely exist, we would not be able to do so. Not because it would be physically impossible to verbalize the words but because any potential argument that we could use would be logically invalid at its foundation.
To understand why this is the case, it is crucial to analyze the relationship between language and experience. Even though we are often not aware of it, language is an element that is brought about by our experience and there are certain underlying dynamics that arise from this relationship that we must be aware of if we want to build a line of reasoning that does not contradict itself.
These dynamics can be better comprehended by visualizing experience and all of its elements as a Euler diagram. Euler diagrams are diagrams which are commonly used to describe, in a very simple way, the logical relationships between hierarchical concepts. For example, in this specific case, we could draw a diagram where experience would be represented by an entire set and language would be represented by one of the small subsets within the entire set.
The architecture of this specific type of diagram brings with it certain logical principles. While we can assume that a subset is true when the entire set is true, we cannot, however, do the opposite - which is using the fact that a subset is true to prove that the entire set is true.
So we can already see why Euler diagrams are of great relevance when it comes to understanding the dynamics between language and experience. Since language can be defined as a small subset of the entire set that is experience, anytime we attempt to explain why we exist, we are essentially using one of the subsets of the entire set to prove the set itself, and we cannot do that. We simply cannot take an element that only exists within the set of experience and use it to embody that experience.
So, in a sense, we are trapped. Our own experience might even seem very real but if due to the relationship between language and experience, no argument can be possibly given to defend the idea that we exist, we have no other alternative but to accept that even the concept of ‘experience’ is a premise we cannot prove with absolute certainty.
In the same way that we cannot claim our own experience to be absolute, we also cannot do the opposite - which is declaring it as nonexistent. The act of doing so is considered a performative contradiction, a fallacy that arises when the statement that we are making contradicts the ability to make it. In this specific case, the statement that experience does not exist would be contradicting itself since we need experience to even claim it.
One could still, of course, claim that the provided arguments do not specifically point out the reason why we might not exist and that further analysis is therefore required before we completely dismiss the idea of an absolute existence. In that event, the question that then becomes extremely important to ask is “When do we exist?”. Because if we really want to make the case that we absolutely exist, we have to consider that existence automatically requires a certain time interval to express itself. Without this interval, we would not know when we exist and would therefore not be able to claim with absolute certainty that we do, in fact, exist.
When Do We Exist?
As we have explored before, on the assumption that the logical reasoning so far presented could still be argued and that the notion that we absolutely exist could also be upheld, what then becomes extremely important to do is identifying the time interval within which existence could manifest itself.
So what is this time interval, concretely? If we look at reality and we take the universal notion of time to be true, we can assume that time is divided into 3 periods - past, present, and future. Our goal here would be therefore to understand in which of these time periods could we be sure that we exist.
Right off the bat, we can already assume that the future is not one of those periods because if, for example, tomorrow everything would come to an end, there would be no future anymore. And so, since we cannot even be sure that the future will come, we also cannot be sure that we will exist within it.
The past, on the other hand, requires a more detailed explanation. Mainly because, even though we cannot know with full certainty that we have existed in the past, our normal tendency is to assume that we did. Our memories (and a seemingly continuous stream of time) give us the perception that we have existed previously and also, that everything that happened throughout the years is now collectively giving rise to who we are.
To understand why we cannot base ourselves on our memories to conclude that we have existed in the past, the thought experiment where we imagine that we have been cloned (the generation of a perfect copy of us with the same appearance, memories, and beliefs) is particularly helpful.
This is because if we were copied and someone would ask us whether our clone had existed in the past, we would naturally say no. Even though the clone would have the same memories and could, therefore, remember the same life experiences that we do, we would know for a fact that our clone did not exist in the past - it had only appeared now.
This observation is of great relevance to our line of reasoning. Because if our clone and ourselves are essentially the same person and it is clear that the clone’s memories didn’t come from the past, we have, at least, to consider the possibility that our own memories might not be coming from the past. In fact, for all we know, in the same way that our clone manifested itself right now, maybe everything that makes up who we are (including our memories) has also arisen at this very moment (and then we could even wonder whether such a thing as a ‘former time’ exists).
So when trying to identify the time interval within which existence could manifest itself, we have to be aware that both past and future are nothing more than simple assumptions. We cannot be absolutely sure of their concreteness which is why, ultimately, the only way we can analyze the situation is by concluding that we exist in the present moment. If there is a time interval within which we can be relatively confident that existence comes to fruition, that interval has to be right now.
We Cannot Be Sure
As we have explored before, in order to absolutely claim that we exist, we need to determine the time interval within which existence could manifest itself and, from what we have been able to understand so far, the only possible option for this time interval seems to be the present moment.
Having reached this conclusion, we are now at a critical point in the quest to prove our existence because if we discover that the ‘now’ cannot be concretely defined and there is, as a result, no point in time that we can identify as the moment in which we exist, we would have to conclude, once again, that our experience cannot be claimed as a factual truth.
So how would one go about analyzing the now? Despite our natural tendency to make things more complex than what they usually are, we don’t need mathematical equations or intricate logical reasoning to determine whether we can be absolutely sure that we exist right now. A simple observation of the present moment suffices.
If we take a few seconds now to focus on the present moment, we will realize that the present moment isn’t really tangible. Anytime we try to somehow seize it, the present moment becomes the next moment in a succession of ‘next moments’ without end.
This is easily observed when verbalizing a word. The moment we say ‘now’ for example, it is already in the past. No matter how fast or precise we are at articulating the word, the now seems to be so infinitely small that anytime we try to grab it, it’s gone.
As much as this observation may seem too unbelievable to comprehend and even accept, it is nevertheless one of the strongest arguments supporting the notion that we might not exist. If the now is infinitely small and there is no clear window of time during which we could be expressing ourselves, we simply cannot know or claim with absolute certainty that we do, in fact, exist.
We could still make yet another point to disprove this conclusion and claim that the given reasoning is intrinsically flawed because we cannot use what is brought about by our experience (the ‘now’) as an argument to discredit experience itself (similar to how we cannot use a dream to claim that we are not dreaming). While this a fairly valid remark, it is however important to realize that, theoretically, the ‘now’ does not really exist because the 'now' is infinitely small. And since, by definition, consciousness requires a certain time frame to express itself, when could we say that we exist? Within an infinitely small 'now', there is no way we could even have the necessary neural activity to bring about a thought or generate a memory. Additionally, we also cannot possibly be sure that we exist right now because even creating the thought that “we exist right now” already requires a time interval that took place in the past.
Even after all the argumentation laid out in the last topics, it is not uncommon for people to still experience quite some reluctance to accept or even simply consider the idea that they might not exist. While we often convince ourselves that there is a legitimate logical reason to do so, ultimately the problem is not the logic but the conditioned tendency to associate the idea of our existence with a personal identity (a collection of emotionally loaded beliefs about ourselves). Most of the time, our safety is fundamentally tied to this identity which is why when confronted with the possibility of non-existence, we tend to feel threatened and experience an emotional response. And since the emotional part of our brain tends to work in a very binary way, the way we feel usually prevails, making it very hard for us to objectively evaluate all the information and ultimately embrace the idea that we might not exist.
Assumptions
We started our exploration by wondering about the most fundamental premises and went on to discover that of the two identified premises (our own existence and the consistent patterns of reality), we actually cannot be completely sure of the fact that we exist. Naturally, this is now of great relevance for our argumentation because if the premise that we exist cannot be defined as an absolute but it is nonetheless at the foundation of everything we say, we basically have to assume it to be true in order to proceed with our exploration.
This logical outcome does not come, however, without its repercussions. While framing our own existence as an assumption might not immediately strike as super consequential, it does have a fundamental far-reaching consequence for our entire argumentative approach. Within a framework of reasoning where our existence is merely an assumption, it won’t ever matter how undeniable we think any of our understandings are - in the end, those too will always be just assumptions.
Admittedly this is far from being the kind of logical verdict one would expect. One would think that the whole goal of an empirical exploration of reality is to attain conclusions that we can be sure of and not simple assumptions. In fact, if assumptions are all we can hope for, one could even start questioning if it’s worth the effort to pursue an understanding of reality.
What is important to be aware though is that just because we cannot possibly reach conclusions that are absolutely true, it does not mean that conclusions cannot be reached at all. Even when the entire framework of our argumentation is based on the formulation of assumptions, we can still determine what assumptions (or conclusions) are more likely to be true and, by building assumption after assumption, generate a perfectly valid line of reasoning.
In fact, if we base ourselves on the knowledge gathered so far (wherein we have recognized that absolutes do not seem to exist), it becomes relatively obvious that this is actually the only way there is to build a logically flawless line of reasoning - one that is grounded in the analytical combination of assumptions rather than absolute truths.
Ultimately, just because the framework we are subjected to is one where both our existence and all of our understandings are merely assumptions, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we cannot reach accurate and meaningful conclusions. In fact, the opposite is true - it is precisely by identifying the assumptions that are more likely to be true that we end up coming up with insights that are logically immaculate.
Thinking in terms of what is more or less likely can also be described as thinking in probabilities. In a reality setting where our entire argumentation is inherently built on assumptions, our understanding should automatically adopt a probabilistic-centered approach.
Once we frame everything as probabilities, there is no point in becoming emotionally attached to any of the answers we may reach since there will be always the possibility (even if astronomically small) that we might be wrong. Needless to say, this understanding also applies to the writings of this book. Regardless of how detailed or well-founded these might be, every single definition, concept, argument or conclusion outlined in the following pages will be nothing more than mere assumptions.
Inductive Reasoning
As we have explored before, in a setting where both our existence and all of our understandings are merely assumptions, rather than thinking in terms of what we can be sure of, we have to start thinking in terms of what is more or less likely, an argumentative approach that is also commonly described as thinking in probabilities.
Thinking in probabilities can also, in turn, be defined more scientifically by using the denomination of inductive reasoning. To put it very simply, inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which, from observable data, conclusions are induced based on their probability. For example, we notice a cloudy sky and assume that it is more likely that it’s going to rain than not. Or we know that a friend of ours got a job promotion and assume that it is more likely he will be happy than sad. In both of these situations, we observe the reality in place and then use the inductive process to draw plausible conclusions.
Now what is interesting about this specific topic is that while inductive reasoning is the only credible and feasible logical approach to make sense of the world, there is a second type of reasoning that has long been credited within scientific circles as a necessary complement to the inductive one. This reasoning is usually described as deductive, as it essentially follows a process where a general premise is taken to be true and conclusions are thereafter ‘deduced’ based on the presumption that the initial premise is true. A good example would be claiming that all organisms have cells and that, as a result, humans have cells, dogs have cells, birds have cells and so on. We basically start with a premise that is somewhat universally accepted and then ‘deduce’ certain conclusions from that premise.
The problem with this type of reasoning though is that, unknowingly so, it always assumes hidden premises. Whether we are specifying the general premise with which to start our ‘deduction’ or later ‘deducing’ conclusions from that initial premise, every statement that we make is automatically building on the hidden premise (and assumption) that we exist which, as we have seen before, immediately forces us to start thinking in probabilities.
So while deductive reasoning might seem perfectly logical and even capable of yielding answers that are far more conclusive than the inductive process, the reality is that it cannot really exist. ‘Deduction’ is always based on the assumption (and induction) of premises and the act of understanding is an inherent inductive one.
One could still argue that someone formulating a line of reasoning based on the deep belief that every premise is true (due to lack of knowledge) could not possibly be using inductive reasoning. This argument is not accurate though as the person would still be using inductive logic, but just flawed one.
While the scientific method advocates the use of inductive reasoning to come up with hypotheses, it also makes it clear that deductive reasoning should be the preferred method to confirm or refute those hypotheses. It is stated that in order to test a hypothesis, we need to anticipate what are the results that support it and then run a set of experiments. When the results are the ones expected, we have allegedly ‘deduced’ that the hypothesis is true. This is, of course, as thoroughly explained by now, not the case. What science describes as “testing the hypothesis” is simply the inductive process of predicting what results are more likely to happen and to which extent they influence the hypothesis’ legitimacy. Results are therefore mere probabilities that can be used to determine the likelihood of the hypothesis that was initially posed.
There is a particular instance of reasoning that is often described as clearly deductive - the logical analysis that “if A is 4 and B is 5, then A plus B is 9.” If we examine it deeply though, we realize, once again, that this is not the case. For us to assume that ‘4’ or ‘B’ are tangible concepts, we need a framework where numbers and letters can exist, and that framework is a result of how humans conceptualize reality. So, even here, we are forced to first include our existence in the premises in order to assume that numbers and letters can be realistically defined.
Consistent Patterns
As one may be able to recall, we began our exploration by unveiling the two hidden premises at the foundation of our ability to formulate an argumentation - our existence and the consistent patterns of reality. Having thoroughly examined the former, we will now proceed with our exploration by delving deeper into the latter, this time guided by our newly acquired knowledge that every one of our statements will be just an assumption.
So what does the term “consistent patterns of reality” exactly mean?
To put it very simply, the consistent patterns of reality refer to all the patterns underpinning the design and structure of the universe as far as we know it. This can range from plant spirals and sand dunes (regularities of form found in the natural world) to patterns that follow specific events such as the water cycle, photosynthesis, Earth’s orbit and rotation, gravity and chemical reactions of the brain.
One should be aware though that these are but an infinitesimal fraction of the countless examples of patterns that exist. Ultimately, everything that is part of the observable (and non-observable) universe falls into the definition of a consistent pattern and can be logically studied as so.
Patterns and Probabilities
One of the things everyone usually has no doubt about is that the universe is composed of solid matter. Stars, planets, rocks, trees - these are clearly solid objects. Or are they? Investigations into their core are revealing that we probably shouldn’t be so quick to jump to such a conclusion. In what was a startling discovery, by studying the atom - the particle everything is made of -, quantum physicists found that roughly 99.9% of it is nothing but empty space.
But there’s more. Zooming into the 0.1% that actually has some substance only results in showing us a different kind of emptiness. The electrons, the quarks, all the fundamental particles located inside the atom are not solid objects. Thinking of them as somehow tiny spheres is a convenient simplification, but it does not represent the fascinating reality of this strange quantum void. The only things that exist here are waves. Waves that behave similar to vibrations of sound or ripples in water. But rather than oscillations of matter, the peaks and valleys of these quantum waves are not made of anything tangible, they are waves of probabilities. Their peaks reveal the areas where there is a high probability of detecting the energy of what we may call an electron. Their valleys indicate that the chances there are much lower. As bizarre as it may sound that the building blocks of our universe seem to behave according to chance rather than being intuitively predictable, this is not just a theory. It's a simple fact that can be tested and observed with nothing more than a laser pointer and a comb to replicate part of the famous double-slit experiment.
The counter-intuitiveness of this discovery has been the root of popular misinterpretations and metaphysical confusion where it's been described as particles being aware and knowing that they're being observed or the universe being influenced by the power of our thinking. The truth is at least equally fascinating. The real principle at work is that if we can not know where a particle is, it exists purely as a probability wave that tells us where the particle is more or less likely to be found. And only when we take action to measure where the particle could be, the wave will suddenly cease to exist and the particle reveals itself. The particle has no defined location until we make the measurement.
Ultimately, no matter how weird it is, quantum theory and all experimental evidence reveal that our universe is inherently probabilistic. Things within it, from the neurons in our brain to the galaxy we are a part of, are not comprised of concrete tangible matter but are rather the result of waves of probability which cannot be predicted with 100% certainty.
This doesn't mean that science cannot make accurate estimates as to what is more or less likely. The mathematics and statistics of quantum physics reveal that the seemingly random oscillations that make up our reality are still deeply and perfectly consistent patterns. In fact, many of our modern technologies, such as solar panels or microprocessors, would not have been possible if we had not deciphered much of the intricate and unique behavior of quantum mechanics.
This finding ultimately corroborates our previous logical understandings, in particular the essentiality of adopting a probabilistic (or inductive) approach in our reasoning.
Existence vs Patterns
Having meticulously studied the two most fundamental premises at the foundation of our argumentation - our existence and the consistent patterns of reality -, we can now begin analyzing the ways in which they relate to and interact with each other.
One of the first things that is important to realize is that these consistent patterns (the way that we perceive them) do not seem to exist outside of our conscious experience. We tend to assume that they do - that even after we die the world keeps rotating and the sun shining - but, in truth, we cannot really know that.
Take a stone as an example. If someone would ask us whether stones exist in the natural world, we would instantly reply that they do but what if we were to remove our existence from the equation? What would be a stone then? Apparently, a stone is not able to experience itself so how would the stone know what is part of itself and what isn't? How would it know if it includes other stones or if each stone is an individual component? Without our perception defining the stone’s specific properties, it does not seem like the notion of a ‘stone’ could possibly exist.
(This conclusion is also supported by our current understandings of quantum systems. The particles that make up the consistent patterns of reality do not seem to be sitting out there in some pre-existing space. Experiment after experiment has shown - defying common sense - that only in the presence of an observer do these particles come to materialize themselves.)
Granted, one could still conceivably argue that other people also have a perception of their own and that a stone does not therefore exclusively depends on one observer to exist. As legitimate as this argument might sound, by upholding it we would be, however, overlooking a very important premise: the fact that everything that we experience is relative to our frame of reference. Whether a stone, other people or the whole universe, these are all properties of our conscious experience which we do not (and cannot) know for sure that remain true in a scenario where we would not exist.
But then, the question arises: If the consistent patterns of reality cannot exist without us, does that mean that our existence is more fundamental than these patterns? This is what we will be attempting to answer in the next few paragraphs but first, it is worth noting that an increasingly large number of philosophers and spiritual teachers think (or at least behave) as if that was the case. Mobilized by the idea that an objective, observer-independent reality does not seem to exist, they have come to build intricate lines of reasoning where arguments such as “everything is inherently subjective” or “there is no objective truth” are used to devalue and dismiss anything someone else says, leading them to uphold their own (subjective) experience as the fundamental truth and ultimately adopt a paradigm where their existence is perceived as being of higher value than the consistent patterns.
As accurate or compelling these arguments might be, however, a thorough analysis shows that they are actually not so relevant for the question we are trying to answer. In order to understand whether our existence is more fundamental than the consistent patterns, it is imperative that we base ourselves on a pragmatic assessment of reality and adopt a probabilistic approach. Because if we do so, it is not anymore about determining whether the objective reality (or truth) exists but about understanding what is more or less likely within the setting in which we live in.
And then the discussion becomes very different because what is the likelihood that our ability to perform indispensable biological behaviors such as eating, breathing or sleeping requires the presence of consistent patterns? Furthermore, what is the likelihood that our existence has such predominance over the patterns that we are able to completely override them and not depend on them for our survival? What is more likely?
And the thing is, if we consider that we cannot simply stop eating or sleeping without severe consequences for our health or that by having something falling onto our head we can lose consciousness or even potentially die, we immediately realize that our existence does not have hegemony over reality. In fact, the contrary is true. Not only are we, through our experience, not able to ‘nullify’ the patterns of reality, we also seem to be inexorably subject to them.
So in the end, our existence and the consistent patterns of reality are two sides of the same coin - we cannot exist without consistent patterns and consistent patterns cannot exist without us. Yet, when we analyze the reality setting in which we live in and correctly frame the understanding that an objective reality might not exist, we realize that the likelihood that our experience is some kind of entity that surpasses all the patterns that govern it is extremely low, meaning that ultimately it seems a lot more plausible that we are subjected to the consistent patterns of reality than these patterns are subjected to us.
How someone defines the relationship between these two premises sums up the fundamental difference between a spiritual and scientific person. When we boil it down, a spiritual person believes that the consistent patterns of reality are defined by them while a scientific person believes that their existence is defined by these consistent patterns.
Where Do Patterns Come From?
Having understood what both our existence and the consistent patterns of reality entail, and how one is subjected to the other, it becomes appropriate to continue our exploration by examining a question that scientists have struggled, for millennia, to answer in a compelling and satisfying manner which is, where do these consistent patterns come from?
As most might know, the current widely accepted hypothesis is that the universe began in an explosive instant around 14 billion years ago and every pattern can be ultimately traced back to that event. As well-established as this theory might be, however, it still leaves room for a lot of questions. Where did the Big Bang come from? Who or what has created it? It does not seem plausible that things would suddenly appear out of nothing so if we are to take the prevailing scientific answer for granted, it makes more sense that something or someone created the Big Bang and that there is, therefore, a creator.
Since, to this day, no one has been able to provide logically sound answers to these questions (and any conclusion we might reach will still be merely an assumption at the end), it seems worthwhile to at least try to conjure a potential explanation as to where the consistent patterns of reality come from.
A question that immediately comes to mind is how can there even be something. Because if we follow the logic that something needs to have been created by something, then we are back to step one wondering who created the something that created something. To solve this riddle, there are two scenarios that seem logically plausible - either there has always been nothing or there has always been infinity. Given that we have an experience of ourselves and of the logical patterns around us, it seems unlikely that there has always been nothing so we will here assume with a certain level of confidence that there has always been infinity (which does not require a creator).
Having established as more likely that there has always been infinity, the question that then becomes crucial to ask is how come the entire structure of reality (the Big Bang, the universe, life) has eventually emerged from it? Because if we could find the connection between infinity and this consistency and order that we experience, we would have essentially discovered a potential answer to our initial question. In our next two topics, we will attempt to explain this connection. (This is just a simple theory though, we do not conceive it as the ultimate answer.)
Information and Infinity
As we’ve explored before, if we follow the line of reasoning that there has always been infinity, the only thing we would need to do to provide a potential answer for the origin of the universe is to explain how the present-day structure and order that we experience could plausibly emerge from it.
Before we do so, it is important to note that scientists have been trying to reach this so-called “theory of everything” for ages with no success. Their failure can in part be explained by recent understandings in the field of quantum physics. The discovery that the smallest building blocks of the universe pop in and out of existence and are able to go back and forth in time dismantled many of the concepts scientists thought understood about the world. It forced them to reconsider previous understandings of time and space and discard a lot of generally accepted theories and ideas.
Since thinking within common scientific notions hasn’t served us well, in order to explain the connection between infinity and reality, we will use instead a paradigm where everything is treated as information, more specifically binary information of 1’s and 0’s. This might sound odd to some people but the truth is that we can actually simulate our entire world with 1’s and 0’s. Words, sounds, colors, or just about anything you see around you - it’s all data. So if we assume that infinity exists as a perpetual continuum of 1’s and 0’s, how could reality emerge from it?
Given the fact that everything that we experience is subjective to our own frame of reference, the first thing we have to assume when attempting to answer this question is that we exist right now. Furthermore, we also have to assume that every moment we do, we are a different iteration than the previous one. This is more or less obvious since if that was not the case, we would be trapped inside a loop without being able to change or grow. So existing inherently requires constant change.
To illustrate, if we imagine the present moment as a package of information, this would mean that our ‘now’ package is changing all the time and consciousness could be therefore described as a collection of ever-changing and never-ending packages of information bringing about our sense of experience. Since each package builds on top of the last, if we were to add every single package of information that we have ever experienced, the final result would be a record of our entire life. (If we were to be simulated on a PC, for example, we would be able to identify the number of bits pertaining to each specific package and every infinitesimal moment of conscious experience within that package.)
Now it is important to keep in mind that we are here assuming that the way each package expresses itself is a deterministic process and it is unlikely that it is. If we build on the idea that there has always been infinity, it is more likely that every single decision that we have ever made exists and that every single package of information therefore also exists. So the ‘enigma’ that then becomes important to solve is why are we experiencing certain information packages instead of others. What is it that determines that? Why are we not apperceiving a reality where, for example, dragons and unicorns are real?
The answer is simple. We know that every single package naturally builds on top of the ones that preceded them. And since inherent to the collection of information packages that is our consciousness right now is a certain order and consistency, every ensuing information package that prolongs our experience must necessarily follow those same rules of consistency. This is why we don't experience a reality where dragons and unicorns are real. At each and every moment in time, we will always experience the information package that is most likely to express within the consistency of what is bringing it about.
So the question we then need to ask ourselves is not “How does infinity give rise to the universe and all the life within it?” but rather “How does infinite 1’s and 0’s give rise to the consistent patterns of reality (here loosely defined as information packages), from a probabilistic point of view and relative to our consciousness right now?” In our next topic, this is the question we will try to answer.
Compression Algorithm
As we’ve explained before, in order to find a connection between infinity and the consistent patterns of reality, what we have to understand is how are these patterns arising from infinite 1’s and 0’s, from a probabilistic point of view and relative to our consciousness.
And the answer is beautiful - they emerge naturally. This may sound unfeasible (at least, initially) but even within infinite 1’s and 0’s, we will be able to find a certain order. Statistically speaking, 1 will be as widely common as 0 (50% chance of expressing themselves) and the combinations 1-1, 1-0, 0-1, and 0-0 will each have, in turn, a chance of 25%. If we would keep adding numbers, the lower and lower the chances that a string would occur.
Perhaps the best way to exemplify this is by explaining the difference between file formats. If we take a screenshot, for example, and choose to store it in a BMP format, this file will be much bigger than if we had stored it in a JPEG one. This is because the latter employs compression algorithms to reduce the file size. So even though, in both cases, we are talking about the same file, the JPEG one will be more common within infinity because of its reduced number of bits.
Going back to our strings’ example, if our experience right now could be expressed through a bigger or a smaller string, we would automatically be the smaller string because, within infinity, that would be the most likely to occur. Ultimately, this is all we need to explain how the consistent patterns of reality emerge relative to our consciousness. These are merely probabilistic bit strings of information that automatically and naturally emerge from expressing themselves in their most compressed version.
The interesting thing about this theory (provided that it is true) is that we could derive all forces from entropy. The reason why things tend to go from a state of order to a state of disorder is because that’s what’s more likely to occur, based on the physical laws that we are subjected to (whose existence is also determined by their greater probability.) This is also why entropic relativity might potentially, one day, lay the groundwork for a ‘Theory of Everything’.