You may or may not know of Fred Hoyle. He was the cosmologist who, apart from his Steady State theory and science-fiction writings, applied the term 'Big Bang' to the origin of Universe though, with typical English-north-country level-headedness, he did not believe much in the existence of the supposed event. In his middle years he became a master of irascibility; I can hear him now after forty or fifty years saying that, when his ideas were doubted, he felt "like gettin' down and chewin' the carpet". However, said 'BB' event gives us a reference point. It occurred, they say, '13 -8 billion years ago', give or take a few hundred million.
So imagine you are at 'Big Bang' plus a billion years. What do you see? Well, a big flash-bang, according to those who are said to know, and a billion years of 'past' things. Now look onward. What do you see? Why, nothing of course, because you and your senses which have evolved so you see see only what has already happened, are not sufficiently advanced in space to see anything in the onward direction.
Now fast-forward to 'today'. Again, look outward. What do you see? 13 -8 billion years of visible evidence of 'the past', and we can also see that things of 'the past' do not cease to exist simply because we are no longer 'there' to experience them. So now look onward again. What do you see? Nothing. Why not? I told you: because you, and the senses by which you experience such things, are not sufficiently advanced in space to experience anything in that direction. However, as we see from looking outward, all the inscrutable 'future' of 'the past' is here. Similarly, all the things of our 'future' are already here, requiring only the presence of senses and sense in 'the future' to experience them. However, fixed within the progressive position predicated by the inevitable progression of our metabolic molecular process, we are not sufficiently advanced in space to witness those things. But wait until just this evening and inevitably you will see all the events of this morning's 'inscrutable future'. And similarly with all 'the future'.
So surely now it should be obvious that all Universe is here, existing simultaneously, and is complete, requiring only a presence of senses and sense to appreciate it, but that we can see it only from our 'now' in the little span of our existence as part of its process of completion. And -- because of the specifics of our bio-chemical senses -- we see it only as incomplete and see it only as being 'in action' which, now it should be obvious, is a severely limited view. Or do you prefer to believe that all 13 -8 billion light-years of evidence physically visible from here are fiction, and did not really happen without human intervention? Well, it did happen, as we can see, in a single action of the infallible process of cause and effect, existing, as we can and should also now really see, complete and simultaneous, without 'past, present and future' as distinct physical entities; it is the position from which you look which determines what is 'past, present or future'.
Then suppose we advance ten billion light-years into the future. What will we see, looking back? Simply 23 -8 billion light-years of past things. Then look ahead, what will we see? Why, nothing, again because we are not sufficiently advanced in space physically to see anything in that direction.
For some reason that is not entirely understood, 'scientists', who are said to know, exempt themselves from the universal equation when they are considering the nature of things. However, despite all their conflicting vehemence, we are not 'put here' separately as agents free of external influence, to evaluate and perhaps somehow to approve Universe: we are an inextricable part of its process of completion. Universe enacts us, simultaneous with the other microbes and such stuff as mud, and, in striving for microcosm with mathematising, and speculation such as this trivia, Universe is simply poring over its own tripes,
So ask such folk when 'the present' is, and they will probably refer to their 'lifetime', but the reality is much more specific than that. Consider this: we cannot do anything last year or yesterday or even a second ago, the only point at which we can react or intervene is 'now' and thenceforward for a second or so, as we cannot guarantee even being conscious for longer, so we can only act 'now'. So when is 'now'?
Living creatures have evolved so that we advance as a part inextricable from Universe, evolved so that our metabolism presents our experience in inevitable bio-chemical sequence step by step, consciousness first, and adapting to varying circumstances as our genetic prescription permits and so surviving or being eliminated. That is obvious enough.
But also consider this: as each second passes, as an integral and inextricable part of the universal process, our bodies act out a second of 'life', in supporting indication of which, we and the planetary surface on which we live progress by half a mile, the planet itself travels twenty miles or so on its orbit of the nearest star we call our sun, the sun moves a couple of hundred miles on its course around the rotating galaxy, and the galaxy itself moves two or three hundred miles towards its scheduled distant appointment with the M31 galaxy in Andromeda. That is all per second. However, we merely experience the 'second' of what our senses present to us as 'time', which otherwise does not exist, and it is worth noting that our experience of the duration of the 'seconds' themselves and therefore of universal 'action' varies from infancy to old age by a factor of ten. So much for the constancy of the illusion of 'time'. In old age our materials and the senses they provide have moved through space by the total accumulated distance, which is considerable, though in retrospect it may seem trivial.
Creatures of the distant future will see such things that are to be seen from their 'present' position in space, but we will not, unless we witness all Universe in the 'timeless' state of 'eternity'. However, as we have seen before, all things of the future already exist, requiring only the presence of senses and sense to experience them.
So Universe can be seen to be both sublimely simple in its complete state, or incomprehensibly complex in its composition and process. As we see, however, the view of its nuts and bolts is not the only prospect, and macrocosm is much simpler than microcosm, in which there probably exist as many types of particles and sub-atomic particles as may be invented methods of search for same.
Apart from other misconceptions, take 'chaos' for example. 'Chaos', rather than an attempt to offend our sense of tidiness, is really universal perfect order, as Universe has to be. It has no alternative. Try as much as you want to change it, but anything you decide and do will only become what has had to be. That is Universe.
So now, for fun, fast-forward as far as you can go. Again, look outward. What have you? Universe, complete with space-extension with distance, consequent 'redshift' of light emitted by receding bodies, the relation between atomic action and the speed of light through various media and all and all, and multi-dimensions described and called whatever names you decide to ascribe, finite if physical, infinite if only theory.
Let there be Universe. And Universe IS.
Then, from that position, look onward. What do we see? I haven't the slightest idea, but I daresay some folk will try to tell me.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
