Induction presupposes metaphysics.
– Alfred North Whitehead
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
– The Nicean Creed (325 AD)
E Pluribus Unum
– The Great Seal of the United States of America
Since the beginning of civilization, man has always looked up and pondered the nature of the universe, the beginnings of all things, and where he stands in relation. Of course there have been many perspectives, many stories, and many approaches to these questions and issues. From the Hebrew Bible, to ancient pagans, to scientists, and even modern day mystics, perhaps the most intriguing fact that unites all the disparate views is that no one – no one – really knows the answer. Now I admit that I am not the kind of person to EVER accept such a claim about most anything – particularly when it comes to the Truth, God, and mankind. However the more I have pondered this topic and researched it from various angles and perspectives, the more I come to the conclusion that although we can absolutely infer there was and has to be a beginning to all of creation due to the fact that we exist here and now, I am skeptical how and if we can ever know and prove for certain the exact nature and details of that beginning. Almost certainly each of the various camps who hold to various positions regarding the beginning of time and creation will all disagree with this and object to such a claim, because of course they believe (and yes I include the scientists here mind you) that their position is the correct one. And fair enough I suppose. It is said that Socrates once advised to not engage in such cosmological discussions and to instead focus on ethics and how to be a better man and know the good and the true. I’m sure that Socrates’ advice is correct and wise in this regard, and yet never the less, out of my rigor to address all aspects of this metaphysics, we will discuss these cosmological questions and see what conclusions can be drawn and how my metaphysics – Beyond Nothing – approaches these same questions and considers the creation and the universe into its philosophical framework.
In Webster’s dictionary the first two definitions for science are such:
1a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
1b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: NATURAL SCIENCE
Because knowledge through science must be tested and verified via the “scientific method” let us reference American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of the term.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to test the hypothesis, and development of a conclusion that confirms, rejects, or modifies the hypothesis.
Equipped with these basic premises and understandings it is clear to see why it is effectively impossible for science to claim very much at all in regards to astronomy let alone the beginning of time and all of creation, for it is not possible to test and repeat tests of such phenomena. The fundamental testing requirements of independent and dependent variables cannot be adhered to for nearly all cosmological studies and inquiries. Instead then what is pursued in these fields are various types of observations which allow hypotheses to be generated and then rather than testing variables in a lab for example, mathematical equations are generated to see if any possible outcomes can be verified in further observations. The problem of course with this process is that mathematical equations are concepts articulated via language abstractions – they are not in fact verifiable let alone empirical proof of anything. Furthermore the observations that can either be confirmed or denied via such equations are not in fact verifications of a hypothesis via the scientific method for there has been no actual manipulation or testing performed to empirically verify the original hypothesis. We start with an observation and alas end with only further observations. We begin with a hypothesis and frustratingly also conclude with one. Now although it is true that an equation can be perfectly flawless and logically coherent, that still does not mean the equation adheres to the particulars we are observing. And even if it did adhere to our predictions and observations, we still have not fully tested and manipulated the object in question. An equation is simply another form of a hypothesis. We still do not know, and the scientific method has actually not yet been properly applied. Interestingly this process has been much the same for centuries at least since Copernicus published his De Revolutionibus. There can be very little scientific confirmation, as opposed to scientific consensus, when it comes to matters of the cosmos, and in this regard we are not much farther along than our ancestors two or even five thousand years ago.
To equate science today to that of our ancient ancestors is of course, admittedly, a rather controversial claim to make for most people today, particularly scientists. Obviously in numerous regards we have greater technologies, more advanced equations, and access to more physical materials, minerals, etc. However in regards to first principles and matters related to the origins of things we are effectively still treading water. In fact science today, regarding such first principles, operates within a completely faith-based framework from which it conveniently rests upon and bases many of its underlying assumptions and epistemological premises. In his excellent book, Science and the Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead tracks the origins of modern science to its roots and then builds through the centuries to his present day of the early 20th century. As both a mathematician, philosopher, and Harvard professor he was in a unique position at a crucial time in the development of modern physics to bridge across between these various fields of study. His rigor and understanding of both philosophy, science, and mathematics, not to mention history, literature, and religion is perhaps one of the most impressive and refreshing aspects to be found in both fields of study. And his writing style is excellent – both clear and enjoyable. In his opening essay The Origins of Modern Science Whitehead explains that science, contrary to popular conception today, was actually NOT based upon reason or rationalism but instead was a decidedly anti-rationalist movement reacting strongly against the scholasticism of the Middle Ages which had its roots with Aristotle. Science, as can be seen most especially through its application in the mathematical geniuses of the Seventeenth Century, is in fact the epitome of Platonic and Pythagorean abstracts, number philosophies, and ideals. It is in fact anti-rationalist, attempting to purge itself of “reasoning” and instead adhere as strictly as possible to observations and what William James refers to as “irreducible and stubborn facts.” Historically we can see how such a tactic and approach, fundamentally differing from that of the Middle Ages, reaped incredible rewards and made great discoveries. However along with such an anti-rationalist approach certain faiths were, and still are, pre-supposed – namely faith in an order of things, an order of nature, the laws of logic, the laws of cause and effect, to name a few. In the 18th century, David Hume exposes these underlying faiths within science in his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding where he states in Section IV:
In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause; and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary.
After referencing this Hume quote, Whitehead continues logically stating thus:
If the cause in itself discloses no information as to the effect, so that the first invention of it must be entirely arbitrary, if follows at once that science is impossible, except in the sense of establishing entirely arbitrary connections which are not warranted by anything intrinsic to the natures either of causes or effects. Some variant of Hume’s philosophy has generally prevailed among men of science. But scientific faith has risen to the occasion, and has tacitly removed the philosophic mountain. (p. 4)
Whitehead here is exposing the epistemological vulnerabilities all science rests upon. In our present day, in many respects, science itself is curiously even attempting to reject and argue against its own presuppositions and foundations and ironically attempting to use science to accomplish it. For example, many scientists today argue some form of existential nihilism that the universe and nature and life itself is meaningless and void of reason and ultimately amounts to nothing. Ironically to prove such points they reference scientific observations, mechanistic laws, or complex mathematical equations. The irony of course being that all such examples presuppose a faith in the order of our observations causally, a faith in the order of nature and its mechanistic laws, or a faith in the order of logic to obtain mathematical conclusions. In short much of science and what stands for philosophy today appropriates the faith which belies all reason in order to argue both against faith and reason, and even more ironically most of those guilty of such appropriations are unaware they are even doing it.
This most basic and fundamental point Whitehead stresses in his erudite analysis of science through the ages is so critical because it places science itself within the proper framework and context relative to theology and philosophy particularly when science decides to speculate and make claims regarding matters it actually does not have superiority within, namely first principles and largely anything unobservable or impossible to manipulate and therefore unable to succumb to the scientific method. The cosmos for example being one of them. Such a conclusion may seem aggravating as well as preposterous considering the large swath of intellectual and hegemonic real estate science has erroneously annexed in today’s world, but this conclusion is vital to accentuate in order to accommodate the rightful equivalency and relevancy both philosophy and theology retain in such discussions and considerations relative to science. In this way we must toggle between all three, or at least philosophy and science as a minimum, in order to attain any clarity regarding first principles, origins, and metaphysics. Anything less will, and currently does, result in incoherent suppositions, irrational conclusions, and futile propositions. From such a foundation and level field let us consider the metaphysical frameworks and First Principles which form this new, modern metaphysics – Beyond Nothing.
In regards to the origins of all creation there is a binary consideration – either the creation had a beginning or did not have a beginning. If it did not have a beginning how does it exist now, granted that we agree something exists now? Such an answer can only conclude, as Aristotle did, of something akin to a Prime Mover or an Unmoved Mover. That is to say a thing, and Aristotle conceived of a physical thing, which could initiate movement but itself was unmovable. Such a thing, if it existed, would by definition have no beginning and likewise no end and therefore would itself never change and therefore would be eternal. For anything to be eternal it must not change or even be able to change, for even the potentiality of change assumes a possible variation and therefore a beginning of something. And so upon observation and consideration of the creation all around there is no thing which does not change and is eternal. The creation is in constant flux and movement, even the science of today – perhaps especially the science of today – agrees and confirms such an observation. Therefore we can logically conclude that the creation and all within it must have a beginning (and likewise an end) for it is not eternal and it changes. The question now becomes what is the nature of that beginning, how did it occur, when it occur, etc., etc. Science of course has its own position regarding the matter as does theology and various philosophies, and as I’ve claimed above, none of them actually know the truth of the matter nor can they prove it conclusively or empirically, although all admit and agree that such a beginning did occur and therefore does exist.
In 2013 theoretical physicist Lawrence Kraus wrote a book called A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. In it he provides a scientific framework and reasoning for how the universe was created out of nothing. His book is an easy read and goes through the more contemporary history and process which culminates in these scientific conclusions and positions. Later in the book he states the following:
Scientists began to understand in the 1970’s, however, that it is possible to begin with equal amounts of matter and antimatter in an early hot, dense Big Bang, and for plausible quantum processes to “create something from nothing” by establishing a small asymmetry, with a slight excess of matter over antimatter in the early universe. Then, instead of complete annihilation of matter and antimatter, leading to nothing but pure radiation today, all of the available antimatter in the early universe could have annihilated with matter, but the small excess of matter would have had no comparable amount of antimatter to annihilate with, and would then be left over. This would then lead to all the matter making up stars and galaxies we see in the universe today. (p. 157)
For Kraus then the universe emerges from out of the nothing after a great battle if you will between matter and antimatter with matter being materially victorious. Of course there is much more science and a comprehensive discussion which Kraus lays out throughout the book further explicating his position. For the purposes of philosophy and metaphysics, it is interesting and arguably vital that science can at least in some way contribute, further, or expound upon whatever is being espoused, particularly in regards to a metaphysics since physics is naturally a part of metaphysics. And in this regard it appears satisfactory enough for our purposes here in this modern metaphysics – Beyond Nothing. I say “satisfactory enough,” because science changes and alters continually, but of course if Kraus’ position is as correct as he claims it to be then yes it places this metaphysics which focuses upon and beyond the nothingness front and center as a top contender both for philosophic and scientific coherency. So I do wish to emphasize this fact and achievement of course, but at the same time I do not wish to make it the “linchpin” for claiming “final” authority or accuracy. New scientific discoveries will be made, new technologies created, previous suppositions upended and a whole new paradigm can replace much of what we know or assume. As such science itself is not necessarily the validity or official confirmation of any philosophy just as a sound philosophy is not the validity of any scientific hypothesis. But the two are intertwined and related, and although not a guarantee of anything, it is a valuable and coveted relation to strive for. And even still, what Kraus and physics generally is promoting here regarding the universe springing forth out of the nothing, that is to say ex-nihlio, although it makes perfect sense and fits to the model of this metaphysics both philosophically as well as theologically, it is still not actually science per the definition above for Kraus and physicists have not, as far as I am aware at least, created in a lab their own universe out of nothing. The scientific method then is simply not being applied here largely because it simply cannot be applied and it is precisely due to this fact that we really are not engaging in proper science per say but rather philosophy and mathematics. And interestingly at the end of his book, Kraus himself wades into theology and attempts, rather unconvincingly, to draw his own theological, or more precisely atheistic, conclusions; only furthering the obvious inseparable relations between these three fields. Therefore although it is advantageous that the math and the science of the day does appear to offer a legitimate argument for the philosophical and metaphysical basis of nothingness, it is only one further correlating factor which bolsters our claims and positions. No one field can ultimately define or verify any claim of first principles, it is the harmonious inter-relation of the three which can be striven for and can be promoted as a sound and coherent system that rests upon observable realities, logical consistencies, and revelatory practicalities. For now the metaphysical discussions of Beyond Nothing are confined to the fields of science and philosophy. In later posts I hope to advance the theological aspects of this metaphysics more thoroughly.
Philosophically Kraus recognizes that the implications of his scientific findings are profound and controversial, particularly for those theologians and philosophers who demand an explanation of how something can come from nothing. And such a demand is at least valid and legitimate. As a scientific empiricist Kraus appears to dismiss the philosophical dilemma almost entirely by choosing to simply reiterate that this is the way nature behaves and so that is that, stating the following:
Why is there something rather than nothing? Ultimately, this question may be no more significant or profound than asking why some flowers are red and some are blue. “Something” may always come from nothing. It may be required, independent of the underlying nature of reality. Or perhaps “something” may not be very special or even very common in the multiverse. Either way, what is really useful is not pondering this question, but rather participating in the exciting voyage of discovery that may reveal specifically how the universe in which we live evolved and is evolving and the process that ultimately operationally govern our existence. (p. 178)
Such a strict adherence to scientific empiricism is most unfortunate for Kraus due to the profound philosophical implications his scientific findings suggest. His severe deficiency and disregard philosophically and theologically is precisely why we must insist upon the return and co-relation of all three fields of study, science, philosophy, and theology, today. No one leg is sufficient upon itself in order to stand strongest. We must build proper foundations for truth and understanding to rest upon and for society to grapple with, consider, and apply. Since Kraus himself has refused to consider his own ramifications, let us ask what are the philosophical implications. To again place a binary before us there can be two possibilities – either something can be created out of nothing or something can be created out of something. Of course scientifically Kraus has shown and argues that indeed creation is created out of nothing. Likewise Christian and Jewish theologies both have a very long history and tradition of creation ex-nihlio and refuse to worship a god in limited form but rather a God beyond all forms. Perhaps being an atheist, Kraus was disinclined to venture philosophically through his own findings for this very reason, I cannot say, but nevertheless the dovetailing between Christian and Jewish theology is absolutely present within his scientific findings, and this is precisely the argument I wish to make as well. Now what does it mean to have something created out of nothing? Can such a possibility exist? Well interestingly I would not choose to argue such a position. Rather I argue the more logically consistent position that only something can be created out of something. But how can I make such a claim when I am also claiming and agreeing with Kraus that creation came out of nothing? The answer is the Logos.
As discussed in our previous posts here, it is my contention in this metaphysics that there is something beyond nothing, and that something is the Logos. The term is Greek, and the ancient Greeks used it and considered it for thousands of years and attributed multiple meanings to it. Logos can refer to story, logic, reason, words, order and oftentimes has a universal, cosmic, or even divine implication and application.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)
When John opens his Gospel mentioning “the Word” he is actually writing in Greek and using the word “Logos”. This is likely in large part because his audience was Greek, as many of the first gentile Christians were Greek, and John knew they would associate and immediately understand the term Logos as a profound and cosmic philosophical reference. Christianity then builds its theology largely upon the Greek Logos and furthers It into manifest form with the man Jesus Christ being the second person of the Trinity – the Logos. Philosophically what does this mean and what does it look like? For my purposes the Logos then is that which is beyond all things as well as beyond nothing. It is also that which created all things and it operates itself through the nothing into this world and creation. It is ex-nihilio, but itself is not nothing. It is eternal and unchanging, as well as Life itself, Consciousness itself, Being itself. Just as in our previous post here where we philosophically conclude that consciousness resides within the nothing and exists beyond that nothing, so too does creation itself usher forth out of the nothing from beyond the nothing both as a scientific, philosophical, and theological matter of fact. The mechanism by which such a force can occur is the Logos, that being which is pure essence and being and is both manifest and un-manifest, life itself, being, source of all. It is that Unmoved Mover, that Umanifest Manifestation, which creates all things, governs all things. It operates itself through the nothing, and theologically it also operates itself through creation in the form of Jesus Christ, but again this aspect of the metaphysics can be expounded on in later posts. Philosophically it is that Unmoved Mover which has allowed itself to be made manifest and moved, and by doing so has captured or encapsulated all of that which is created and uncreated within Itself. Prior to its incarnation It was not complete, and even now until the creation has ended, for creation itself is not eternal but rather finite as discussed above, the Logos is still present here, alive and functioning fully as the Unmoved Mover moving, source of all, life of all, being and consciousness of all.
Of course for Kraus and other scientific empiricists such notions would seem preposterous, ridiculous, and without merit or standing. However this objection is precisely why I began this post as I did discussing the nature of science and its underlying origins, presuppositions, and admitted inabilities to adhere to its own skepticism in order to carry out its own purpose and ontology. Science and most scientists today do not realize that their own ontological presence belies their epistemological contentions. In most cases they conveniently refuse to consider let alone understand this dilemma. Kraus for example desperately and painstakingly seeks for mathematical precision and logical consistency along with repeatable scientific observations which can provide an ordered, sound explanation for the world around him, and yet on what grounds and reasoning should math, logic, and ordered observation have any standing or validity in the first place? From where do such concepts and abstractions gain such weight and currency? Whitehead succinctly provides the answer when he states again in his essay The Origins of Modern Science:
My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology. (p. 13)
Kraus, without even realizing it, by adhering to his own strict scientific and mathematical processes and theories, is living out the very same underlying assumptions of medieval monks and medieval theologians. The Logos is a necessary element within and beyond all creation for science to even function as we know it today. The empirical truth of this fact is seen all around us in all that science produces, proves, and observes. It is as regular and ubiquitous and obvious as the sun rising, a flower sprouting, water flowing, and apples falling. The Logos pervades all creation, all being, and extends itself through the nothing, birthing all that is, all that will be, all that ever was. This inescapable and unavoidable scientific truth and axiom is precisely why so many scientists and physicists today desperately cling onto a childishly regressive concept like a multi-verse. Interestingly enough Kraus himself mentions the multi-verse in the quote provided above for this very reason. He states earlier in the same chapter the following:
Our modern understanding of the universe provides another plausible and, I would argue, far more physical solution to this problem [that God exists], however, which has some of the same features of an external creator – and moreover is logically more consistent. I refer here to the multiverse. The possibility that our universe is one of a large, even possibly infinite set of distinct and causally separated universes, in each of which any number of fundamental aspects of physical reality may be different, opens up a vast new possibility for understanding our existence. (p. 175)
Kraus needs this “out” which the multi-verse seemingly provides, because without it he must contend with these very axioms and pre-suppositions Whitehead is revealing in science itself and are rooted in medieval theology. Could anything be more anathema for a modern day physicist than medieval theology? The irony is in fact most humorous indeed. This quote from Kraus is perhaps the most revealing of all, for it speaks for much of science today, and so demands proper and complete examination. Is his claim of a multiverse based in science? No. There is no observation of such a thing let alone has there been any type of scientific experiment to fulfill the scientific method for a multi-verse. Furthermore by his own definition of these universes as being “distinct and causally separated” how precisely could such a universe be known at all if it does not adhere to cause and effect, does not hold to the laws of logic or order of nature as we know it, and is itself completely separated from our universe? By what measure could such a thing be known or verified exactly? The answer of course, based on his own definition and description, is that it could not be known or verified at all. That is the precise interest he has in it! For Kraus, he would rather believe in an amorphous, unknown, unverified, and unintelligible (to us at least) multi-verse rather than admitting to the very axioms and underlying suppositions of his own scientific field of study and expertise. Since Kraus therefore is not making a scientific claim, he is clearly then making a philosophical claim. And how as a philosophical claim does it stand? Is it in fact as “logically consistent” as he claims it to be? The first most existential problem the multi-verse has is that it simply does not answer the question of how this creation as we know it came to be. We instead have simply further regressed backwards to a hypothetical multi-verse which has no basis empirically and even by its own definition cannot be observed scientifically. Perhaps a mathematical equation could be rendered to justify it, but again mathematical equations are not in themselves scientific nor empirical and do not prove anything beyond their own internal logic and construction, that is assuming a mathematical equation for a multi-verse would have such logic and construction, which is not an assumption that can reasonably be granted without further proof and explication. The other philosophical dilemma is now it must be explained how this larger multi-verse was itself created, for it has “kicked the can down the road” as they say in regards to our known creation. We are in no better philosophical position regarding first principles with a multi-verse, in fact we are significantly worse off, trapped in an impossible conundrum of a creation we cannot observe let alone investigate, which tells us nothing about the creation we can observe and are investigating. This leaves us in a perpetual state of incompletion, suspended in anticipation, waiting and hoping, or perhaps resigning ourselves to a regressive concept that cannot be proven, tested, verified, or even conceived. And so here again, based on the very working definition of the multi-verse itself, how can science prove or contribute towards understanding the creation of a multi-verse that is not perceivable, infinite, and completely separated causally from this creation we inhabit? It is literally impossible. Both scientifically and philosophically then the concept of the multiverse is debunked, unprovable, unverifiable, unintelligible, illogical, inconsistent, and frankly completely unsatisfying intellectually let alone utterly devoid of anything remotely valuable or theological. Therefore because of this we must now reject the multi-verse completely and return back to the creation as we (and Kraus) know it to be and consider the philosophical ramifications accordingly.
And so we return to the nothing and the something all around us. Something must emerge from the nothing in order for all of this ordered creation and nature and consciousness and life to exist. Something! Both scientifically as well as philosophically we can observe and conclude that the source of all this something is the nothing. And so then what could be within the nothing that can birth all things? Here lies the Logos, emerging out of the nothing, manifesting all that is, all that will be, and all that ever was. This Logos operates itself into this creation through the nothing, bringing order, life, reason, and logic into this creation which can then be measured, observed, understood, and verified. This Logos is the first principle of all creation. It is also that which is beyond nothing. It is the origin and first principle for consciousness as well as for all life. It extends itself through the nothing, allowing all things to create and be created, to destroy and be destroyed. In the same chapter again towards the end of his book, Kraus describes the utter end of the universe in much the same way as Christian theology and eschatology have been describing the end of the universe for thousands of years.
Alternatively, if the matter that makes us up was created at the beginning of time by some quantum processes, as I have described, we are virtually guaranteed that it, too, will disappear once again. Physics is a two-way street, and beginnings and endings are linked. Far, far into the future, protons and neutrons will decay, matter will disappear, and the universe will approach a state of maximum simplicity and symmetry. Mathematically beautiful perhaps, but devoid of substance. (p. 179)
In typical keeping with a nihilistic, atheistic paradigm Kraus describes the end of the universe as bleak, desolate, and devoid. And there is arguable accuracy in that position. It is easy to see then how nihilism, atheism, and modern science have so fully converged today. The continual materialistic emphasis of science along with a convenient disregard for a rigorous philosophy and its own axiomatic presuppositions and epistemology let alone its Reformation-based historical lineage, all coupled with numerous more recent observations of quantum nothingness, mathematically proven annihilations, and incoherent multi-verse schematics all contribute to a most unfortunate and disappointing culmination of science today particularly when considering the truly stellar pedigree of geniuses which sparked it to life hundreds of years ago.
This disappointing failure so prevalent today is one of the main reasons and impetus behind this philosophical inquiry and establishment of my own modern metaphysics – Beyond Nothing. It is one humble contribution to the construction and redirection of all three fields of study – science, philosophy, and theology – towards a more coherent and harmonious application and instantiation of a unified modern worldview. It is only through the proper unification and cooperation of each of these three branches together that each field can reach its fullest potential and contribution to the furtherance of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Each field needs the other to properly complete itself and we, as both a society as well as individuals, must insist on a more perfect union of the three. We inhabit, live, breathe, and embody the Logos, which admittedly transcends all creation, but can still be ascertained, understood, and witnessed within the composite structure of creation through these very fields and studies as well as all others. As creation is moved by and moving the Logos through time and space we are synergistic in our efforts and relations with the Logos. This occurs through the nothingness which extends across the creation, through all things, and is the very being of our consciousness as well as the antecedent to all things. We are intimate with this Logos and the Logos is intimate with all. It is the source of all, the ruler of all, the order of all. The Logos is both transcendent as well as immediate, the apotheosis of the totality of all and more even beyond. It is the bedrock of science, the suspicion of philosophy, the desire of theology. With all three unified, the picture becomes clear, the way laid straight, the path unveiled before us. The Logos is being Itself completely and utterly beyond the nothing, with all things, for us to peer, as we so wish, into the heart of creation, the source of all being and life, the first and the last regardless forevermore.