Introduction:
Rainer Zimmermann in his paper entitled "Emergence and Hierarchy of Form: an Onto-Epistemic Approach to Metaphysics" at the 1998 Conference on Simplicity to Complexity, [1] offers some thoughts on the system underlying the "Big Bang". In his proposition the initial emergence, i.e. an occurrence of a novelty 'into' a higher order of complexity, in this case the generation of the universe, requires a "substance", i.e. a foundation. In his terms: called "pre-geometric". He likens it to the "Twistor" theory of R. Penrose, (4D elements of a complex vector-(twistor)-space with all its mathematical sophistication; among others: the "spin-space" $, and its double 'fibration' $*, etc.).
The 'substance' is perceived only by its own aspects. Conceptually it is not "worldly" - he refers to the Aristotle - Spinoza concepts: it exists in itself. An implicit self-reference, as he quotes: an onto-epistemological causa sui, cuius essentia involvit existentiam. We perceive only two from its unlimited attributes: matter, the res extensa, and mind, the res cogitans. These are different from the indivisible infinite only in modal, not in real terms. The 'substance' is a unifying background, a true foundation of being, not a local pre-geometry. In its respect "motion" cannot be 'classical': it may mean intrinsic fluctuations on abstract space (twistor-space) - an aspect of the substance. As foundation for being, its 'freedom' is ontological: its own mode of being: free to create being, or not.
Zimmermann calls for a mathematical technicality about the 'dual' twistor-space ($*) : a self- differentiation of the substance itself, as a startup. The differentiation continues progressively. The continuation into physical dualism (relativistic macro- and quantum micro-) unfolds into a lengthy and physics-based train into the conclusion: unfolding of forms, a splitting up of geometry into hierarchy. It characterizes the 'intial emergence' of the world: an epistemic symmetry-breaking: order from an overall total symmetry state.
The Big Bang is self-referent. He muses about a return (Big Crunch) into the initial singularity, in a "not yet decided" closed cosmology.
About the "substance"
There is a fairly wide acceptance for visualizing the world as a process. (Maybe a "preworld state" would be closer to the concept of a process for the entirety of nature than a pre-geometric substance). The above 'substance' has some static appearance, in spite of the assumed 'dynamism of fluctuations'. Of course: a description of the 'substance' is beyond us, we may only try to assign aspects which would facilitate a speculation about an (initial) emergence of the universe. What - really - fluctuates, and how? we saw that movement is not conceivable in the classical terms, space and time are attributes of the subsequently emerged physical world (order).
Looking through the spectacles of an infinite (better: limitless) holistic interconnectedness, we may identify the substance as information (just another word, no context assigned). Vocabulary of the fundamentals may formulate as for: the existence = caused by or consisting of 'difference'. Without difference there is a stagnant overall uniformity, a kind of nirvana, or a singularity, in the classical sense (we shall return to a different aspect of this term). Information in this line of onto-epistemic conceptulaization is an acknowledged (perceived) difference: accepted by anything (object, function, ideation), at any level.
For the 'substance' to exist, differences are required in this sense, with an aspectual fluctuation: Indeed all the possible variations "are there", in the timeless system. ALL possibilities are there (co-currently) in ANY combintaion, as a simultaneous content of the system. Of course this eliminates causality, eliminates (human) logics, eliminates any quantitative aspects. As of the same vocabulary-distinction: this is the truly non-linear state.
Our human mind works in opposites: we consider features which we can say something about, in a comparative mode to other known features. If we encounter things we are not knowledgeable about, we try to identify them by their negatives as compared to known things. So we name the 'substance' state nonlinear. In this sense linear means the contrary of the above characteristics: a quantitative proportionality-based logics, i.e. mathematics with all its equational/proportioning chapters (including "nonlinear mathematics), a qualitative consequentiality in the changes, which provide the framework for causality. It includes space and time as well as linear items.
Science works linearly. Our thinking (which includes also nonlinearity) uses a very linearly built material-tool, the brain, as its main carrier within the complexity of the mind. Many features are restricted - or at least modified - by the linear aspect of the neural mechanism included. We are at a loss when (real) nonlinear features emerge, like in the case of a speculation about the pre-world substance.
In our space-time based mindfunction we cannot visualize the cocurrent existence of different possibilities in the holistic system in any other way than as a fluctuation: we need to recognize the separate aspects even if they are all-included. (Like the problem of Schrodinger's cat, hard to accept for the rational mind to have it both dead and alive at the same time.) In a fluctuation we imply a variation of distinct states, which of course may not be there. We are far from absorbing and applying the essence of nonlinearity.
Emergence: the Big Bang
We may recall the identification of an emergence from the Introduction (an occurrence of a novelty 'into' a higher order of complexity). As its aspects we may add the observability of the 'new', furthermore the construction of a higher level of order, by added component-associations, leading to the 'higher' level of the complexity. The 'substance' as described, is orderless: the homogeneous multiplicity (fluctuation?) of ALL the differences available make it an infinite symmetry system in nature's holism. How is it different from nirvana? If we try to establish a philosophical separation, we may refer to the infinite differences - features - available in it, vs. the featureless homogeneity of the nirvana. Singularity is another question: it may take the "content" of the 'substance', so we don't have to exclude the use of this term (it is a flexible term, anyway).
Thinking in the limitless nonlinearity, the 'available' unlimited possibilities include inevitably some linearity as well. Now we may justify the 'fluctuation': linearity "freezes" some order, the disorder really in the system of nonlinearity, and in the holistic system such irregularity "flutuates" back into nonlinearity. In an infinite system? there are infinite such occurrences.
Theoretical physics knows such examples: the disproportionation of matter-antimatter particles which in a very short (calculable/measurable) time-frame recombine (cf: annihilate) into the nothingness.
Let us call such occurrences "a Bang" - for a good reason. We observe these phenomena from 'their' outside, in our space-time, as a short period occurrence. All we know about them is referenced to our physical system. What, if we observe such an occurrence from the inside? Within the linearized features (all built on top of the overall nonlinear substance, of course, as a superficial veneer) unlimited consequences of linearity may occur. From the inside we may observe space - in nanometers or in parsecs - time - in picoseconds or in eons - we may follow an evolution of complexities from "simple to complex" levels, development of inanimate (physical) levels and animate (biological) levels, all the way to conscious-thinking organisms (and beyond - at this point temporarily closed from our view). From the inside we may explore a cosmos, with quantities, art, science, qualities, imagination and us.
The inside view of such a linearization is as wide as our universe: it is our Big Bang.
Emergence it is: linearization imposes frozen rules: order, an observable novelty, which develops at its own (internally observed) pace, to the state of re-dissipation into the holistic nonlinear 'substance: representing a closed cosmology.
Process
We chose a point of reference to observe the happenings of the Big Bang. The point is "inside" the linearly distorted information-assemblage in the endless monotony of the limitless variety. The difficulty in studying - even in speculation - about the 'substance is that we have no other point of reference. We do not "see" out from our linearly covered environment, we find it hard even to supersede the order imposed by the linear veneer on top of our own world of nonlinearity. With the (mistakenly) linear calculation of the retrograde cosmological "re-gnosis" (the opposite of pro-gnosis) the beginning of 'time' was set at (-)10-20 billion present rotation-time of the Earth around the Sun. Mistaken, because the cosmological events show nonlinear effects as well and the changes of the state in the physical system are also not restricted to linear sequences. Effects (called chaotic) are unpredictable, even in retrograde: un-postdictable. The process may or may not haveocurred as told in the BigBang story. Let us now allow it with the time-period indicated. In the history we see a continuous development of increasing order: the increase in complexity of the items we observe. Emergence after emergence produced the physical entities, from subatomic to cosmic particles, chemistry, biology, physiology, CNS-organisms, societies, a linear-holistic world of our observational capabilities. A far-fetched idea would indicate that we still observe the formation of the linear disorder in the 'substance', the growing linearity within the nonlinear.
Where does the process continue? May a complexification of the world end up in immaterialization by ideation, or are the black holes the means to convert the linear matter into nonlinear? Or both, maybe other processes as well? Maybe a decomposition of the linearity in a gradual way similarly to the bui;ld-up phase, as projected in the 'harmonic' cosmology? The linear rule of the unidirectional time prevents us from foretelling. Maybe our limittions are in our favor?
Reference:
[1] Zimmermann, R.E.: Emergence and the Hierarchies of Form, pp 153-162 in
Mainzer K., Muller A., Saltzer W.G. (ed): From Simplicity to Complexity Part II - Proc. of the
1997 ZiF Conference, U.Bielefeld Ger.,-
John Mikes, Madison 8/19/99