In The Beginning?
How was the Universe created? When did it begin?
Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The rules of cause and effect seem to govern everything - even the realm of thought, itself - so it's assumed by default that the physical presence of the cosmos must be the result of a process, an instance of creation.
The existence of nothing needs no justification, it is commonly considered essentially natural and intrinsically logical, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a dark and timeless primal void - a Universe completely empty. Presumably, this featureless vacuum reigned supreme until the dawn of time, when an extraordinary transformation brought forth the material manifestation we now call 'the cosmos'. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the earth in an act of divine inspiration. Many secularists espouse a version of Big Bang theory which envisions a Universe still spewing from the depths of a spontaneously spawned singularity. But an act of creation logically requires an impetus or creator - the presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor - which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. Any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence always results in the same endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy. No logical beginning is implied.
There are those who would claim that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. Beware the supernatural. There can be no rational discussion in the absence of logic. When the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded then so can others - without limit.
The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a product of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a product of cause and effect.
Change is a function of Existence
Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of creation is contrary to logic. It is a popular myth precipitated by man's tendency to personify his world. The cosmos didn't suddenly pop into being nor is it likely to vanish in a similar manner.
So how do you explain the physical presence of the Universe?
Although the phenomenon of existence is not explained by the rules of cause and effect, it is still very much subject to the laws of nature. It is based upon a principle so simple and so obvious that it has remained undiscovered since the advent of human consciousness. Sir Isaac Newton almost recognized it when he codified the third law (the law of reciprocal actions) of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). He simply didn't carry the scope of his theory far enough. The answer lies at the root of cause and effect. It is locked inside the structure of every equation. It is the very cornerstone of logic, itself. But to be understood, it must be approached from the proper perspective.
Continue
|
