Imagine a void universe—nothing but empty space reaching out forever. And
pretend that only you are in it. Place something into your imagined universe—something
simple such as a steel ball. This is easy to imagine, but if you had to make this item to
get it into your universe, where would you get the materials for it? Could you just pop
them into being? The creation of something from nothing can happen in one's mind, but can
it happen really?
- Why are we here in this universe?
- How did the universe come into being?
- What makes the universe behave as it does?
In order to explain "creation" we must accept at least something as
given. If a god or an "all creator" placed everything into the universe then we
are accepting this god as a being already given. This still does not answer our question
of how everything else came to be. Surely, such a god could not have obtained the material
within the universe from nowhere. The idea of a "creator being" leaves us with
more questions to answer than we started with. For example: Where did this god come from?
What is he, her, or it made of? Did he have a beginning? Why does he exist. These are the
same questions we are asking about the universe itself. All we have done is transfer our
questions regarding the universe to questions regarding a creator-god. Since we are not
answering the questions we started out to with the concept of a god, we may as well
include the god as just another entity to be explained along with all the rest of the
When I use the word "universe" I really mean the totality
of existence. This includes beyond the observable universe in distance and in other
limitations of observation. It includes the three spatial dimensions, the dimension of
time and any other proposed dimensions. This includes other "time universes" and
all that's on the "other side" of black holes. Also included are energy, gods,
spirits, souls, ghosts, empty space, and everything imaginable or real. I will elaborate
on the imaginable later, but, for now lets include everything.
If the entire universe was once nothing but empty space then there would have been nothing else either—no
waves, no fields, no spirits, no beings, no anything. This must be true—empty space cannot possibly interact with empty
space. There is nothing there to interact with!
A wave, for instance, must be generated from or associated with something that
exists that is other than empty space. The other-than-empty-space that is involved in generating a wave must
either exist or have had to exist to enable the wave's creation. If it no longer exist
(and the wave does) then the wave must also travel in a medium other
than empty space.
The same applies to the imagined. Without there being an entity doing the imagining, the
imagined cannot even be imagined.
I would like us to start with a completely empty universe. From this point I would like to
compile a list of qualities or principals (that logically we are draw to conclude by
relying on our power to reason) that comprise an explanation of the totality
of existence and its behavior. This list would be the minimum qualities or
principles of the universe that we would just have to accept as given. Obviously we have
to accept something as given because the universe is not nothing but empty
Let me further describe our starting point—a blank universe. Nothing at all exist in
it, not even us—but somehow we are watching. This imagined universe is dark (totally
without light), totally without energy and contains no particles of any size or nature. It
is a vacuum to the extreme meaning of the word, and without walls. It has no
"coexisting universe" that contain something. This definition of
"nothingness" is actually empty space extending
from whatever observation point we choose, to infinity is Euclidean straight lines in all
During this explanation I wish to leave nothing assumed without stating so. An axiom is
"a self-evident proposition accepted as true without proof". Here is our first
Space is an inescapable principle of the
universe. If the totality of existence were for not, then
there would still be empty space reaching out in every
direction to infinity.
This axiom must be true even with consideration of dimensions other than the
three dimensions of space. This forces us to deal with the universe as one physical volume
of space. The space axiom is the most ontological element of reason and
its distinction is necessary to begin to discuss the totality of
Now we can start to add the given ingredients of the universe. We are starting with an
empty universe and we are going to add the necessary ingredients until we can explain all
else (to a satisfactory level) about everything that exists.
The first and most obvious difference with our imagined universe and the real universe is
that the real universe has a whole lot of stuff in it. The first dilemma we have is that
we don't have anywhere to get any stuff. Therefore we have a choice of
concluding that the stuff of the real universe has always been there, or that there was a
time when nothing at all existed then suddenly something came into existence out of
Both choices are difficult to accept. The first choice forces us to accept that existence
never had a start. That is to say that there was never a time when the material of the
universe did not exist.
The second choice leads us to further options. Perhaps all of the stuff came into
existence as a one time happening. Or perhaps stuff is continuously coming into existence.
It may have come into existence in intervals; or upon certain conditions; or gradually at
a constant rate. In summary though, underlying all these further options with this choice,
we are forced to accept that something can come from absolutely nothing.
Personally, I prefer to accept that "something" of the universe has always
existed rather than accept that something came from absolute nothing. For now I will refer
to this "something" of the universe as the "true
essence" of the universe. You may prefer to accept that something can come
into existence from nowhere. However for the remainder of this book I have taken the path
that the true essence of the universe has always been there. This is a fundamental point and the remaining discussion depends upon this point
being true. I will state this point as a postulate—defined by my dictionary as
"a proposition taken for granted as true and made the starting point in a chain of
The true essence
of the universe was not created; and cannot increase in amount.
The Postulate of Universal Essence has many corollaries. A corollary is "a
proposition following so obviously from another that it requires little or no proof."
Since one cannot make something from nothing then it stands to reason that one cannot make
something go to nothing. If in your universe you have a steel ball then where can the
material of the ball go to? The ball can be separated into very small particles and the
particles can be spread out into space forever, but within your totality
of existence you still have all the material that made up the steel ball. This
leads us to conclude that the amount of true essence of the
universe is finite.
Since the true essence
of the universe was not created and cannot increase or decrease in amount, then it must be
finite in amount. The true essence of the universe may be
inconceivable in volume but is finite within the infinite universe of space.
Since the true essence of the universe could not
have been created then of course it must have always existed. Or, there was not a
beginning to its existence. Since it cannot decrease in amount then it will always exist.
Thus we have the corollary of eternal essence.
The finite amount of true
essence within the universe has always existed and will always exist.
Could the finite amount of true essence consist as
one particle? If it is one particle then it must be manifesting itself as you and me, my
desk, and everything; all seemingly simultaneously. This would mean that one particle is
madly flying about making up an entire universe which is full of separate entities. We
know that some of the separate entities are very small—this proposed single particle
would have to be them all. To do this it would have to be cycling through a path at an
incomprehensible speed—changing its path to appear as each seemingly separate entity
there is. But, this proposed single particle could not bump into itself because it could
not truly be in two places at the same instant. If the universe only consisted of one
particle then I could poke my finger through my desk (for instance). When I try, particles
must be bumping into one another, and more importantly the true essence of the universe
must exist as many particles.
The finite amount of the true
essence of the universe exists as separate entities or particles.
Particles of what? What does this true essence
look like? Matter consist of atoms which in turn consist of sub-atomic particles which in
turn consist of further sub-atomic particles. Where does this breakdown stop? What are
sub-atomic particles made of? Are these particles made of different elementary substances
or are they made of the same substance but having different shapes and sizes? Or are they
made of still smaller particles? If so, then what are these smaller particles made of? We
now have a logical loop of which the only escape is to conclude that eventually we will
reach the smallest particles and the most elementary substances.
But is it possible that there be more than one elementary substance? Imagine a sphere that
has no empty space within it. This sphere would completely
displace empty space with, I suppose, full
space. This sphere would have to be one particle or be made up of parts that fit
together exactly so as to leave no empty space between the
parts. Can you imagine another sphere that contains no empty space
but is made of a substance other than "full-space?"
I cannot. This leaves us with a universe made of two substances - empty space and full-space; or if you
like, a universe of one substance (full-space) within empty-space.
What shall we call this "full-space?" My dictionary
defines "stuff" as "the fundamental element or
basic material of the anything". So I may refer to "full-space"
as stuff or the true essence of
the universe. Here is the discussion on substances stated as a postulate.
Only two truly elementary substances exist.
They are, space that is not occupied by anything and space that is fully occupied. Where
"fully occupied space" is an amount of space of which within its surface there
is no empty space.
Of course there is also partly occupied space, which is an amount of space of
which within its surface is both empty-space and full-space - but keep in mind that this partly occupied space is
made up of the two elementary substances. Partly occupied space can take on many
appearances and be filled to different degrees. It could be that these different
appearances are in fact different substances.
We can combine the conclusions—that the universe is made of particles, and that there is
only one kind of true essence within the universe besides empty space—to state another postulate.
The route essence of what the universe is made,
is elementary particles. These particles consist of at least some fully
It is time to remind you that in our attempt to explain the universe we must
accept a certain number of given qualities. The smaller the list is then the more easily
understood the explanation would be. We have already concluded that saying that a god did
it no longer works for us. So far we have accepted the following:
1. The universe (totality of existence) has existed forever.
2. A finite amount of stuff exists within it.
3. The stuff exists as particles consisting of some fully occupied space.
In summary - the universe is made up of particles of fully-occupied-space
whose total of empty-space displacement is finite and
One reason why this list of given properties or phenomena is incomplete is that in reality
these stuff particles are full of motion. They do not remain
equidistant to one another from one time to the next. We therefore must accept at least
another given quality to explain their behavior. Something is forcing these particles to
move. "Force", that is it! We must accept a given force. Let us explore the
possibility of a single elementary force.
Imagine the universe as only consisting of one particle that is not in motion. What kinds
of motion could we give it? We can make it rotate on an axis in either of two possible
directions, and we can make the axis continuously change position within the particle.
Thus we could have a force making the particle spin or wobble.
We could also have a force that moves the particle from point "A" in space to
point "B", but this would be inconsequential since our imagined universe (for
this exercise) has no other particles to relate distance with. If we introduce another
particle then we would have at least a couple of more options. We could have a force that
causes the particles to move away from one another or one that causes the particles to
move toward one another. Or we could have a more complex force that alternates the
direction of motion; or one that wants the particles to be a specific distance or position
from one another and acts accordingly. Again, the simpler the description of the force the
easier it is to accept.
Since in reality particles are constantly changing distance with respect to one another
then there must be at least one force acting upon them. If there were a force that causes
particles to move away from one another then the particles would spread out endlessly into
the infinite empty space. If there were a force that caused
particles to move toward one another then particles would be colliding with one another.
Remember that we are not creating a force out of nothing—we are saying that we have been
given an eternal force.
Gravitation appears to be this force. In fact, gravitation—the attraction of all matter
to all matter, is a universal observation. What is behind this force (or how this force
works) has not yet been satisfactorily explained. This could be because
gravitation may not be explainable and must just be accepted as being given.
Another imagination exercise will help illustrate the behavior of this force. Imagine the
empty universe again. Now place a sphere of full-space in it.
If every part of the sphere is trying to get closer to every other part of the sphere,
then it would appear that the sphere is trying to shrink into non-existence. This is as if
the occupancy of space by "full-space" is an
intrusion upon empty-space, and that there is pressure on the
surface of the sphere where the full-space meets the empty-space. The larger the sphere the greater the intrusion, and
the stronger the squeeze force.
If two spheres were close to each other then together they would be considered an
intrusion upon empty-space; and empty-space
would appear to squeeze them toward one another. If there were many spheres then
collectively they would be considered an intrusion upon empty space
and it would appear that the surrounding empty space is
trying to squeeze them all into taking up as little space as possible. Here is this
squeeze force stated as a given principle of the universe.
A squeezing force is acting on the eternal
substance, full-space, in such a manner as to eliminate its
This is a very abstract way of stating...
All of the stuff
within the universe is being forced to exist within the least amount of space and every
portion of full-space is being forced to occupy less space.
Thus we have a force that is directly related and proportionate to the true essence of the universe (full-space).
Since full-space displaces empty-space
then we have a force that could be described as the reaction to the displacing of
empty-space. This concept is appealing because it gives
reason to the force's being.
The total amount of squeeze force in the
universe is finite because it is proportionate to the true essence
of the universe which itself is finite in amount.
You might be wondering why there are still stars light-years away from one
another. Since the universe has existed forever, all the particles should be pushed up
against one another by now.
Perhaps when the squeeze force causes them to move, their motion (which is something)
comes into existence and has to be conserved. Imagine a void universe again. This time
with two solid (full-space) spheres moving toward one
another. What happens when they collide? Would they not rebound from one another so that
their energy (motion ) is conserved? When two cars collide head-on their motion toward one
another stops but there is to friction and their motion is absorbed as heat. In other
words the motion of the whole body is transferred to motion of the particles making up the
body. And we can conclude that the motion or energy of full-space
particles is transferable from one particle to another.
The total amount of motion related to the totality of stuff particles cannot increase or decrease in amount.
The motion of stuff particles could also be referred to as energy. We cannot
have motion or energy with their being an association to something that occupies space. As
demonstrated earlier, energy cannot exist in the universe by itself.
The law of conservation of motion is also the law of conservation of energy. The amount of
full-space of a particle combined with its amount of motion
is the "mass" of the particle. Thus we have established a relationship with full-space in motion (mass) and energy.
The energy of the totality
of stuff particles is finite because it is a result of the squeeze force acting
upon a finite amount of stuff.
The mass associated with the finite totality of stuff particles is finite because the total motion of
the particles is finite.
There are several questions that come to mind regarding the squeeze force (not
to mention the questions regarding further description of the stuff particles themselves).
What about the strength of the squeeze force? Must we also regard it as a given attribute
of the universe. If the force was infinite in strength then the particles would move
toward one another instantaneously (with infinite speed). Since this does not happen we
must assume that the force is finite in strength. This would result in there being a limit
to the speed in which the particles can reach. The limit of speed of particles generally
appears to relate to the particle size.
A factor of speed is time. We have not yet discussed time as a principle of the universe.
For a completely empty universe, time would be a meaningless attribute. It could be argued
that time does not exist in this case because there are no events to describe
chronologically. Let me present my view of time.
Time is not a physical aspect of the existence
of the universe. Time exists by definition or concept only. In physical reality there is
only the now.
Time can be used to describe the behavior of stuff
particles by describing their position in terms of what-use-to-be or what-will-be. Time
can only be given units of measure when related to the motion of stuff
particles. And this is because their motion is controlled by a force acting on them that
has a definite strength.
I am not going to further investigate the nature of the elementary stuff
particles. There is still many unanswered questions regarding their description. Such as:
- Do they vary in size or are they uniform in size?
- Are they completely solid or do they contain some empty
space within their surface?
- What is the shape of their surface?
- If they are spherical in shape, do they contain bubbles of empty
- Are there classes or different types of particles or are they all unique from
- Are they all similar in shape but have different sizes?
- If they do contain empty space within their
surface, does their density vary from each other?
- What about their center of gravity?
- Can they be broken into smaller particles upon collision?
- Can two or more merge to become one particle?
Clearly the possibilities are endless. I wish I could answer these questions.
However, even without these details we can derive other universal laws with the
information that we have arrived at so far.
We can combine the concept of gravitation and the concept of conservation of
energy to make another observation of the universe.
All the stuff of
the universe is trying to exist within the smallest amount of space, but at the same time
must conserve energy. The compromise is the equilibrium state. Since the universe has
existed forever then this state is either unattainable or has been reached.
For any given volume of space containing stuff particles, the particles behave in such a manner as to occupy
the least space as possible while they are conserving energy. This is their theoretical
equilibrium state. This state can only be reached when there is no exterior events that
apply forces on the said volume of space.
For any sub-grouping of stuff
particles; as a result of the equilibrium effort, higher and higher orders of equilibrium
may be attained as time passes. As the stuff particles find
more efficient arrangements, higher levels of order may be attained. It could be said that
these higher orders evolve—thus we have an evolutionary process.
Sub-atomic particles are an ordering of stuff
particles. Atoms are an ordering of sub-atomic particles. Molecules are an ordering of
atoms. The simplest of life forms are an ordering of molecules.
Life may be the result of the physical law of evolutionary process.
What is life? When is a collection of stuff particles
considered to be "alive"? Is it when they can duplicate themselves?
If life is yet another (higher) level of the arrangement of stuff
particles then would that not explain the reason of its existence. The ability of a
collection of sub-collections (of sub-collections, etc.) of particles to duplicate
definitely satisfies the nature of the Paradoxical Equilibrium Law.
It fits right in. It certainly speeds up the process placing particles into a closer and
So does the development of higher life forms. What makes a life form a "higher"
life form? Is it a more complex composition of parts? Is it a life form that lives longer?
—30— for the time being, (I started writing this when I was 17 years old. I revisit it every decade or so.)