©2018 - A Metaphysical Thesis by - Jack McNally
Creation | Equation | Nothing | Dimensions | Infinity | Space | Time | BigBang | Life | Death | Links

Preface

Before a thing can change or be changed, act or be acted upon, it must exist.

This simple, self-evident axiom seems rather obvious and inconsequential, but if you seriously consider its deeper implications, you may find yourself descending into a rabbit hole of perspective that leaves you somewhere between Oz and infinity.

The axiom implies change is derived from (or is a "function of") the phenomenon of being. It implies existence is the source of cause and effect, not the result of it - which further implies any hypothesis of creation from Genesis to Big Bang must be contrary to logic.

Unless the axiom can somehow be refuted, Creation Ex Nihilo becomes illogical and only the prospect of Existence Ex Nihilo remains. Since existence is more fundamental than change and change is governed by basic laws of nature called principles, it would logically follow that the enigma of being must be resolved by a principle instead of a process

This thesis is dedicated to those who wish to explore the phenomenon of Existence Ex Nihilo.


Einstein's Universe

Like Newton, Einstein originally believed the cosmos was static, eternal, isotropic and homogeneous (not so sure about infinite), and he accounted for the misbehavior of observed phenomena with a reverse engineered factor, a cosmological constant. When Hubble's spectral redshift in light from distant galaxies implied an expanding Universe, Einstein initially contested the assertion because the effect of gravity on light was sufficient to explain the observation. Light passing through a field of gravity loses energy, and since its velocity must remain constant, a longer wavelength (red) results. This is called Gravitational Redshift.

Forget stars, planets, moons, comets and asteroids, how many mass-laden ambient particles would a beam of light encounter in a multi-billion light year trek? We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. Empirically there are few research facilities of sufficient dimension and fewer scientists of sufficient longevity to engage in such a monumental endeavor. Gravitational redshift was ultimately confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Cosmological expansion was and still is hypothetical, invoking reverse engineered phantoms of dark energy and dark matter to bolster its specious validity.

Unfortunately, Big Bang provided so much fodder for publish-or-perish scholars, Einstein ultimately relented and the cosmos became perceived as the ultimate product of some ancient event. Einstein's cosmological constant wasn't his biggest mistake, succumbing to cosmic creation theory was.


Either the phenomenon of existence is the result of cause and effect or it is not.


"It is" implies Creation ex Nihilo

Conventional wisdom has concluded that the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the premise it was ushered into existence by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. Many secular models suggest it all began about fourteen billion years ago while most religious scholars depict a much more recent event. Both versions of 'creation' are contrary to logic - demonstrably so.

To create something is to cause it to exist, so creation is simply another term for the process of cause and effect. The 'premise of creation' requires everything that exists to be the result of some initial impetus and it stipulates nothing existed prior to that process. An infinite expanse of space devoid of matter needs no less logical justification than an infinite expanse of matter devoid of space, so space, itself, must once have been absent until some ancient incipient event precipitated the manifestation of the cosmos and its sea of inhabitants. Any causative progenitor must be ruled out as it would either violate the second requisite of the premise or require such a creator to be the descendant of an even earlier predecessor similarly predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. This never ending chicken-and-the-egg redundancy inevitably results from any causative approach to the enigma of existence. It either implies no logical beginning or the involvement of some inexplicably spontaneous source not derived from causation - a source which would not only violate the first requisite but would also render the entire premise of cosmic genesis totally invalid, for if anything can exist without creation, why couldn't everything else?

Click to start/stop

Whenever the tenets of logic invalidate your argument, you should try to avoid them entirely, so there are those who would suggest whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to logic or the laws of nature. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the Earth in a miraculous act of divine inspiration. Many (not all) contemporary cosmologists contend the progressive red-shift of light from distant galaxies is proof a Big Bang Cosmos is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the canons of physics as we know them today. But even those relatively few reticent cosmologists who don't tout Big Bang as the absolute beginning of space and time don't actually refute the premise of creation, they simply avoid the issue entirely, declining any effort to reconcile the phenomenon of existence with the principles of logic.

Once logic and the laws of nature are repealed anything is possible, even the absurd; and if we permit even one exception to those laws, why should we expect the rest of the Universe to abide by them? One may certainly choose to suspend rationality in favor of whichever belief system they might wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore they cannot profess their argument is derived from critical thinking.


Either the phenomenon of existence is the result of cause and effect or it is not.


"It is not" implies Existence ex Nihilo

So, why does something exist rather than nothing?

Basic principle: Before a thing can change or be changed, act or be acted upon, it must exist.

Existence isn't a condition or a state of being, it is the very phenomenon of being, itself. Something must be in order to have a state of being and if being is necessary in order for change to occur, then cause and effect is derived from and thus subordinate to the more fundamental phenomenon of existence. No phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative, so existence is the source of cause and effect and not the result of it.


Change is a function of existence

This simple perspective refutes the ancient mythology of Genesis and the contemporary mathology of those "Science Channel" cosmologists who tout Big Bang as the absolute beginning of all space and time. It certainly doesn't take an Einstein or a Hawking to recognize the obvious, all it takes is an unbiased mind thinking neither outside the box nor inside the box, but eliminating the box entirely. This isn't rocket science; it requires no esoteric equations, no orbiting telescopes or expensive particle accelerators; you don't need a degree in mathematics, physics or cosmology, or even a high school education to understand it, but in the publish-or-perish ivory tower of academia, hypotheses featuring multiverses, extra dimensions and cosmic expansion into entropy death are where the real money is (with some strings attached). Beautiful equations can describe fantasy as easily as fact, but without the capacity to parse differentials with any degree of integrity, no lowly layman would dare debate the sanity of such sophisticated scholarly branes.


The Principle

If we examine the nature of cause and effect and the structure of mathematical logic, one simple prevailing dynamic emerges; a ubiquitous paradigm found at the heart of every equation, a familiar axiom universally known and accepted. Sadly, the deeper significance of this principle has been ignored since the inception of scientific inquiry and it still remains concealed - hidden in plain sight.


Continue
Or click here to comment