This is a draft of a position in natural science philosophy, based on my "End-of-1999' ideas in the course of deriving a world view as shown in my website:" pages.prodigy.net/jamikes". In short: it is an attempt to describe a rather physical ontology of nature by which the occurrences of (Big) Bangs - the start-up of physically describable universes - may be facilitated.
This is not a polemic writing. I use the 'tectological' as the view of the buildup-side of the complexities (by emergence of newly developing qualities) without arguing against the (still valid, scientific) ways of reductionist/analytical methods - as a complement. Emergence has a flair of temporality by acknowledging that the "not yet known", the "surprising" factor is gradually fading away (up to an extent unknown) in the course of our mental (epistemic) evolution. Both tectology and evolution are items within our (human) view within the processes of nature, which we consider from the 'simple' (for us) extending to the complex (for us).
The fundamental concept is an infinite dynamic symmetry, - breaking into an order of restrictions in the symmetry, a process called: existence.
However:
As the starting concept of our proposal for the fundamental, (proto-Big Bang) state of nature, we did NOT choose 'that' symmetry, rather we start from the process of turning the existing asymmetry of the (given)
differences into achieving (any) symmetry (which is the basic propensity in nature as the balance, or equilibration - considered in the dialectics of entropy, of energy-consumation, potential, etc.).
Consequently: the existence is a process of "symmetrification" of the information (all understood in the sense as explained in the body of the text). This modification (reversal?) was necessary to
escape from an inherently "static" image of a (proto-Bang? original?) fundamental symmetry, which may inadvertently slip in, as our mind carelessly succumbs to the reductionist science unconditionally learned in school and its fundamentally static views (the case observed in my own natural scientific education as well).
Without going into the ontological nonsense of "how it all started", which is a quagmire of the (mystical?) philosophy, we cannot 'start' from the overall symmetry, without explaining 'how' did it all become asymmetrical (even in the dynamic symmetrification of them).
So we start from the level of a system with already existing asymmetries. None below that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.- The Big Bang System
Symmetry as invariance is extended into temporal symmetry: any (assumed) TIME in the dynamics
shows invariance. This translates into a timeless (atemporal) system. The 'infinite' represents the
WHOLENESS in the invariance: no boundaries show in any aspect, in the unbroken, invariant
(=symmetrical) system. This represents the "implicate, or pre(proto)geometrical" nature
which gives rise to the Big Bangs (unlimited) - see next.
Elemental asymmetries occur by the infinite variation within the dynamic invariance: islands of identical
elements are part of the variations, falling out from the dynamic equilibrium of the unbroken
invariance. Although they re-dissipate, the occurrence fulgurates as a re-equilibration of occurring
asymmetry, i.e. the Big Bangs in nature.
(Such phenomena are observed in physics as the matter-antimatter fulgurations in Q. vacuum).
II. - "OUR" universe
Interpretation of the observed broken symmetry by us - from the INSIDE - includes
time, space, physical observations. In time: it leads to stationary differences, boundaries.
Broken symmetry is interpreted by the mind of our present level of development as complexities,
the tectology of which is beyond our computing capabilities of the present stage.(cf: Emergence).
Evolution: the state of the Big Bang (in our inside time: still ongoing). In our inside view the
symmetry break STILL proliferates, as observations interpreted by the mind: the complexity is
still growing, while there are also concurrent observable equilibration-steps as well - as
"back to the symmetry (invariance)" cf: black holes etc.
III - "OUR" mind
The ideational aspect of the symmetry break-level "life" evolved the human mind in our observations.
Deductions developed: both reductionist scientific ways and religious aspects were brought up to
explain the 'inconnu'. Induction (tectology) is a recent level of epistemic evolution, just barely
touched so far. The mind (the aspect of the ideational symmetry break) developed 'after' the time
and space concept, as a tool of handling ideation, the quantities, numbers, the formalism, mathematics.
Scientific reason and belief-based emotion still coexist (clash sometimes). Both are interpretations
by the mind, based on input-information.
IV - Physical world
This essay does not claim a treatise of the universe as seen through the physical sciences. If some
elements of the description resemble (or differ from) concepts in ongoing formalistic science, so be it.
They are meant in the concept of the dynamic infinite symmetry system, of the proto-BigBang nature's
unbroken invariance.
======================================================
A B S T R A C T
Nature, the process of the existence, is pictured as a system of infinite dynamic symmetry, where information-assemblies are in a continuous interchange and in unlimited variability, rather than in a static infinite symmetry (e.g. of a nirvana). The dynamic interchanges necessarily lead to asymmetrical elements which (auto)-re-dissipate back into the symmetry.
Such elements are called Big Bangs, one of them giving rise to our existence in time and space (i.e. to our universe). All observable (physical, functional and ideational) "facts" and "truth" are the limitations of the overall symmetry. The mind has access to and interprets only certain observable asymmetries, which are 'our' complexities, accessible to us according to the actual level of our epistemic evolution.
Our asymmetry-based view fashions our concepts of the physical world and its observed features, of evolution, life, as it is viewed from the inside of that 'one' occasional element of nature's assymmetry, which we call our universe.
Our 'temporal' observation about the happenings of the Big Bang makes it a 'long time' process, still continuing and our observable (paradoxical) 'evolution process' includes both the still increasing assymmetries: the complexity-growth, and the hints to a re-structuring into the overall symmetry.
============================================
S Y M M E T R Y - C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
The title phrase of Freeman Dyson's book: "Infinite in All Directions" could be quoted as defining infinite symmetry with implied generalization of the classic definition of continuity, rephrasable to 'uninterrupted' in all and any directions. With an extended invariance from the "certain" into "all".
I want to differentiate between a "total" and an "infinite" symmetry, since a total symmetry would exclude even local asymmetric - even symmetrically repeating - features, allowing only sort of a "nirvana" (or a hypothetical and nonexisting 'singularity' - see below), while the broader "infinite" symmetry allows the inclusion of (asymmetric) differentiations in the elements, if repeated on and on, in an unlimited fashion, thus fitting them into the overall invariance by their (infinite and so) symmetrical repetitions.
The major difference between the 'classic' (even total) and the newly introduced 'infinite' symmetry is the difference between a static view of the 'tota'l in all details and the allowance of repetitive asymmetries in the infinite symmetry, which includes variability, while the former is based on a monotonous, homogeneous uniform structureless context.
A further extension is proposed to the image of symmetries: the "dynamic" aspect. Symmetries are usually (static) snapshots of a system. We would like to add another dimension to it: the fluctuational symmetry, when the changing, but repetitive features also fluctuate in the repetitive mode to render an invariance not only in the spatial, but also in the temporal aspects. Beside the "no matter which aspect I observe" we also add the "no matter at which instant we observe" quality - to detect symmetry within a dynamically changing system.
Maybe later on, during our further epistemic development we will be able to add even more dimensions to the concept of symmetry, which are not yet discovered. It would be a shortsighted mistake to finalize our 'model' of nature to the level of the present accessibility of our scientific information.
It is lately a spreading agreement in contemporary thinking, that nature is a p r o c e s s and so, in this view, the process-wise (dynamic) symmetry is feasible. The elemental differences equilibrate into an unlimited (instantaneous) interchange "in all directions" - or aspects, which makes the system of infinite differences infinitely homogeneous - dynamically as well as staticly.
This way we redefine the 'Infinite Symmetry' into "Infinite Dynamic Symmetry'.
The Infinite Dynamic Symmetry of nature may explain the now inaccessible "proto-system", from which ('a' Big) Bang could start our universe. For starters: both David Bohm's 'implicate' order and Rainer Zimmermann's 'pre-geometrical' structure (see references) come to mind.
The reason why we speculate about such systems at all, may come from a desire to make the beginning of our world explainable, at least imaginable - if such beginning is warranted indeed. We may of course satisfy ourselves with several (harmonic) theories as explanations with the reversibility of the arrow of time, i.e. a harmonic recirculation of the world: expanding and shrinking phases, from Big Bang to Big Crunch and again, and again, with no beginning and no end. Our present phase observations show seemingly unidirectional changes - they sould reverse in the reverse phase into again "seemingly uni-directional" observations of the other kind, i.e. in the opposite direction. This line of thinking would speculate in debatable terms, some even only theoreticaly postulated, some opposed to our observational findings. In the present speculation we want to stay within our present cognitive inventory, identifying a solution possibly congruent with our observed notions - consequently we reject the endless harmonic route as fictional.
We would like to explain what we (may) 'see', not what we don't.
In fact, some irreversible factors (as in cosmic decay, in growth of the ideational and structural complexity, etc.,) are observed in diverse fields of science, indicating that the 'process' may not reverse in an easy harmonic play. At least not within the observed characteristical framework of the universe. Which makes the idea feasible that there was a beginning (whatever), and there may be an end - beyond our grasp at this time. We would like to approach this end-point as well.
(AN ASIDE
about some terms and their usage with some unorthodox flair):
To escape from the mentioned nirvana or singularity sindrome, we want to consider the existence as 'difference'. Any existence does require some difference from something. We think in terms of comparisons. The differences in an infinite symmetry come as (observable) symmetry-breaks. The controversy to a nirvana, or a singularity in our view of natural science is in the overall interconnectedness of the natural system. If there is interconnectedness, neither a nirvana or a singularity is featureless within the system: at least they must have boundaries to be separated from the rest of nature's featured (the non-'nirvanistic', or singularity) context. Boundaries are symmetry-breaking features, they do not fit into either of them.) Their "existence"(?) as "Ding an Sich" - separate from the Nature-system, is considered a matter of irrelevance to natural science.
A recognition of a difference is information. 'Recognize' may any entity, in any way, at any level of complexity or existence. The term "unrecognized difference" is an oxymoron: it may be a "half" quality by itself, qualities coming to existence only by comparison: by recognition. The information is a bridge from the quale-issuer to a recognizant. It is not necessarily a directional feature: it may well be reversed.
Fitting these terms into the "process of nature", in terms of the preceding paragraphs, we would say: "Nature is an infinite dynamic symmetry of differences". The differences are breaks in the symmetry: they are variances in the aspect involved. (as has been said: the infinite dynamics encompasses the elemental variances into a limitless repetitive symmetry in the system. - (For our present consideration the content of elemental variances are hypothetical and unspecified). The dynamic interchange also obeys a balanced arrangement: exceptional varieties 'equilibrate' into "less exceptional" elements to easier fitting into the overall symmetry. This is a propensity which may be as well the consequence or the motive of the fundamentally symmetrical arrangement. The essence of such propensity is also considered a 'given', reaching into further ontological details.
Since the recognition of differences is information, our definition may further extend into:
"Nature exists in a balance of an infinite symmetrical dynamics of information". We may keep in mind the difference between these terms in a snapshot, i.e. a static description of a state, vs. the dyanmical view of the interchanges in a process. Please consider a timeless system, in which the interchanges are instantaneous (for us) including an unlimited variety. It leads to the conclusion as THE "rule" in the 'proto-universe' nature's characterization which we identify at this level of speculation: whatever is feasible (imaginable): - "IS" -. -- (In infinite variations).
(END OF THE ASIDE).
In view of the infinite dynamic symmetry, a propensity of balance is accompnaying the differences in nature and acts for a preservation of the system. While the comparison and the recognition formulates information (cf: symmetry break), the equilibration of differences is a natural trend to reduce the extent of information: it increases the symmetry. Exemplifying from 'our' (physical) world:
We can identify such trend in our physical vocabulary by the phenomena (or even the concepts) called energy, or entropy. We have to review our view about the physical process: symmetry is the foundation and whatever "is observed" is a break in some symmetry. Physical processes, however, in which energy is consumed (i.e. used up, from potential into an equilibration of the stress) is symmetry increasing. In other words:
when energy "works": it restores some kind of broken symmetry (cf.: a "potential") into a re-equilibrated symmetry of that particular kind.
The sciences deal with a compilation of symmetry-breaks, which are the 'unruly' events of nature, in violation of her symmetrical balance. Dimensions, space, time itself, quantities, even qualities are the 'faults' in the symmetry of nature. Observable symmetry-breaks are complexities, either structural (material), functional (changes), or ideational (conceptual).
Nature's system, in the unlimited variety, ('composition', 'structure') - in an infinite and the ever-repeating symmetry may be a pattern of that "pre-geometric" or "implicate" proto-Big Bang world, from an understanding of which we attempt to formulate the occurrence of our universe.
We do not presume spatial or temporal restrictions: they are products of the universe-formation. In the infinite symmetry there are no restrictions, no specifics or identifiable segments: (to our present knowledge) the only rules are: complete interchangeability and complete dynamic variability. No features, or characteristics (qualia) can be identified according to our way of looking at 'things': any featural knowledge of the system, (in D. Bohm's distinction: "order") would mean restrictions against the overall symmetry. If some dynamic asymmetrialization occurs: the infinite dynmics absorbs it back into the balance of the total., any symmetry-breaking self-repaires within the system.
In fact: What we are talking about here is the highest order of symmetry we can think of: it includes the dynamically endlessly repeating unlimited variations in limitless sequence, where the allowance for unlimited variations simultaneously also means the 'existence' of them all, a coexistence of Yin and Yang, a true (dynamic) homogeneity in an infinite dynamic balance of ever changing variations.
It has no equivalent in any of our experiences of the physical univese: physics does not like to do business with the infinite. In our observational physical terms there are boundaries, and boundaries are breaks in the endless symmetry. The "characteristics" are 'standing' limitations of symmetrical features both "outside" of those boundaries, (between, or across them?), or "within" the domain of the symmetrical features, (as if enclosed by the boundaries).
Symmetry Breaking generates information, boundaries, compartmentalization, order, even further symmetry-breaking, all the way to the 'systemic asymmetrical', as we may put it: THE COMPLEX characteristics. This is where the universe, the physical world, the quantitative logic, the causality comes in. Complexities, the products of nature's (tectological) buildup into higher order entities, are stationary (at least observable) symmetry breaks as natural systems, as designed features, algorithmic or "chaotic" ensembles, components, qualia, - the entire universe and its ingredients. Although several proposals have been submitted in recent scientific literature, no identification has been agreed upon so far by the diverse factions of views.
Whenever we proceed in our epistemic evolution, we have to accept new, earlier unknown ideas.
DYNAMISM of the INFINITE SYMMETRY:
THE "BIG BANG".
Let us start with a process, which pertains to the proto-world's existence. As we said above:
All Nature, the infinite dynamic symmetry system (callable: the proto-Bang world?), "the coexistence of 'Yin and Yang', a quasi-homogeneity in an unlimited dynamic balance of variations" - the entirety, is a process. We do not speculate about the "stuff" which it may consist of, since Rainer Zimmermann's "pre-geometrical structure" is beyond our present means of speculation. We concentrate on a process "it" performs in the infinite dynamic symmetry. Since we identify differences and their interconnection, we may use the terms (see above): existence (=difference) and information (= recognitions of it) - if we insist to talk about a structure (of an unidentified substrate?).
And insist we do. Structure? all we can speak about are the information assemblages, those `grouping together', (recognition) into differences in a constant and unlimited exchange, governed by the balance of attracting (meaning: the formation of varieties within the groupings), and of the dissipating (meaning: the formation of new formats in constant re-assembling), the groups of differences. Balancing goes simultaneously: ALL variations COexist in a symmetry of dynamic infinity. As has been said: Whatever "MAY BE", - instantaneously also "IS".
Do all variations indeed balance out instantaneously? Consider a simplistic example, a variation of letters, include both the groups of varieties (e.g. words etc.) and the exceptional 'variety'-group of identicals (AAAAAAAAA) - many times neglected among the listing of practical variations. In our system of infinite formations the occurrence of such is inevitable: the "homovariance-groups" of a similar kind, recognized as assemblages of similars. The dynamic interchange results in that case in"variations" of idenitcals, some sort of an "island" of AAAAAAAA 'assemblage', (maybe including different sizes (if we want to mention this concept at all), or kind of the substrate (unidentified: `A' indicating only the kind of the difference - see below) which surely 'dissipates' into a more varied interchange-quality. A strong enough ensemble, however, a concentration of such 'islands' may exceed the capability of the spontaneous equilibrating propensity of the system: it forms a subsystem of its own (yet ready to be chewed off gradually into the overall balance). Characteristics develop (see below), quasi-stationary circumstances emerge, the 'island' falls out from the dynamic equilibrium of the system: the infinite symmetry seems (transitionally) broken.
(We want to emphasize: such occurrences exist by intrinsic natural circumstances, as an intrinsic necessity, i.e. inevitably within the kind of the said limitless, infinite variations of the system which we described). (Another warning though: the simplistic example of the letters refers only to the `information', the recognized differences, not some "stuff". We do not imply any specification for a substance constituting the structure in the proto-geometric process. The "A"-s may pertain to groups of different carriers, all connected by similar "A" kind of `information' though.
This may be important to accept the varieti(es) of universe(s) we may consider besides our own.
We propose to call such (unlimited) occurrences of (transitional, partial) symmetry-breaking the (transitional, partial) BANGs - taken from the now most generally applied name: Big Bang.. The quasi-stationary new (Bang-)characteristics (within the repetitional element of the 'identicals') sort of momentarily 'freeze' into a subsystem with the superficial addition of features "on top of" the original dynamic interchanging structure (now on hold), as a transitional "veneer" only, yet of observable characteristics (qualia). They form and dissipate. They are part of the regular features derived from Nature, from the dynamics of the process of existence.
Let us single out the ONE of those innumerable 'Bangs', which is of special importance to us, (only because we are living WITHIN as it forms/ed and re-dissipates into the overall dynamics of the structure) - and call it "our" BIG BANG - the formation of "our" universe, as we observe it from the inside. More of this later on.
There is no 'random' involved, no mystery, no supernatural, no unidentifiable fluctuation in an unidentified quantum vacuum, the system's dynamism includes such Bang-occurrences naturally and in a certain proportion regularly - as a partial and transitional systemic symmetry-breakage within the infinite dynamic symmetry of the overall (proto-bang) nature. Occasional spots of such Bang-formation are part of the dynamics of the infinite symmetry system with its infinite variety.
COMPLEXIFICATION BY SYMMETRY-BREAKING
The premises: we considered the dynamics of an "infinite symmetry of change". In reconsidering the concepts of past (current?) sciences: most of them pertain to specific symmetrical restrictions. The term "total symmetry" refers generally to a static image of either a mathematical point, a singularity, or a nirvana. Time, space, mass, energy, etc. with all their derivatives into our physical system are restrictions of symmetry into select aspects of observation. Whenever we "say something" of a system, we as well exclude (or at least disregard) the rest.
Can we visualize an infinite symmetry system without those comparative symmetry-breaking features into (mental) images, - without a timely asymmetric function? Without any ideation of symmetry-breaks into some antagonists? To FORMulate without a form, to think the "panta rhei" without a shore?
We cannot (at least not in our ongoing terms).
In my earlier (1990s) "naive ontology", as we saw, the existence was considered a 'difference' (no matter what), which is for sure a broken symmetry. If we say "Nature IS", it means a differentiation from the nirvana by broken symmetries. All we are observing are the boundaries, changes, concentrations, characteristics, all of them comparisons, maybe consequences, according to how our senses and mind accept/evaluate/interpret the symmetry-breakings in nature.
The questions arise:
Many of our terms fail. We have to extend our inventory of known symmetries into the unknown: symmetry of the arrow of time (which we may express as 'instantaneous', e.g. in fluctuations of the yin & yang, or of cause and effect, the ultimate dialectics. Infinite differentiational dynamics (the symmetry of asymmetries) would really approach the state of a nirvana, in its broader context, UNLESS we consider that the infinite variability MUST also include a chance of the 'self-destruct'.
When we consider the "concentration/dissipation" aspect in the game of the symmetry-fulgurations, it necessarily does include levels of information-concentrations which exceed the state of the ever interchanging balance. This means an internal contradiction in the dialectics of symmetry: transitional symmetry-breaking 'cells' (as we saw above in the example of the 'AAAAAA' groups) have to be postulated.
Such cells, nature's 'special' variety-units, although totally included in the infinite variability, fall out from the infinite balance, which is maintained within the 'infinite symmetry'. This "inbreeding" interchange restricts the freedom of the total symmetry (of the information), such concentration breeds further concentration, as a chain-reaction, asymmetry begets asymmetry, frozen into the (transitional!) standing differences. (See below in the paradox of evolution).
An ORDER develops: we have the emergence of some unruly asymmetry - a 'quasi stationary' complexity within the dynamic infinite symmetry of nature: A Bang, that dissipates back into the overall balance of nature. All we have is a fulguration, like observed in particle physics (in the quantum vacuum), a proportionation/recombination of matter/antimatter particles from "nothing" - i.e. from the latent 'energy'-content of space - as modern physics puts it).
"OUR UNIVERSE":
TIME, QUANTITIES, SPACE, THE PHYSICAL WORLD.
As we saw there is ONE exceptional Bang amongst the unlimited symmetry-breaking fulgurations of "the Bangs" in nature: the one which is our home and world, universe, life, - the one which we observe from the inside rather than speculate about from the outisde. Earlier I have borrowed the word "linearization" from its mathematic usage, where it stands for the restriction of freedom into the asymmetry of a "linear" function, all other freedom excluded. It represents a narrowing down of symmetry and we want to generalize the concept into ANY and ALL restrictions (i.e. breaking) of the symmetries by using the term "complexification".
The restriction that the Bang-segment gets only 'stepwise, gradually' redissipated, leads to an (internal) sequentiality concept, which our mind developed into a fundamental parameter of "time". It replaces the simultaneity and implies a directional arrow of time. It goes parallel with other aspects of the process (now already in time), with the arising space-concept, with diverse concentrations into mass, timely interactions as energy, entropy, the quantitative cuase and effect logic, etc., all within the capabilities of the human mind - i.e. the physically observable complex veneer "on" our world:
The development of the space concept is a secondary step: 'things', in other word: results of the 'bang' were already there, the changes in time represented 'motion', i.e. in the connections between time and a new concept: space. Not surprisingly, when a process (the spatial symmetry break) is going from the "no extension mode" into a system with extension, as in the emergence of space, it is physically marvelled and calculated as a "space-inflation". (I wouldn't be concerned about the quantitative details: they are products of the (recent, retrograde) straight calculational consequences drawn from our present image in physics about the universe within the capabilities of the restrictions of today's mindset of the physical sciences. Changes en route of the universe's development, resulting from more symmetrical (chaotic?) dimensions - and leading to the presently observable physical state, - or their observations - are of course disregarded (unknown) in the straight - retrograde (mathematical, foramlistic) back-sequencing. 'Backwards history' is algorithmic, while the ("chaotic?") 'forwards-development-way' was not. It may be a cosmological approximation.
All our observations are restricted to a look from the INSIDE of the fulguration "Our Big Bang", as interpreted by our human mind and its extensions: the instruments created by us.
Nature does not deal in quantities and numbers: these are human inventions during the evolution of the thinking mind of humans within the growing complexity of life-organisms (see below). So far there is no evidence for nature's own doings in any 'quantizing' of the qualia.
We may observe mathematically describable natural facts (pi in the sky and similars) when considered within our thinking system. Our 'physical world' is duly outlined as David Bohm's 'explicate' order: as facts accessible to the mind and interpreted by it for our use. The 'scientific' mind applies its quantitative logic, calculates and builds a mathematics-based formalism to sort and explain the observations. There is no indication of "and that is all", in the contrary: the epistemic evolution of our cognitive inventory has discovered new facts all over the history of our ongoing mental development. Most scientists, however, replace the conceptual understanding by the equational formalistic definition - whenever feasible - and are willing to exclude from science those features which are not prone to calculations as "metaphysical" "pseudoscientific" "mystical" even plain "philosophical" derogation. Maybe mathematics can indeed develop into formalistically handle things like a "legally un/valid opinion" or "an emotional misjudgement" or the inconclusive paradoxes based on probabilities by unidentified (unrestricted, unknown) variables and so on. Epistemic evolution is unforeseeable in this case as well, unless the restrictedness to the past formalism is not binding future deelopment. The fundamental difficulty in formalising new findings is in mostly the incompleteness of ingredients to be considered: we have to learn the 'new' thing in broad details before we even identify enough "essential" variables to build a 'representative' model on. Poorly identified new findings make incomplete (missleading?) formalistic decisions and can stifle the advancement.
Of course evolution itself is controversial: people in natural sciences usually accept it as a most likely possibility of things (the acceptance of the Big Bang story is a supporting feature, however a scientific disbelief in the Big Bang does not automatically deny evolution either). On the other side the more mystically oriented people look for other ways to 'explain' what we see: as in the creationist versions of the diverse and sometimes contradicting religions (in a broader sense). In the popular vote this latter group is more dominant. An "explanation" is the satisfaction for the personal mindset. Creationists say: nobody has observed evolution in its workings. It is only a deduction from the present state, a retrograde speculation, leaving "missing links" between earlier fossil findings (which themselves are to be explained as well). The natural science - party disregards the 'missing links' as the "not yet" discovered phases, and relies on the logical mind, comparing existing levels as "steps" in a history of a continuous process. Just as the religiously set mind cannot accept the 'godless' practicality of a materialistic evolution, the scientifically set mind cannot accept the supernatural being as controlling the natural world by decision. Both are emotional: no argument works to change an emotional mindset. Circularity works in both: the existence of God is evidenced by Him saying so, to the believers in the words of 'reputable' forefathers, - while the evolutionary universe-belief is based on diverse suppositions (e.g. that the redshift comes from an expading universe, (no other reason accepted), so we can 'retrograde' our system to the zero extension = the Big Bang - and many many observations are slanted so as to fit this image - and they do fit (however they might easily fit some other theory as well, but THIS one is pursued and so it is calculated, and taught). Nobody experienced personally the evolutionary process, even very few 'evolutionists' measured and calculated themselves, but they believe those reputable scientists who reported so. The mystical view has an edifice of explanations by faith in religion and the scientific view has an edifice by faith in science and calculated theories. Belonging to either of them prevents any (presumed?) objectivity to choose the 'right' one. Dr. S. Johnson's proof for the matterly world by kicking the stone "and it hurts", maybe a figment by our God-given feelings or a solipsism as well.
As said above, one of the barriers in further advancing is the obsession of many scientists to fit and force all new findings into the existing (meaning: earlier, old, maybe obsolete and ignorant) formalism which we call 'ongoing science': by applying the old theories which were derived earlier, at (lower) scientific cognitive levels, (i.e. when much less information was discovered. and available, and of course using this lesser information of 'that' time) than was obtained later on, after the conception of these 'applied' theories and may be necessary knowledge to handle these newer findings. Copernicus wouldn't have derived his heliocentric world-system after a freshman course in astronomy of the 1990s.
Life and consciousness are perhaps the least satisfactorily explained concepts of interest to mankind over several millennia - and to science and philosophy lately. Threre was a tendency at the level of the earlier reductionist - phenomenological positions to consider both within our own circumstances only, meaning: life restricted to the terrestrial wet-carbon biochemical domain - and the consciousness to the human mentality. In the recent holistic generalization of an overall interconnectedness, these limits expand into a wider phenomenology for both. For the "life complexity" we try to step ahead from the 1882 Engels definition ("motion of the proteins") which was the timely rebuttal to the 19th c. religious mysticism - and look for life in complexities that interact with the environmental resources and proliferate their existence while multiplying their own kind, maybe in a physical (extended) consciousness (see further on). (It may still include fire or crystallization.)
Life process is a level of complexity which we reached in the course of evolution. It is interrelated with 'consciousness' (no better defined than: "everybody knows what it is") and it is hard to separate the two. Life may be called nature's consciousness, while consciousness may be called nature's pan-sensitivity - the process of recognizing and storing information and responding to it. The generalized overall phenomenon is quite ubiquitous in the entire line of nature's organizations, not a 'human' or 'biological life' specialty.
We have to observe the organizational consciousness (sensitivity) in accordance with the complexity-level of the organization: from the electron-sensitivity/memory for positive charges and photons through the chemical affinity/reactivity of molecules - into their associations (colloids etc.) to a 'mindfulness' of living creatures - (even without a CNS, yet with memory and motion - cf. plants, unicellulars, etc.) all the way to the so called higher animals' thinking - using a brain - all that is part of the existence of organizations with material components (body?). No qualia can be separated from their complexity, as a separate soul, spirit, feeling, reflex, neither as a separate living body (zombie!), or 'living' tissue without its deterioration. The parts of a "complexity" separately are doomed to failure: consciousness is bound to its support as the component quality of the total (life) like the concept 'color of a rose' cannot be separated from the rose into wavelength.
It is a primitive thinking to study the components of a complexity by themselves. It happens in reductionism (see below), which, however, is a useful way both of our mental and scientific advancement. A more subtle view of the body-mind unit shows in the ancient Yoga.
Physiological neurology or instrumental psychology has yet to absorb the idea of the indivisible human unit in the mind/body aspect (projected so as early as in the 1950s in Kõhler's Gestalt theory).
Neither component is a "thing" by itself - as a component of the 'total', only by itself, individually, when it forms a separate entity, without the characteristics shared with the 'rest of the total unit'. It has to be reformed from 'entity' into 'component', what analytical reductionist science mostly misses when trying to explain the total by adding up the analytically identified material parts. A mistake it is, yet it facilitated the collection of our scientific cognitive inventory and its developing use into the technological advancement of our life (see more about it in the next paragraph).
" P H Y S I C A L " P R O C E S S E S
Physical processes in general consist of the equilibration of differences. (in form of the response to a stress). Potential energy is a difference, it belongs to the existence, its equilibration is death. Let us try to translate this view into "symmetry and its breaking":
Wherever we observe a difference, e.g. accumulation or use of energy, motion, size or mass, time or scaling, the symmetry of the system is changing (broken or restored). In the unbroken, total dynamic symmetry, we are unable to identify any such information. Any process, even static or temporary characteristic means SOME break in the symmetry, extending from material (structural, geometrical) through functional to ideational aspects. Even a "perfectly balanced" system is asymmetrical at its boundary, where the system/no system syndrom arises. The "perfectly balanced" is of course an oxymoron in our universe, which consists of a system of imbalances, consequently prone to symmetry breaks. Perfectly balanced is the one infinite dynamic symmetry system of the proto-Big Bang nature alone.
Should we consider the 'physical processes' as a restoration of symmetry? as balancing the imbalance? satisfying the potential energy by working it into "filling-in the gap"? Likely so.
What about the life processes, whith their negentropical outcome, building more complexity, i.e. information, i.e. asymmetries? Seemingly so, a contradiction, coming from a fundamental ignorance about the entire process of nature and this universe. We haven't yet arrived at a concensus about the hypothetical restoration of the hypothetical Big Bangs in a hypothetical system of a proto-BigBang existence.
All our observations are inbred, looking from within and with means so far developed during our evolution. We interpret with insufficient knowledge - both physically and mentally. We build temporary aspects and correct them whenever our epistemic development 'unearthes' further points to be considered.
We draw our conclusions from those cases which we already know. Whether they are exceptional cases of that particular segment of ours we live in, we don't know. Our mind works in an asymmetrical logic and causality, governed by the asymmetry of the arrow of time and the asymmetry of quantities.
Our 'invariances' are selected to aspects of our known and considered kinds of symmetry, disregarding an entire world of potential aspects (beyond our grasp) where our items may not (necessarily) be invariant. The symmetry of equations is restricted to the comparison within those quantities (scales, characteristics, meanings) involved. All this is extremely useful in the epistemic development of mankind: the reductionist way of gathering information (considering the segment of inquiry as a substantial unit, composed of ingredients - mostly restricted into material (physical) parts/phenomena) discovered a world of complexity. A well crafted edifice, balanced by and within itself. How did this world evolve?
E V O L U T I O N
There are three main questions:
It is the paradox of the evolution:. While evolution should be looked at as the process supposed to refurbish the symmetry and eliminate the stationary asymmetries, one would even assume: to reduce the complexities (the symmetry-breaks) - as we observe it, by further symmetry- breaking in fact, as observed, it is developing more and more complexity, more developing 'order' , i.e. it contributes to the increase in asymmetric restrictions (of symmetry) in the system.
How do we account for this fact in view of evolution's alleged role to facilitate a return into the infinite symmetry and stop those restrictions?
One solution is an appeal to our ignorance: it is beyond our grasp. True, but not satisfactory.
Speculation, however, may pop up another version: in our temporal view the Big Bang becomes a prolonged process, and, although it started 'a-temporal', (as instantaneous), during that ominous 'first' instance of the time development it became a temporal observation from the inside and we experience it extended over a long 'time' while the symmetry break still begets further symmetry breaks, new complexities grow, the information increases, our world/life gets more sophisticated. We may conclude:
The Big Bang process is still going on! (In our inside - temporal view that is).
New symmetry-breaks still occur, as new levels of complexity are forming, the process - as experienced in our time-concept hasn't yet culminated. The dialectics of the process may still hide some surprises for us: complexity is increasing (symmetry break) while the opposite (the return-side into the symmetry) is also observed. We are far from understanding the "elasticity" of the balance in a 'Bang'-process.
So far evolution went stepwise: from 'simple' to 'complex' - at least in our view of today. We consider the physical entities of early times simple and life-organizations more complex. Timewise and evolutionarily our ladder seems justified: the 'simple' particles came first, then they combined into more complexity, atoms, chemistry, astronomy and the differentiation of environments. Then chemistry (a consciousness of matter?) played around with molecules of lots of different sizes and quality, (call them material-metaphors of mood, emotions, memory, if you like), self-organizing (a good expression as long as we don't know more about it) their 'information' into more complex organizations, some of which started functions we would call 'life process' - again as long as we don't know more about them. We are at the beginning of the 'knowledge' in life sciences.
Our sciences leave the door open to include a still ongoing process of Big Bang symmetry breaks and the time=zero, space=zero Bang may as well be only the startup for the still ongoing process in which we live and look for an understanding (repeat: from the inside). Concurrently we also observe occurrences which increase the symmetry, the dissipation of complexities, equilibration of potential differences, maybe more - we have yet to discover these aspects of the world.
All right, we are in evolution, our universe is (still) increasing its complexity since the 'Big Bang' and at its newest level we, humans developed a mind that thinks part linear, part 'chaotic', - in other words: eliminating more and more (symmetry-break) restrictions.(The prolonged Big Bang idea is still on!). The black hole theory (which has received lots of scientific support, in form of many - mostly indirect - observations explained and matched 'to' and 'within' the theory) may mean an ultimate 'concentration' of matter (may it be also the elimination of space?) where the symmetry is being increased and the 'complex' order eliminated. Conceptually the black-hole idea is far from being understood.
We may find other phenomena which are in the line of reducing the 'symmetry-breaks' in our world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E P I L O G U E
Mostly my semantical ramblings about some concepts.
CHAOS: one of the oldest concepts of mankind, used for many meanings and contents over the millennia of its existence, became a household word in science lately. After the ancient "abyss of disorder" the Gleick definition of unpredictability due to unproportional changes by minute causes the physical chaology expropriated the term for calculating nonlinear physical processes, some in a self- referential changing of trajectories or unproportional perturbations. The adjective "chaotic" is still applied for a causally haard-to-predict, or unexpected behavior. I used the term in its conceptual sense, until I tried to identify it semantically. It turned out: the identifiers were all negative: not this, not that. Even the positively formulated characteristics were "un-"qualities. I was searching for identifiers which can be characterized in their own merit, not as the negative of something. I resorted to the frequently found 'linear - nonlinear' pair, although nonlinear is also as negative as it can be. Further difficulty arose from the side of the mathematically trained minds, incapable of accepting any context for the words beside the mathematical (non)linear (functions). A rather "scientific definition" can be found in the excellent book by George Kampis (p. 310):
"...a phenomenon of continuous dynamic systems. [Essence]: the neighboring trajectories diverge in the phase space (meaning positive Lyapunov exponents for the system). Chaos systems can be both conservative & dissipative. If the motion is bounded (within a finite phase space) the divergence leads to a mixing of the trajectory fibers, so that the resulting motion appears to be random. The degree of randomness passes all statistical tests ..." (slightly paraphrased). It is pretty convoluted for a term in general (popular) usage. Besides it restricts the concept to a formalistic description of certain physical processes, excluding the mental domain (feelings, trains of thoughts value-judgements, beliefs, etc.) at large.
It is a hard job to express new concepts in a language which is not prepared to express them. The new trend of scientific thinking handles concepts beyond the vocabulary of past times. Creating new words has been attempted in many languages which had to 'catch up' with the times from their antiquated status, in some cases horrifying letter-combiations(!) were created.
This is why I used the cumbersome "infinite dynamic symmetry" monster many times.
EMERGENCE, LIFE, COMPLEXITY, CONSCIOUSNESS are terms used frequently, but understood, i.e. defined uniformly, almost never - at least not to the satisfaction of a majority of the involved scientists. The unexpectedness of emergence is a product of our temporary ignorance, hopefully fading away gradually. The mystery of life (we may combine it with consciousness as mentioned) is a frequently misunderstood characteristic of developing complexities, which complexity itself is at least as undefined (at least to the acceptance of the majority of the involved scientists) as emergence. Life, the higher-level (easy to say: higher than what?) symmetry breaking i.e. organization into complex functions, is difficult to discern as a process "above its lower limit": criteria are fuzzy, a generalization can extend it from the biologic cell-based entities into lower features (viruses, functional molecules, even physical processes) as well as into "higher" organizations, (society, biosphere, galaxies) as well. In a certain definition even "fire" can be included into the environmentally supported life-like processes. We may define a level of the complexity in our biology which we consider life: a buildup of information (symmetry break) to a functional level, which dissipates at 'death' into more symmetrical forms (negentropic behavior).
Consciousness, however, is a quality of complexities, in the 'human term': the mental aspect, in more general terms (as pan-sensitivity): the acknowledgement of and response to (including storage) information, which may include the human term as well, but includes the entire line of the entities in our universe, from the physical sub-particles to society, galaxy and above.
The 'free will' is a consequence of the mindset, a result of all information summarized in the mind consciously - or unconsciously, into a 'spontaneous' reaction. The mindset encompasses both environmental input and internal reflxes. Since the personal (mental/physical) history is all included, the reaction upon "free will" is highly personalized and hardly predictable.
RANDOM, STOCHASTIC, SINGULARITY and especially the above mentioned nirvana are 'nono'-s within the interconnected world-system (called: holistic, (wholistic, continuous, nested integrity etc. as well). The first two would imply no causal justification in a choice. Let us state here: if there is something totally unrelated to our existence, it does not exist FOR US, it is of no concern to us. We cannot consider it, speak about it: if we address anything in any way, it is connected to our existence. If we consider something 'random', it says only that under considered rules we cannot find the motive to its generation/movement. Which does not exclude 'other' rules of the world - beyond our consideration in this case. Haphazardous, 'as it turns out' only points to our (tremporary?) ignorance. Many "random" or "stochastic" items became unrandomized, predictable, in the course of our subsequent epistemic development.
If something is carrying information for us: it cannot be (by definition) a singularity or a nirvana. It belongs to our world. Is part of it. A defined singularity has at least boundaries and boundaries are transcendable. The image that comes to mind is the scientist thinking about the Big Bang, sitting in his armchair at the fireplace and watching that little "Big-Bang fireball" bouncing around in the ashtray.
No, my friends: even, if we imagine ourselves spectators, we are within that 'fireball' and see nothing.
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R e f e r e n c e s :
Abbott: Flatland - The World of Two Dimensions (1878)
Bohm, David: Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Rutledge and Kegan Paul, London 1980
Dyson, Freeman: Infinite in all Directions (book-title)
Gleick, James: Chaos, Making a New Science, Penguin, London, 1987
Kampis, George: Self-Modifying Systems in Biology and Cognitive Science, Pergamon, xford,1991
Mainzer, Klaus: Complexity, Springer, 1998
Mikes, John: Tectology - poster at the NECSI Int'l Conf. on Complexities, Nashua NH, USA, 1997
_(URL: "http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/tectology.html")
--------------
Mainzer, Klaus, Müller, Achim, Saltzer, Walter G. (eds): Conference Proceedings (book)
_(Bielefeld 'ZiF' Conference: "From Simplicity to Complexity" 1997):
Zimmermann, Rainer 'ZiF' paper (pp 153 - 163 Vol. I):
_"Emergence and Hierarchy of Form: an Onto-Epistemic Approach to Metaphysics" , [vol.I]
Mainzer, Klaus 'ZiF' paper (pp 103 - 116 Vol. II):
_"Complexity and Symmetry Breaking - Models for the Emergence of Order in Nature [vol.II])
----------------------------------------------
John A. Mikes
Madison NJ.