* P L E N I T U D E * a n d * U N I V E R S E *

=======================================================

by: J. A. Mikes

a frequent question is voiced in popular-scientific audiences regarding the circumstances of the Big Bang: "what was before the Big Bang?" The question is just as unreasonable, as Einstein's joke was: "what is north of the north pole?" If our physical system started with the Big Bang, including the time-concept, so the expression "before that time" is baseless. The problem, however, is valid: what system could give rise to the 'birth' of our universe - if any? a "random fluctuation" of the "nothing" and its disproportioning into matter/antimatter is just as mystic as the existence of a 'creator' designing 'intelligently' the book of physics.

In recent speculations the question of the 'breeding system' is freely addressed, to replace those of Fred Hoyle and others, like the harmonic-oscillator, the 'ever and forever existing', the infinitely expanding... etc. phantasy - universes. They leave the main question open, anyway, just extend it to the 'beginning' of any such system.

Recently the theory of "plenitude" has been revived in quite esoteric terms among the younger generation of post-quantum, (post-modern) physicists: a zero-sum and zero-information system of including, however, inseparably, all and any information, together with infinite number and quality of universes embedded (a new "Multiverse" view).

Not much has been said about characterizing the plenitude, not in many words. We have no excess to observational information beyond the physical boundaries of our universe, so all that is speculative. We use principles existing in our cognition, which - for sure - are insufficient to study the "beyond", draw conclusions within a human logic, - ditto - express all that in human language, which did not develop the symbols and words for "those" concepts and circumstances that may be. The only control we have in separating an entertaining science fiction from speculations within a rather scientific metaphysics is the conclusion: does it help in a reasonable explanation of our open problems? (- again: within our human considerations -).

So far the 'public' part. Less public is the hideous nature of 'physical concepts'. We got used to them in unconditional learning, through the narcotics of matching calculations, stories of experiments done by "trustworthy" scientists in the past and their theoretical explanations, mostly in form of the *(=)* sign in equations. Most of such experiments were theory-laden and driven: to justify earlier conclusions. Instruments, experimental scaling and adjustments (omissions?) were fit into the edifice of the physical sciences, without questioning the axioms, or harder questions, like: where did energy come from?" or "what IS it anyway? - especially: in a fixed amount?" or: "why is entropy growing", "are there atoms, or photons indeed, and how come they 'move' - e.g. photons running with light speed, ceaselessly and forever?" In the view of past millennia-long observations and their (ever changing) explanations they were considered as "givens of nature" - and duly accepted.

QM addressed some of such questions (in cases only phenomenologically though) and replied: there are paradoxes (some called complementarity) and 'we can live with them'.

Then again came genetical, biological and neurological advancement, all recycled into physical science - leaving the "somehow" open in a selective (see below) evolutionary view.

In PART - I, we will try to look at the 'broader' evolution, in Part - II we will try to see, what we may say about some of our physical concepts - if anything in the plenitude-view.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a novel, broader view of the concept called "evolution" has been derived by extending the current contents of genetic biology into a zero-sum history of the universe. The expansion is based on a new world view of physical existence with the universe-forming bangs - from a 'plenitude', an invariance in an infinite dynamic symmetry with variations in the changes of the unlimited interconnectedness. The description stays within the state of the level of our today's epistemic inventory of the scientific cognition, in the simplicity of the present-day workings of our human logic, which does not access information from beyond the 'boundaries' of this one universe. We try to formulate some inductive assumptions how our cosmic origin may have occurred - without a 'supernatural' help. In this conceptual treatise the quantitative formalism is considered a secondary attribute, not included into the conceptual tectology - the buildup of the universal system of complexities.

to keep this essay short and manageable, we concentrate on the definitions of recent advancement, omitting the usual historical backlash as to origins and development of concepts. We do observe the prerequisites, do honor the ancient ingenuity of thinkers - scientists who did struggle so hard to find explanations to the observed (postulated) natural phenomena - using usually the insufficient information for such explanations as per the inventory of science at their own time. The tortuous path of theories, winding through disproved and falsified ideas, obsolete already in the next step of epistemic enrichment may be a very interesting reading in studies about the cultural/scientific history, or anthropology, but in describing a new (physical?) world view it would be definitely distracting. This is not a polemic writing, rather it is a proposal.

To introduce a broader, new view of evolution, we have to review briefly the new idea of natural existence, the "Plenitude", then derive from it (briefly) the systems view of universes, ours and others in the Multiverse, to see them as a timeless fulguration in the plenitude (as seen from the plenitude-aspect), which, however, turns into a universe as seen from the inside of it, from within, in 'our' view. This aspect develops by 'observables' - complexities - into a system of a physical existence, with complexification into what we call 'life' - viewed in a projection into time and space by causality, both the tectology (buildup process of complexities) and the dissipation of such (completing the fulguration of the bang back into the dynamic invariance - as from the 'plenitude-view'). This history is the evolution. Charles Darwin discovered one segment of it: the buildup side of the terrestrial genetics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naming the existence 'a difference' has static connotations: our reductionist heritage prefers to think in "things" that can be analyzed into their components. Indeed the existence (or as we like to call it: nature) is 'a p ro c e s s' of change, where the 'difference' is a dynamic process indicator from state 'R' to state 'U'.

Our world (universe) is a system of complexities, which are the 'observables' of a symmetry break as differentiations in the invariance, in the invariant continuum of the plenitude. They complexify (turn into features) and re-dissipate into the infinite dynamic symmetry within the course of the process, called a (momentary) "bang" in the plenitude, and called (time-projected, as complexities) in the universe: the "evolution". The starting point in all of our considerations: it is the BRAKE and RESTORATION of the symmetry, rather than speculating about "what is the symmetry made of". Speculation about "the origin" of a hypothetical (explanatory) system is distant from any consideration that may want to claim scientific character in its conclusions at all, and has to be left untouched. According to the reader's mindset or taste, such further (distant) 'origin' can be a view as of the unlimited, or the infinite, or of a Creator, (who 'lived' forever in the infinite) or just about the big turtle. We do not go into this here, or anywhere else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

meaning: the state of being complete. This name spread lately to mark the totality of nature, of which (our) universe is a negligible, occasional episode only. The name may be misleading, from its static connotation: a 'thing', or a 'construct' comes to mind. In nature's connection plenitude means a process of a dynamic symmetry of change, of an invariance in all aspects. Some called it: "pre-geometrical structure" - again a static sounding misnomer, implying time, a variance and a structure connected to geometry - an extensional concept. Some consider it the antecedent of the Big Bang(s) what it well may be, if we consider a Multiverse, the natural system of infinitely many universes with their unlimited quality-variations, all of them embedded sort of into the ---well: into the plenitude, (which, however, includes the Multiverse as part of it).

'Substrate' to the 'process' is beyond our comprehension, maybe even postulating such is an anthropo-centric/morphic error. A suitable circumlocution may call 'substrate' an information, in a sense that it stands for "acknowledged differences" --- with arising questions, like:

We cannot 'visualize' or 'analyze' circumstances or substrates that we ourselves have only ideationally drawn up to facilitate the story of how a substrate of our observation may have gotten established. We can only study the ready substrates appearing in our observation as have been represented by the mind and explained upon our observational - traditional reductionist science.

We cannot assign a 'time factor' or a 'space factor' within the plenitude, nor does a 'causal view' fit in, since all of these would break the total and overall dyanmic symmetry of infinite variations (at least in their own aspects). The total invariance consists of a dynamics of variations - of interactions - "regarding all and any aspects", so that the process - in its timeless and spaceless continuum, can not show fixed, i.e. stationary features, the ones ready for an observation. A (timeless) 'causality' would also be just fictitious and unreal in the overall dynamics of change.

However... (but this is the story of the (big) bangs, - next).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The infinite variability and infinitely changing variations in the plenitude include a factor consistent with the "infinitely different" formulations: groupings of 'identicals' as part of the overall variations. We have no reason to exclude a fulguration into occurring groups of some 'identicals' - as a variant in the (steadily changing) different ones. Call it a 'consequent necessity' or a 'serendipity', such occasional groups, however, represent occurrences of irregularity in a dynamics of the ever changing 'different ones' and, although they do dissipate in the interchange, whenever they assemble, they carry some peculiar characteristics of such 'islands', as their fulgurations in their momentary existence. Although 'infrequently' occurring, there are infinite many in the infinity of the plenitude.

Such groupings (i.e. islands of an unusual quality) are exceptional in the overall invariance and dissipate back into it - whenever and however - they formed in the ceaseless fluctuation of the plenitude-groupings. They represent a peculiar state in the plenitude while in their fulguration, - (in their momentary existence).This was in the plenitude-view.

An assemblage of such 'identicals' develops a pattern in their 'inside', a complexity of character, a feature of discernible characteristics. We have to emphasize the view so different from its aspect: Looking from within the bulk of the plenitude (see above): the view is but a fulguration of changing associations, but looking from the inside of the island it is some observable "system" of complexity. From 'within' it is a world of its own.

We want to call such "island behavior" a BANG. The island itself: a UNIVERSE.

Let us go through some consideration about the 'bang-islands', (or: universes), especially with the happenings INSIDE the fulgurational grouping of components consisting of mostly matching characteristics. The reason for doing so is one particular such occurrence, which has been lately referred to in astrophysical cosmology as (our own) "Big Bang": the origination of the universe we inhabit, the only one we can (physically) observe - for now.

At the present level our of epistemic evolution we have no means to gather information about other universes: they are closed to our observational skills. We have no reason to assume that only "our type" of a universe may occur in the infinite variations of the plenitude, characteristics of the diverse universes may be unlimitedly different, "physical" systems (if we venture to apply this expression to 'them') of a variability exceeding for sure the most extreme, fantastic sci-fi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

We do have some information about 'our world': from observations by our sensory means, as interpreted by the mind (with the help of instruments we created). These observables are the complexities, breaks in the symmetry that formed (created) the fulgurational island of the bang. We concentrate on the view - FROM WITHIN - the only direct access we have. The insider view in our 'fulgurational' island detects (quasi) stationary differences, complexities, - in a pattern which develops the 'dimensions' of time, space. Hence causality and movement can be identified. The "physical system" in the inside view projects the happenings of the 'fulguration' into (spatial) extension and (time) duration, showing the formation and dissipation in a sequence of causality: the snapshot as a long film. It shows the momentary breakage of the symmetry, i.e. the complexification extended into the aeons of time, just as is the momentary dissipation back into the plenitude similarly extended into aeons (or picosecs?). Spatially: the spot-wise break, a fulguration, extends in the inside view into million-parsecs (or nanometer fractions), in scale- dependent sequences of the transition from the plenitude-view into the inside universe view.

Complexity increases/decreases both in the extention (material) and time (movement), just as in the domain of ideation (sensitivity-thought), also with time 'assigned' as a working attribute.

Observers? the word may superficially point to the 'scientist', reading her instrument, but in fact ANY entity, any feature, absorbing information (and responding to it) IS an 'observer', ( at its own level of complexity) just as much as at our level the so called (human) consciousness.

In our anthropomorphic capabilities we need stationary patterns to observe, timed in congruence with the neuronal timing - the tool of material sensitivity, or, in a more speculative sense, mentally 'stationary' compositions for the thought. In fact (and generalization) nature is observer herself, sensing, responding to information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 'plenitude-view' a fulguration occurs, with the development and the dissipation of some symmetry-break complexities in a zero-sum, timeless flash.

In our 'insider' bang-view of our universe, however, the same process is projected into a timed, spatially extended causal history, proceeding through stages of complexification and also the decomplexification, from a "(zero)starting point" to the "(zero) end point" including all the history of the universe. In the sense of the invariant change in nature the ups and downs are concurrent. In an insider (causal) sequence, however, we observe the processes as 'ordered', according to their character. As said: from the simple, to the complex, to the simple.

We have no way to decide at which stage of such history are we observing the universe NOW, at the stage of our "present" as we call it. We can identify 'levels' of complexities, some building up, some falling apart, others changing with questionable consequence. We can speculate about an explanation of the observed phenomena and interpret the findings with uncertainty.

The religious (mystical) view considered it all as one unit, created as such and serving some supernatural goal. This satisfied the eras of the non-skeptical minds. Then: the the "speculative" arose with growing skepticism. This is, when reductionist science came to the rescue: by chopping off the 'total' into layers, (strata?) and selecting the fragments as substantial units for studying, so components of lesser complexity could be identified and studied, all the way to a simplicity of ease or to axioms, studied no further.

The static view, both the mystical and the scientific, was ingeniously extended into a dynamic study in one segment: in the terrestrial biology by Charles Darwin, looking into the genetic process of the 'buildup side' of 'living' creatures in the carbon-water biospheric life. At his time this was exceptional, although not entirely outstanding: the Zeitgeist of science, the evolution of thinking came up close to develop such sentiments. In the subsequent time the Zeitgeist evolved further: now we have more holistic views and try to generalize the findings comprehensively into all of the domains we know of. In this respect the 'genetic' process is extended into 'inanimate' domains, as in cosmology to start with the "singularity" at the Big Bang and evolving into our universe with its physical system (and derivatives in other sciences). In the thought domain a growing sophistication had been observed - we rather call it evolution of the sensitivity, as said: observable all the way from (physical) particles and molecules into bio-molecules, through the living cell reactions,into animal (CNS) responses, to our consciousness and abstraction....(and further?)

We may still miss other domains, our epistemic evolution is far from a completion.

All this is at the complexification side of the bang-fulguration - expanded into details by temporal/spatial extension and chapters of consecutive (inside) occurrence. However: How about the dissipation, an equal component-part of the fulguration? It is there, all right. Science did not concentrate on its special study, but certain phenomena came forward - if not always characterized as such. In matterly studies we should mention the (mysterious = not yet solved) problem of the black holes. There may be other dissipative factors not yet systematically handled: the riddle of infiniteness in the universe, both in space (escaping our physical sensing) and in time (escaping our mental access).

In life sciences we are less developed: "death" has been poorly studied as part of the life-process, as the dissipative angle of the biological complexification. Death is the black hole of thought (maybe among others). It is a substantial part of biology and genetics, so far left out from a Darwinian based view of the "up"-evolution.

In our history of the "Big Bang" as extended/projected into temporal-spatial view, the dissipative angle is represented as an equal opportunity partner, in parallel with all the complexification - we just have to pay attention to it.

This means: the "extended evolution" is the combined complexification/dissipation story of our universe, a "zero-sum" history of our world. We discovered so far certain dimensions of it, we may be up to further discoveries in the future. Our present state is somewhere within the story from start to end, it is our human cop-out to consider our stage as the top of evolutionary perfection (i.e. the complexity). We may well be replaced by more evolved features - before the fulguration smoothens back into the infinite symmetry (invariance) of the plenitude.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=========================================

As mentioned in Part I, the starting state in our consideration is the broken symmetry, rather than the 'symmetry' (invariance) itself: the 'formed' complexities observable as the result of the bang(s). Beyond this, however, we consider the plenitude with its dynamic, its symmetrical invariance, as the "system" of nature, the state of her existence. We have no observation of it. We only postulate that plenitude as the stable equilibrium format, in form of a process of ever changing and illimitably variable interconnections as the existence-feature of nature. The "island-grouping" of the bangs is a (naturally occurring) disorder with a natural propensity of getting redistributed "back" into the invariant dynamic homogeneity - simply by the inevitable and natural 'state' of the invariance-existence, the symmetrically all-variant system of the associating- dissociating fluctuations within a zero-sum information-context: the plenitude.

The plenitude attitude (behavior) is also present within the bang-island, of course, effecting the activity (propensity) of a redistribution of the island-feature into the invariance of the "open" plenitude and affecting its history. All this is said still in the view FROM the plenitude.

In Part II we will try to apply the consequences of this view, in (and from) the inside of the universe. What kind of temporal - spatial attitude may we expect from the complexities in the insider aspect of our quasi-stationary - observable - physical system? How can we 'translate' the plenitude-features into a universe-view? Posing the question this way is circular: in fact the plenitude is featured upon our inside limited observation - and is humanly extrapolated into the unlimited. The circularity is: we deal with information and behavior within the bang, i.e. the universe, and we postulate such conclusions for the plenitude, mixing into the timeless/spaceless and ceaseless invariant interchange our finite bang-VIEW of the the bang's statically observable complexities from the space-time-causal world, our physical system. All we want to consider here is the evolution, the zero-sum history of the universe, from assemblage of the bang to its disassembling into the 'open' plenitude. In this context: the difficulty is, how can we assign (translate?) the observations within the physical system to the speculative plenitudinal features - or vice versa?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the 'observable', the complexities of the physical system are broken formulations of the symmetrical invariance, the natural process is for such to return to the original state: i.e. to smoothen back into symmetry. That we have said about the total of the bang, as a completion of the fulguration. What the inside-view does is a projection of the details into temporal and/or spatial extensions and have them observed as discernible entities, units, the composition of which, however, adds up to the zero-sum (evolutionary) process. In ongoing vocabulary: this is the holistic view of the total interconnection. As observed and studied, however, it forms the layered/topically separated groups in the diverse principles of our reductionist science.

A "view" is more than just "as the observer looks at it": the observer is anybody (in fact: anything) that accepts information and responds in any kind. (In the sense, as said above: an electron 'observes' a positive charge or a vacant position in an atomic system, an acidic molecule 'observes' an alkali, a paramecium 'observes' the environmental changes for the "4 Fs of biology", a more complex animal is 'conscious' with its observations.

Complexities, symmetry-breaks represent stress. Observable, stationary differences. They tend to eliminate their being different and 'join the team'. If there is a way, they dissipate into a more equilibrated environment. (Cf.: the diverse entropy-negentropy theories).

Translation: potential energy performs work (movement) to get into a stable state if there are 'fitting' circumstances for expending that energy. All in the projection of a physical environment, explained (quantitatively) in time, space, cause. Additional explanations followed: mass, inertia, - the system grew into concepts of diverse aspects and applications.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Upon a frequent question: how was all the matter of the universe condensed into that point- like startup of the Big Bang? somebody answered: it was in the form of energy, an incredible high temperature that dissipated into lower heat in the course of the subsequent expansion.

Maybe the quotes are incorrect, but the facts do match: the bang represented all the symmetry-break for the universe. The generated complexity IS the total of the universe, although the insider 'view' formulated it as the process of 'evolution' in time and in space - arranged in the projection as a sequence from "simple" to "complex" and back again to "simple. When the time-view considered the 'beginning', all the complexity was concentrated without any dilution into space - translated as a 'spot' of high high heat (energy) content. When space got included, it distributed the complexities into extension, with less of them occurring in one segment of the observation, i.e. less complexity (heat, energy) showed up in a partial view, while the time factor was running. The "inflation" of the universe in modern cosmology is a natural consequence, when we consider a 'no-space' system developing 'space'. The 'inside' view has yet to adjust to such simple explanations. Our views are still very scanty.

With the inclusion of space: the 'view' of certain complexities got 'extension', which is translated into matter. A valuation of the "level" of complexity, a term we are not familiar with yet, (although several identification have been proposed), showed up in the extension-angle as mass, a physical concept so hard to handle.

The Einsteinian equation shows clearly the "aspect-difference" in the view of the symmetry-break (energy) and its extensional projection (matter) connected by phenomena viewed in space-time combination (the speed-angle).

There are some results in the 'extensional' observations for the dissipation: black holes can be considered as a way of dissipating (matterly) complexities. Dealing with the energy is harder: an explanatory concept, indeed an 'effect' is harder to study experimentally, if not only in its consequences. Reductionist science even 'codified' the 'constancy' of energy in the universe, in the first law of thermodynamics. Then the second law addressed the inequities of 'working' and 'not working' aspects, earlier, in the first 'reading' dreaming up the (right?) image: the "heat-death", - (later abandoned) - a visionary translation for the return into the infinite invariance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may be too early in the course of this new view to draw more involved consequences upon our worldview in adjustment by a zero-sum evolutionary 'bang-universe' in a zero-information plenitude. Adjustments, however, may be rather translations than some mending/correcting of details in the ongoing formalism. A new view may carry new means to formulate a new formalism as well (a new mathematical logic, new dimensions of thought to be observed).