Could the origin of our universe be discovered? (# 13)
There are currently three main ways of describing the origin of our universe: (i) the Big Bang; (ii) a creator God or pre-existing consciousness; and (iii) a cosmic cycle that repeats without ever having a beginning. This article discusses another option: our universe originated out of mathematics.
Previous articles in this series describe some of the stages dealing with how our universe may have developed out of mathematics. This description is based on existing scientific discoveries. The approach is necessarily eclectic in terms of utilizing scientific discoveries because the author is not a polymath with deep knowledge of many subjects. Other existing scientific research may identify alternate hypotheses that are worth investigating.
As described in Article #3, Can you develop a new perspective on reality, Professor John Wheeler has suggested that our reality might be described by a game of 20 Surprise Questions: as we learn more about the nature of reality, that reality may become something different to our original conception. The mathematical description of the original AdS space may be considered to be more like a thought that, once conceptualized, immediately morphs into something new. The original thought does not even have a momentary existence; new features arise instantaneously. As the mathematical structure becomes more and more complex, ‘reverse engineering to find out how a particular structure emerged may be impossible. Each structure may be the outcome of several possible evolutionary paths. Furthermore, the emergence of a new structure may require the eradication of its prior history. Once a mathematical structure becomes self-aware, that self-awareness may not be able to look back with certainty in order to discover its own mathematical structure before it became self-aware.
Generative Adversarial Networks
One possibility is that a self-aware mathematical structure could create a structure where ideas about its own origin are explored in a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) game. An example of a GAN involves two computers playing a game where the objective is for one computer to win by fooling the other computer into making a wrong move. One of the rules of a game could be for the computers to create their own rules and goals.
A self-aware mathematical structure could create a scenario involving a GAN where the structure’s own origin is intentionally impossible to deduce. In the absence of certainty about why our universe may have been created, these articles are based on the idea that our universe is part of a GAN where the objective of the GAN includes creating its own goal. Expressed differently, our universe may be continuously creating its own ideas about its origin.
One of the strategies in a GAN game could be the creation of scenarios to fool inhabitants about the goal of the GAN; there could be a kind of meta-goal i.e. although we don’t know the actual goal, we know that there is some goal and we have a role in defining it.
These articles set out a scenario where, in our universe, some of us may be able to set our own goals i.e. fortuitously, our desired goals turn out to be consistent with the rules. Other people may need to discover the rules of the game in order to identify feasible goals within those rules.
The idea that our universe may be analogous to a GAN game is supported by circumstantial evidence. The rules of our GAN may include preventing the appearance of irrefutable evidence that our universe is part of a GAN. Nevertheless, each of us has the free will to decide whether to believe in circumstantial evidence. The next section provides an example of what some of the rules of our universe might be. While these articles provide circumstantial support for this interpretation of the rules, other interpretations are also possible.
What can happen, does happen
The overarching attribute is assumed to be ‘What can happen, does happen’. Since some Efimov effects may conflict with each other, universes may be instantiated with some Efimov effects but not all of them. An eclectic, non-comprehensive, perspective of possible rules for our universe includes:
- Our universe exists to facilitate the overarching objective of ‘What can happen, does happen’. In particular, our universe facilitates growth in complexity;
- Each of us has been endowed with free will; one way of describing free will is the capacity to make decisions that are not fully determined by previous events or the environment. Free will is an emergent property created through an Efimov effect;
- Our universe has been designed to learn how each of us is likely to use our free will. Each of us is ‘auditioning’ for a place in a future universe;
- Monitoring our emotional responses to events in our lives is one way our ‘personality’ is understood and classified. Another factor in determining how we are classified is the extent to which we develop a capacity to investigate our ‘Adjacent Possible’ i.e. choosing between possible futures;
- Our personality classification determines what will happen to us after we die in this universe. Some of the options are:
- Be reborn on Earth in order to refine our classification;
- Be born in Heaven to help design new universes to explore new set-theoretic universes;
- Be born in a new set-theoretic universe;
- Remain in the ALL until suitable scenarios are identified where we can experience the perfect moment (Kairos).
The design of our universe
Events happen in our lives in order to evoke emotional responses. For example, at present, humanity is facing an existential threat to its future, namely seemingly unstoppable climate change. The person whose life we seem to be living (your worldly incarnation or avatar) takes actions that create emotional responses e.g. failure to take meaningful action in response to the climate change emergency gives rise to a feeling of helplessness. Your avatar has the opportunity to vote for a political party that supports taking appropriate action. When your avatar votes for a ‘non-action’ political party, what is the intensity of your emotional response to the failure of your avatar to give top priority to taking action to address an existential threat to humanity? Do you put personal interest above that of humanity?
It doesn’t matter whether your avatar’s vote is insignificant in terms of the outcome of the election. An inappropriate emotional response to an existential threat may put you in a classification that means you will not be born in a set-theoretic universe where the future is unknown. The possibility exists that, based on the intensity of your response to our climate change existential threat, you will not take appropriate action in response to an unknown threat that could cause a set-theoretic universe to collapse with other participants’ lives being terminated. In other words, some set-theoretic universes may have a rule that only people who put humanity’s interests above personal interests will be allowed to participate.
What do you do?
We have the opportunity to change the direction our world is heading but the current consensus of scientific opinion is that an evidence-based approach should be used as a guide for action. The scientific method is just one approach to understanding the world; it is neither definitely right nor wrong. Other approaches may include acknowledging some people have psychic powers.
Once we acknowledge that each of our lives is not meaningless or the result of random fluctuation in a meaningless universe, more progress may be made in addressing existential issues facing humanity.
The question for this article is:
Do you believe that your current life is one of many incarnations?
To view the headings of all the articles to be published in this series please click on https://readmedium.com/orbiting-stars-and-origin-of-our-universe-338906930f51
To obtain a copy of the book ‘Orbiting Stars’ which contains the first drafts of all these articles, please visit https://www.amazon.com