Clearing up contradictions between holism, boundlessness and difference
There are three interrelated issues in the original PDF (2017) as well as last month’s short video that cry out for clarification.
I will start to address them here.
I will start to address them here.
The universe that was sketched-out had the following three properties (and these alone):
- Holistically — a whole, self-contained single plenum;
- Boundlessness — infinite in space and time (at least potentially);
- Differentiability — as solely made up of spacial/temporal variances (at a fundamental level).
Furthermore, the constituent parts that make up the universal whole could themselves be considered as holistic entities too; whether galaxies or gluons, each are potentially boundless in their divisibility, and in turn fashioned only from spacial/temporal differences. The picture is of a sort-of a universe of universes.
representation of the universe — or any entity within it
But these three properties of the universe (and its constituent entities), apart from begging the question as to their truth or falsity, seem to somewhat contradict one another:
- How could a whole also be infinite?
- How could an infinite universe be composed of finite entities?
- How could those composite finite entities be infinitely subdivided on an ever-smaller scale?
- Moreover, how could actual concrete entities be formed only from differences in space and time which, after all, are merely dimensions?
To go some way to resolve those niggles, the following three statements in bold (plus supporting text) represent my current thinking on these gnarly yet foundational matters. Each section in turn will address holism, boundlessness and difference.
Some semantic clarification is in order regarding the concepts ‘holism’ and ‘entity’.
Holism, beyond meaning an existential integration of parts and whole, additionally entails that the whole both defines and constrains its parts.
Entity means any self-contained difference and implies a threshold boundary. This boundary circumscribes two mutual different space–times: the entity in question with that which it is not. Entities aren’t arbitrary, their bounds can’t be drawn anywhere. The defining threshold differences between entities are real and objective. They must be just stable enough in space and time to be ‘a difference that makes a difference’ in order to earn the name ‘entity’. Essentially, whether upon our complex neuronal system or upon simple neighbouring molecules in a gas cloud, entities are differences that make a difference. Note that it is the mutually defining thresholds between these ‘differences that make a difference’ that effectively generate the entity parts out of a whole.
But should the universe itself be called an entity?
There is no reason why not. We can detect it, at least a part of it, and anything detectable with a meaningful difference can be called an entity. It is different from all other entities because it’s the sum of all other entities. Moreover, it’s the only entity defined entirely by its internal differences. There is no externality with which it can be differentiated. Furthermore, because there’s no externality the universe must be conceptualised as a whole in an absolute sense.
In conclusion, physical holism entails:
I think these terms help guide our conceptualisations away from erroneous rationalisations like ‘infinity as the largest number’ or ‘when did time start’.
Now, what was wrong with initially declaring the universe as ‘potentially infinite’? Is it just a case of restating it as ‘the universe is potentially boundless spatially and eternal temporally’?
The problem here is that the universe is an entity (we can detect it, at least a part of it, and anything detectable with a meaningful difference can be called an entity). As an entity, indeed the sole entity made up of and defined by the sum of all other (bounded) entities, it follows that it itself must actually be bounded rather than boundless.
So, the actual universe is not boundless.
This agrees with all our experiences of things — nothing is actually boundless. Complete boundlessness would be akin to no-difference, akin to nothingness, a lack of identity.
However, because a summation of everything can never be reached, the universe deserves a qualification about its actual and its potential status.
In terms of space:
In terms of time:
This might appear to be a contradiction, but it isn't once actual is understood as ‘the here-and-now’ and potential as ‘anywhere, anytime’.
The A descriptions use ‘actual’ in the sense of countable, actualised parts of a whole. No matter how large a measurement of time or space that a super-advanced intelligence could make, it would always be an actual number of whatever units.
The P descriptions use ‘potential’ in the sense of no-matter whatever the actual number is, there’s always more to potentially measure.
The A descriptions are concrete and common-sensical to us whereas P descriptions are abstract and more mathematical: neither can be said to be erroneous as long as they are judged according to their own purviews.
In conclusion, the following statement best sums up my current thoughts on the universe as ‘finite/infinite’:
Firstly, I now prefer ‘space–time’ with the added hyphen in order to maintain an indispensable separation between these mutually defining terms.
Secondly, space and time are dimensions, not entities. As such they should not be reified into entities, no-matter what (last year's PDF made this mistake). There must be ‘something’ extra at play — an actual spacial/temporal difference of some sort rather than pure dimensions.
Thirdly, time is quite different to space in that time only means a measurement between events, a pure relational dimension. Space is a little duplicitous, it has room for two meanings; one as pure relational dimension which, like time, shouldn’t be reified, the other is in the sense of our picturing outer-space or a set volume of ‘emptiness’ or spacial vacuum — in other words an actual measurable ‘thing’ — the actual space that’s all around and can't not be — let’s imprecisely name it ‘space-stuff’ for now (yet more forcefield than any aether-like substance). It is the aspect of the term ‘space’ that comes ready-reified, it’s the universe as a metaphysical given. Furthermore, time is based around the event differentiation in this given space-stuff, not the other way round. Theoretically, space as pure dimension requires time in order to exist as mutually validating dimensions, but the reality of actual space-stuff (which might continually be changing) cashes out the time dimension: active space-stuff is primary, space and time as dimensions are derivations.
Fourthly, space-stuff is also composed of anti-space-stuff (matter and anti-matter). This means that ‘the stuff of space’ is stranger than it appears at first glance: +1 can appear out of 0 as long as there’s a −1 somewhere, perhaps hidden, to balance it out. This counter-intuitive anti-space force wouldn’t merely amount to spacial contraction, it would be spacial negation — if that can be imagined.
But I’m already going way down the armchair physicist’s rabbit hole…
So for now, in conclusion, the following (admittedly vague) statement best sums up my current thoughts on what the universe fundamentally consists of:
I now hope my postulates of holism, boundlessness and difference are a little less perplexing, a little less paradoxical.
Do let me know…
1. Holism: the universe itself is an entity, made up of constituent entities
In other words, entities are real. Yet this doesn't mean that I endorse the opposite of holism — atomism.Some semantic clarification is in order regarding the concepts ‘holism’ and ‘entity’.
Holism, beyond meaning an existential integration of parts and whole, additionally entails that the whole both defines and constrains its parts.
Entity means any self-contained difference and implies a threshold boundary. This boundary circumscribes two mutual different space–times: the entity in question with that which it is not. Entities aren’t arbitrary, their bounds can’t be drawn anywhere. The defining threshold differences between entities are real and objective. They must be just stable enough in space and time to be ‘a difference that makes a difference’ in order to earn the name ‘entity’. Essentially, whether upon our complex neuronal system or upon simple neighbouring molecules in a gas cloud, entities are differences that make a difference. Note that it is the mutually defining thresholds between these ‘differences that make a difference’ that effectively generate the entity parts out of a whole.
But should the universe itself be called an entity?
There is no reason why not. We can detect it, at least a part of it, and anything detectable with a meaningful difference can be called an entity. It is different from all other entities because it’s the sum of all other entities. Moreover, it’s the only entity defined entirely by its internal differences. There is no externality with which it can be differentiated. Furthermore, because there’s no externality the universe must be conceptualised as a whole in an absolute sense.
In conclusion, physical holism entails:
A whole cannot exist independently of its parts;
parts cannot exist independently of the whole.
The universe cannot exist independently of its entities;
entities cannot exist independently of the universal whole.
The universe is an entity defined by its internal relations;
all other entities are defined by both their external and internal relations.
2. Boundlessness: the universe is not ‘infinite’
I now think that the terms ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ are confusing and ought to be substituted for ‘bounded’ and ‘boundless’ (at least outside of mathematics). This also more naturally relates to the spacial dimension and I think it is pertinent to maintain such a space/time distinction. A ‘finite’ time ought to be renamed ‘temporary’ and ‘infinite’ time ‘perpetual’ (or, on occasion, the more awe-inspiring ‘eternal’).I think these terms help guide our conceptualisations away from erroneous rationalisations like ‘infinity as the largest number’ or ‘when did time start’.
Now, what was wrong with initially declaring the universe as ‘potentially infinite’? Is it just a case of restating it as ‘the universe is potentially boundless spatially and eternal temporally’?
The problem here is that the universe is an entity (we can detect it, at least a part of it, and anything detectable with a meaningful difference can be called an entity). As an entity, indeed the sole entity made up of and defined by the sum of all other (bounded) entities, it follows that it itself must actually be bounded rather than boundless.
So, the actual universe is not boundless.
This agrees with all our experiences of things — nothing is actually boundless. Complete boundlessness would be akin to no-difference, akin to nothingness, a lack of identity.
However, because a summation of everything can never be reached, the universe deserves a qualification about its actual and its potential status.
In terms of space:
A. The universe is not actually boundless
+
P. The universe is potentially boundless
In terms of time:
A. The universe is not actually eternal
+
P. The universe is potentially eternal
This might appear to be a contradiction, but it isn't once actual is understood as ‘the here-and-now’ and potential as ‘anywhere, anytime’.
The A descriptions use ‘actual’ in the sense of countable, actualised parts of a whole. No matter how large a measurement of time or space that a super-advanced intelligence could make, it would always be an actual number of whatever units.
The P descriptions use ‘potential’ in the sense of no-matter whatever the actual number is, there’s always more to potentially measure.
The A descriptions are concrete and common-sensical to us whereas P descriptions are abstract and more mathematical: neither can be said to be erroneous as long as they are judged according to their own purviews.
In conclusion, the following statement best sums up my current thoughts on the universe as ‘finite/infinite’:
The actual universe is a bounded part of a potentially boundless whole.
3. Difference: the universe is fundamentally about divergence and contrast (yet that can’t all be left at the door of variances in ‘spacetime’)
It’s perhaps worth saying that the first two issues covered, holism and boundedness, verge more towards the metaphysical. Difference (especially difference in what?) seems to tend more towards the physical. I am no theoretical physicist, but I find the armchair in which to muse upon the most bear-bone aspects of fundamental physics supremely comfortable.Firstly, I now prefer ‘space–time’ with the added hyphen in order to maintain an indispensable separation between these mutually defining terms.
Secondly, space and time are dimensions, not entities. As such they should not be reified into entities, no-matter what (last year's PDF made this mistake). There must be ‘something’ extra at play — an actual spacial/temporal difference of some sort rather than pure dimensions.
Thirdly, time is quite different to space in that time only means a measurement between events, a pure relational dimension. Space is a little duplicitous, it has room for two meanings; one as pure relational dimension which, like time, shouldn’t be reified, the other is in the sense of our picturing outer-space or a set volume of ‘emptiness’ or spacial vacuum — in other words an actual measurable ‘thing’ — the actual space that’s all around and can't not be — let’s imprecisely name it ‘space-stuff’ for now (yet more forcefield than any aether-like substance). It is the aspect of the term ‘space’ that comes ready-reified, it’s the universe as a metaphysical given. Furthermore, time is based around the event differentiation in this given space-stuff, not the other way round. Theoretically, space as pure dimension requires time in order to exist as mutually validating dimensions, but the reality of actual space-stuff (which might continually be changing) cashes out the time dimension: active space-stuff is primary, space and time as dimensions are derivations.
Fourthly, space-stuff is also composed of anti-space-stuff (matter and anti-matter). This means that ‘the stuff of space’ is stranger than it appears at first glance: +1 can appear out of 0 as long as there’s a −1 somewhere, perhaps hidden, to balance it out. This counter-intuitive anti-space force wouldn’t merely amount to spacial contraction, it would be spacial negation — if that can be imagined.
But I’m already going way down the armchair physicist’s rabbit hole…
So for now, in conclusion, the following (admittedly vague) statement best sums up my current thoughts on what the universe fundamentally consists of:
Differences, issuing from the interplay of expanding and inverse ‘spacial forces’,
give rise to all the various complexities at all scales that map out space and time.
I now hope my postulates of holism, boundlessness and difference are a little less perplexing, a little less paradoxical.
Do let me know…
No comments:
Post a Comment