Matter and Manifestation
A supposed order is brought about by the existence of humans in it. The history of the unfolding of the epistemology of space and consequently the universe includes, in alliance with medieval thought, an ever-expanding globe further and further radiated outward. Primally humans were the anointed ones, the creation of the world limited to several thousand years. The ever-expanding knowledge of the universe became apparent under different guises be it the Aristotle’s universe, Ptolemy, Copernicus and so on. Somehow somewhere humans were ultimately somehow positioned at the center. Only with Darwin was human primacy challenged. Also, Einstein seemed to demolish the idea that the universe is human centered when it was declared that the universe had no center.
A question that comes up in cosmology is, is there only one universe or are there many? If the universe exists as a singularity then it may be claimed, at least by some, that this is our universe, the only universe, that is home for Homo Sapiens! It should be noted this is a healthy debate, after all the foundation for knowledge rests ostensibly within our species itself and the accomplishments have been many and great.
While one might be content with the monolith occupying some “space” the problems of infinity continues to rear its ugly head. We have a human view of a human reality. We see things in our own idiosyncratic way as other humans see them. There is variation though. Those that are color-blind see the world differently from those that have an adequate distribution of the appropriate rods and cones. For those color-blind this is reality as a correspondence. Perhaps this is just a minor and unimportant difference. Referring to the monolith and space, such difference in eyesight would not alter our understanding of a structure which stands alone. It must be considered though that other species have different sensory apparatus and cannot therefore perceive things as we do. A good example are bats with poor eyesight but excellent hearing. Who is to say which one’s perception is superior, a normative claim. Also who can claim what is the proper way of apprehending the world
It must be considered that at least within our understanding, although not conceptually, that the universe could be infinite. Not only can one look at the universe as an individual observer, but the universe could be looked up as homogeneous. In order to attain this “birds eye view” it would be necessary to understand the nature of the universe as a whole. It must be asked, does space and matter co-exist at all magnitudes with similar properties? According to scientific theory it appear not. On a large-scale, gravitation is the dominant force, but at the atomic level for example electro-magnetic factors dominate.
While the answer to the question might or might not be no there is another consideration. While in the understanding things could be infinitely large, also conversely things can be infinitely small. Which is most real? Looking at the ever-expanding universe and galaxies rotating around galaxies rotating around ever greater black holes? Or is the true reality sub-atomic matter and other electrical forces or even something smaller? Which is the best perspective? It is important to ask, does the nature of space and matter, as well as their relationship with each other, change over different magnitudes.
One might argue that humans are best suited to examine the nature of things, because their way of understanding the world is superior. The assertion that our way of understanding things is superior can be based on many reasons. For example, our superiority may justify the assertion about the value of our way of understanding the world. Our demonstrated prowess at manipulating reality demonstrates how in “tune” we are with nature building skyscrapers and such. It is with this spirit that I move forward.
While a single solitary structure, the monolith, delineates, carves out a place in space so does matter provide the origins for energy and spirit.
Matter is necessary for existence, for what could be said to exist without it? The nature of the manifolds of matter varies. This nature can be based on size whether smallness or largeness, perception (i.e., how it is perceived or understood and by whom), whether it is thought to be infinite or finite, also whether it is contiguous in this world or in all worlds (e.g., universes and multiverses).
When one looks at our universe, we see that all that exists is matter (or its corollary energy). Space can be said to exist as well but only in relation to matter. Without matter there would be nothing, or at least only infinite space where no one could be there to know it. How could such a thing as only space exist? Is it possible to have infinite space without a place to know it? Without such a vantage point can it even be said to exist. The potential exists for an observer but does this potential do enough to ensure it exists? A discussion such as this approaches nonsense.
Where could this potential come from except for some potential from God’s grace. And God accordingly from the monotheistic perspective is hard to define except by “his” attributes . As has already been discussed indiscriminate spirit and discriminant matter are unable to find a place to join successfully to assure existence. So too is the problem of drawing a relationship between a transcendent God and humans in the world. For now, at least, it seems impossible for space to exist without matter. At the least conceiving matter-less space is impossible.
While it may be impossible to say why matter exists, it is the case that it must exist, or there is nothing either spatially or analytically without it. In any case it is clear as can be that matter does exist. Perhaps that it must exist is reason enough for it to exist. If it does exist, then one is compelled to ask what its nature is. The aforementioned monolith has a sort of solidity. But this solidity is not uniform across different types of matter. Even within matter depending on the magnitude this solidity varies.
Matter can be as dense as lead or as diffuse as steam. But at a certain temperature lead melts and steam becomes a liquid and then a solid. Finding an exact definition of matter can be difficult although it does seem matter must occupy space, but this occupation varies depending on magnitude. From a human eyes view lead is one of the densest kinds of matter that can exist. But if we look at it at smaller and smaller magnitudes, we find that it is not completely solid but also is composed of space as well as solidity.
When talking about magnitudes one must consider the nature of infinity. Is infinity a concept without application? Does infinity even exist? Is it simply a play on words? If things appear finite how is one to find a place for infinity. The idealists such as Socrates has referred to the theory of the forms which is a sort of infinity type which all things share. For example, if there is a chair then this chair must share in the form of “chairness”. This type of infinity is a sort of generalization about what can and does exist. Yet does infinity exist simply as a sort of generalization as in individual “models” of the forms, or in a less ideal realm simply based on, like mathematics, infinity in numbers?
For example, what could be the last number in an infinite series or if one continues to divide something in half what is the last resulting dividend? Eschewing transcendental realms which lie beyond logic and reason will be left aside at this moment. Also, the ethereal domain of transcendental oneness and the Platonic forms of generalization will be left behind at least for now. Rather infinity will be looked at as a form of magnitude. Is such a position defensible? Can the infinite and the finite exist in the same realm? If this is possible what are the implications of such a possible truth?
Infinity shows itself in a perspective whether at a human eyes view or any other magnitude. Infinity exists not only at the human eye view, being infinitely far or infinitely close but at all magnitudes infinitely small or infinitely large. Infinity by definition exists without limit. On the other hand, matter is limited, delineated by its structure specific to different positions in space. The only way matter can exist in a uniform space is to have infinite positions, but since matter is limited, it is hard to find how the positions of matter could be infinite.
While it has been questioned, the existence of space without matter, it can be conjectured that differentiated space as infinite because space itself has no structure, but matter has an innate structure that can be quantified and categorized. Are there infinite number of round spheres and infinite square ones. What could be the ratio between the two since they are both infinite? They cannot be the same in number being infinite, so it seems they cannot vary in number or type. Yet being discrete it seems the potential to exist variably in number and type is necessary. So once again the quandary, not unlike antinomy of matter and spirit which cannot stand together, stands out again in space and matter.
One may find repose in the fact that things need not be apprehended by logic and analysis but can simply be perceived. We can reach out and touch the monolith, feel its texture or where it has abrasions. You can kick it hard and if it has great solidity and strength it will bring pain to your foot. And when you kick it it might make a sound which you hear clearly. One can find consistency each time a like force is applied. You can also appreciate its color. These things regarding our interactions seem reliable. How the thing is apprehended seems to be the way the thing exists in the world. The beliefs about the interaction are reassuring.
Also, most importantly these perceptions enable us to interact with the world. The reliability of our perceptions demonstrate the utility of our interactions with the world. We are able to build great bridges and dams. The engineering of things show the manipulation and conquest of nature. We are able to build rockets that traverse the cosmos. Theories are put forward using the scientific method which show the existence of black holes, or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principles, now confirmed. As the saying goes the world is our oyster and we can do with it as we will.
Not only can we manipulate the world, but we seem a prime fit to bend it to our will. Other creatures of the world, while able to enhance their survival seem unable to bring about a wholesale transformation. This transformation forever enhancing our world and extending its reach to make like accommodable for the human species. This application of belief, which also can be called facts demonstrate the reliability of our perceptions and the thoughts which we use to derive our manipulations of the world. While other animals can invade our space for example snails and roaches, but in no other species is there the ability to do a wholesale transformation of the world for our own benefit and in our own image. Knowing the world is established by our presence with the world.
But is this way of perceiving the world based in fact? Do the things that we see exist as we see them? Without discussing in detail what is called the veil of perception. It seems that things must exist as we see them because how could we so effectively manipulate the matter of the universe if this were not so? Yet the human eye, with its rods and cones, or the sensory nerves of the hands which touches or feels or the eardrum which vibrates and translates these vibrations into impulses all of which feeds information to the brain.
It is clear that the human senses are not the only effective and efficient way to know the world. The other creatures of the earth have useful ways of understanding the world. A dog while having sight, its most useful and sensitive sensory apparatus is its nose where it can effectively circumnavigate their environment. Sharks can see but have an acute sense of smell where they can smell blood for miles in the ocean water. Then there are humans with their acute eyesight which can perceive the light of a match in complete darkness miles and miles away. While all of these animals possess our ability to perceive and thus manipulate their world to thrive in the survival of the fit, the Darwinian theory, once again none so agile as hominoids in their perception to achieve this control in the objects of the world.
But what of this acuity of the other senses of different animals, why are these senses so able to be of service to the animal involved. Also, the way these senses are used the same as humans, or is what is perceived and how it is perceived the same as humans? While bats and dolphins rely on eyesight, their organs for circumnavigation are based on sounds given off which then these sounds bounce off matter and are returned to their apparatus for hearing. Even more telling is the fly who sees acutely, but whose eye structure is markedly different from. Its structure in a sort of alternative assemblage of perceivers in the eye clearly mark a difference in the way the thing being perceived is understood. Or take spiders who it has been reported can find different locations in which to inhabit by using the fields of radiation in the sky. We don’t perceive things in this way, but are these methods of perception any less valid or useful for survival in the survival of the fittest.
More importantly is that the flies’ sight or the shark nose tell us about not only about the world through these particular senses but tell one the perception differently. When we see something, it is not perceived as being the same as a fly perceives and when we smell it is not the same way that a shark smells. The perception is fundamentally different. Who is to say which is more efficacious and efficient? This is a value judgement, that is based on personal preference. Can one say since humans are the superior species that our senses too are more reliable? The human species has not always been dominant and before the expansion of hominoid population other species were very effective at dominating the world. How can one decide which is more reliable or rather which is more accurate?
The accuracy of our perceptions depends on the structure of the external world. If our senses delineate the world as it exists, then this sensory information if reliable. But who can say what species perceptions are reliable? The fly has a different visual perception of the world, and the different species of flies abound in the world. Is the world fungible with our perceptions of it? The world cannot be known only by our species sensory apparatus so it seems likely the way things are perceived must exist in many different ways. A Lockean sort of perspective can be taken that when the world is perceived, the way it is perceived depends on the nature of the perceivers particular sense organ.
Take the old argument that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to perceive it, does it make a sound. If we were present we could see it fall(vision), or have it throw dirt in our face(touch). If we are not there to perceive it then the outcome cannot be known unless someone is there to record the sound (hear), take a video(see) of it, or perhaps to take a specimen of the tree(feel). Although when we are missing from this event it is realized that the noise of the tree falling, or the sight of it falling or the sensation of its dirt are all based on electrical impulses in the sensory apparatus which impulses are sent to the brain. There is no sound, no sight and no feeling in the falling of the tree. There are only impulses which enable the brain to understand what had taken place. These impulses are translated into useful information by the brain to enable the humans to take action, or to just remember the experience for future reference.
This “vibration” seems to be unique to the occurrence in this case of the tree. It seems that however the thing is perceived it exists in the same way and when there is some event which somehow changes the environment this change is reliable too regardless of what species perceives or how this species perceives.
Not only is there a seemingly contradiction, when an analysis is done for the existence of space and matter in the context of infinity, also when looking at sentience the variety possible seems to be nearly if not unlimited.
The problem may not lie with understanding the nature of space and matter or that of the perception and the thing sensed but the confusion may lie within a seemingly confused notion of infinity. Infinity seems to be at the root of the problem. What then is infinity?
Or is infinity, like in mathematics, where something that approaches a numerical value then because it is infinite it becomes that value? Is there a way to explain infinity? It seems to be beyond cognitive apprehension. When one may try to do an analysis of the nature of infinity it quite likely will end in bewilderment. Is this because the mind is limited so cannot apprehend such a thing or is it because such a thing logically impossible? For the sake of inquiry can an examination be made to explain the universe analytically?
Looking at the universe as being uniform such an assortment of matter seems to make sense. Unfortunately, the question arises then if there are different sizes and shapes of matter, is it possible for every size and shape of matter down to the atom able to exist infinitely in a sort of copy or replication? What about the different combinations of matter grouped together in infinite pairs where each pair is unique to itself but exists in these pairs infinitely. I am reminded here of the nature of cardinal numbers. Such problems await the investigator of infinity.
To further complicate the matter there is the aforementioned dichotomy between different magnitudes be they infinitely small or infinitely large. So not only do things find similarity from a human’s eye view but also from a molecular magnitude or even a quark, or the magnitude of the size of an Oort Cloud or a great Globular Cluster. Infinity exists whatever magnitude one examines. It exists no matter whether one examines infinity from smaller to larger and contrariwise.
A tree could grow strong but grow according to some blind force which allow for the change in particular to the tree. One could claim the driver of material change is the material forces of evolution. But the end of evolution is not the summation of the previous changes brought to the present. The change is always unique. The variation is always in a state of change. The complexity seems to defy observation of the causal factors. Perhaps one could call these evolutionary factors deterministic, but these factors result in the lovely flowers of the world, the blue skies, the variety of fish and the seeming ubiquitous of insects. These seem to apparently exist freely.
So perhaps there is room for freedom rather than determinism. With freedom we can love and fall in love and feel true passion. We can be angry and rightfully so. We can have laws and moray which order society to help keep society safe and productive. While one could face the death penalty for wrongs done, another could become a hero because of the great sacrifices they made. The meaning of life would return, the hollowness and the ultimate inhumanity would be gone. But is it enough to want freedom because it makes our life feel fulfilling, while if life is determined no fulfillment takes place with which it seems we cannot know? But what if we can know?
The question is is life determined or random? Perhaps there has been enough talk about determinism but not about randomness. What is randomness? It seems to be the opposite of determinism where “nothing” follows from something else. There are no precursors that drive outcomes. Is randomness what we are talking about when we refer to freedom? If this were the case if we were in danger would just sit pat in some situations as a random consequent but another time we might run for our life? Does God bring about freedom? If change is random then this again shapes the infinite number of outcomes that exist where were have only looked at the universe as static. Change further complicates things.
If the universe is a result of a singular great explosion where the universe continues to expand, then it seems all that is left at the end of time is the quiet whimper of what remains. As infinity would approach dissolution then all would cease to exist unless somehow the universe were limited in scope. In such a universe things would be limited, the case for limit in existence and the potentiality for individual structure which would not be replicated which would be distinct from an infinite system which knows no end. Mozart could then have written his masterpieces because of creative genius.
Yet then the quandary becomes apparent where the question is asked who or what created the universe and onward asking who created that which created the universe in an infinite regress ad infinitum. Also, one could not argue for infinity because conceptually this seems impossible because what delimits space. Where is freedom to be found?
More can be said about the universe and universes in general. Since homocentric worldview dictates a singular universe which is the home of humans, with one God, commonly in the west as a theistic expression of Omnipotence there is little room for multiple universes. How could God rule the universe where we exist yet not rule others where we do not? Also, if God ruled all universes (if there were multiverses) why would we only populate a single universe. A predominate feature of God is he favors his most desired creations, humans. If God ruled multiple universes, then it seems he would have divided loyalties if other universes housed other human species. Is there a way there can be multiverses and still have God as our benevolent ruler?
Like Leibniz’s possible world semantics, all multiverses could exist potentially but the only true universe that could exist is the one we live in where God rules and humans serve. But in such a scenario those other potential worlds would not exist actually, and the presumption is made that a universe with God somehow makes that world the actual world. Could God the ruler exist without his(her) subjects? It seems once again that such a universe would be human centered, at least where humans dwell.
It seems potentially that universes could exist infinite in number. Talking about potential universes really adds nothing to the argument. The only universe that could potentially exist but doesn’t, is no universe at all. To avoid the hominoid-centric model it seems that it is necessary to posit infinite worlds as well as infinite universes. But if there are infinite universes then how can God give preference?
Without God there seems to be no freedom. God acts freely to create the world and to create humans as an expression of that freedom. But to find a place for God in the universe seems difficult. Are we automatons who if we repeated our actions a hundred times under the same conditions will have done the same thing? The varieties of possible existence would expand infinity into a new variable which would divine infinity and result in understandable and further infinite change.
