Introduction Topics. In this section
we will look to the hypotheses of the things that could happen/have happened
beyond
the
evolving Universe, i.e. before the Alpha Point ('Big Bang') and after the
Omega Point. Questions as Who/what created the Universe and Is
there some kind of existence beyond the end of times will be treated.
These hypotheses will also include concepts of God or another kind of Supreme
Being. But this is not a discussion about the question
if God exists or not. It's only an enumeration, if and only if there is something before the Big Bang and/or after the Big Crunch, of
the hypotheses about what it could have been.
Method. Of course, all
conjectures about phenomena beyond the actual universe are highly speculative:
they lack every kind of objective argument or evidence. At first glance,
only illusions and delusions are possible when one leaves the firm ground
of objective knowledge, and scientific reserve should restrain from this
kind of non-scientific aberrations. Nevertheless, the study of integrative
thinking suggests that fairly plausible hypotheses can be formulated
concerning phenomena we never observed and perhaps will never observe.
In fact, large portions of our daily knowledge consists of suppositions
formulated on the basis of analogy, and from time ot time proves to be
highly reliable. The usefulness of this kind of thinking -apart from the
intellectual pleasure of penetrating the impenetratable- is a kind of test
for the consistency and liability of the knowledge we start from. And also,
as is the case with the scientific postulates, it enables us to draw some
conclusions otherwise completely uncertain. But thinking beyond the limits
of objective science can only be acceptable on some stringent conditions.
(1) We have to take into account
all available data, proved as well as highly probable, concerning the field
of our hypothesis. This is the fundamental difference between integrative
induction and unfounded speculation. Concerning the possible phenomena
beyond the Universe, this rule implies that the author is supposed to be
aware of the several layers of evolution and of the fundamental laws
ruling this universal process. A thorough knowledge of just one or
some layers of the evolving universe, even if one excels in such a knowledge,
is blatantly unsufficient.
(2) We have always to remember
that we are working with hypotheses, that always can be revised.
Claiming that this kind of information is revealed by God himself or by
any other moral or divine authority, and by consequence undisputably and
eternally true, lacks any reference to objective knowledge, and even blocks
the possible development of such a knowledge. Let us just look at some
"revealed" descriptions in the Bible -the pre-eminent Book of Revelation:
from the creation myth to the definition of ? = 3 ("Also he made a molten
sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits
the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about",2
Ch 4:2). On the other hand, a reference to a divine revelator not necessarily
proves that the idea is wrong. It can be true by coincidence, or rest upon
an intuitive, unconscious integration.
(3) We have to concede that
the thesis that there is nothing / no God beyond the limits of time/space is perhaps the most un-scientific thesis we can imagine of. The non-existence
of something can never be proved. Only agnosticism, a word coined
by Thomas Huxley,
reflects the honest attitude we can't know from current evidence.
(4) We
have to be aware that many irrational concepts seem to be necessary by
the apparently evident conclusions that are derived from them. The rejection
of some basic concepts seems to undermine the evidence of some undisputable
conclusion. The theories of Galilei, Darwin and Teilhard de Chardin were
greatly refuted because they seemed to impair some universal assumptions
concerning human value. The existence of ethics seems to presuppose
a Supreme Judge and Regulator. Without God, man is free to behave without
restrictions of any kind. The presence of a cosmic design seems
to prove the existence of a Designer, etc. On the other hand, the presence
of phenomena, contrary to the (presupposed) anthropomorphic nature of a
Supreme Being, or unacceptable behaviour displayed by (some of) his followers,
proves nothing concerning his existence. It only demonstrates that we don't
(yet) know (enough) about his nature, or about Nature itself. Or it just
disapproves the followers' attitude.
These restrictions and precautions
are not just intended for this metaphysic domain, they are elementary in
every kind of scientific thinking. If we respect these landmarks, a formulation
of some existential hypotheses could be interesting.
So, these hypotheses don't
require a prior proof of the existence of God, nor are they a proof for
such an existence. They don't even suggest that such an existence should
be useful or desirable within any explanatory frame. They just enumerate
some possibilities, often mutually exclusive, about the interesting question,
if there is something beyond the evolving universe, how such a 'system' could
be conceived. We will see that the 'God hypothesis' probably is the least
plausible.
Some hypotheses
These can be grouped into two
sections: (1) there is nothing, and (2) there is something.
Each of the several hypotheses takes into account some universal phenomena
observed in nature and/or cosmic evolution.
Of course, the
evolutionary hypothesis itself, or parts of it (e.g. the Big Bang) can
be disputed. This interpretation is discussed in a page concerning the
laws and tendencies of evolution. In this section we take the evolutionary
theory for granted.
(1) There is nothing This approach states that before
Alpha and after Omga there probably is simply nothing. The Big Bang emerges
from nowhere, and the Big Crunch will discharge into Nothing. Or, to avoid
difficult and perhaps unsustainable notions as "Nowhere" and "Nothing":
from and back to insignificant chaos. Universe as a meaningless little
wave in the uniform ocean of chaos.
A dramatic description of this
kind of feelings is brought by Nobel Prize winner Steven
Weinberg.
Some variants of this theory:
1. The closed circuit
model. Big Bang and Big Cruch are two aspects of the same singularity:
when the Universe disappears, and with it time and space, another (or the
same) Universe emerges at "the other side" of the implosion, restructuring
the collapsing energies as in a Cosmic Catharsis. This occurs two or several
times. Or just one timeless time. As the ouroboros of ancient mythology. 
2. The open ended model.
This vision simply presupposes nothing before and nothing after. A kind
of existential vacuum condensing (auto-creating or just out of nothing)
into some structured matter, and transforming this exceptional condition
after some billions of years -what are billions on the cosmic scale!- back
into structurelessness. The Buddhistic view on the universe is somehow
related to this model.
I didn't find any arguments for
this approaches, only the claim that no argument for any design of purposeful
evolution is convincing, scientifically speaking, and hence that a No-Design
hypothesis seems much more plausible. Sometimes, a hint is added that this
kind of theories just try to hide or to appease our existential anxiety
for the Void. (2) There is something
This model has several variants.
1. The observable
universe is only a part of the story. This vision suggests that the
big bang is no more real beginning of evolution, than birth is the real
beginning of life. Although things become more or less observable form
this point, there are important processes before that, concealed for us.
Making projections about this may prove very confusing, if not impossible. This approach somehow repeats
the arguments of the There-Is-Nothing approach, but has of course some
good arguments. On the other hand it just shoves the problem a little bit
further, without giving any plausible suggestion. In fact, the problem
remains the same, even if we accept the existence of one or more earlier
stages in Evolution before the one we currently consider as being the first.
For that matter, Teilhard's analysis described less stages than the 9 we
currently discern. The progress of science added two stages before Teilhard's
first one (elementary particles) and intercalated even one between the
molecular and the cellular level: the eobiontic stage. However, these additions
rather confirmed his view of evolution by cumulative complexification rather
than refuting it.
A recenty, interesting hypothesis,
founded on mathematical projections, suggests that the Big Bang perhaps
could have elicited by a clash
between two universes. (the Big Splat). CERN's
Maurizio Gasperini discusses in detail a number of Pre-Big Bang theories.
In other words, if we accept
the possibility of one or more stages before the Alpha point (and one or
more after the Omega point), there is still a gap beyond those stages.
2. There is a Supreme Being
that created the Universe. Although there is undoubtedly a psychological
"need" for inventing such a God / Creator / Lord / Father / Saviour / etc,
and although many naive anthropomorphic -and often dangerous- ideas circulated
about the characteristics of such a Supreme Being, the idea in itself has
neither to be ridiculous nor offensing for human value. Of course, each
era has its limited fantasies about such a being. Our ancestors liked a
vehement and sometimes jealous and agressive Judge and Warrior -thanks
God, standing behind us. We should rather think of a HAL-like Global, no,
Universal SuperComputer. But also this "modern" view will of course prove
false one day.
Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin formulated a hypothesis in which he describes the
'Holy Trinity'. God the Father could be the Creator, and the Creation,
an act of universal love, his Son. Teilhard uses to label the cosmic evolution
as the Christogenesis as if Christ, or at least his Mystical
Body, develops towards the final stage, the Omega point. At this
point the universe will be able to 'answer' the love act of God, showing
some kind of reciprocal, creative love. This bidirectional creative interaction
is labeled as the essence of the Holy Spirit. We will see in the 'Pro-creation
hypothesis' that such a God hypothesis is not needed for a plausible explanation
of extra-universal phenomena, although Teilhard's description shows some
touching lyrism.
Many discussions about the
God hypothesis are rather directed against some naive and primitive limitations
in the God concept (see point 4 of the Introduction).
To quote two frequent and well founded objections:
(1) The idea that
God is supposed to intervene frequently in the course of affairs of his
creation, by making revelations, granting special graces and other 'sacraments',
and being open for prayers and supplications, is not only offending for
human dignity, but most of all an offence for his own capability to create
a 'perfect' universe, making necessary constant corrections. It is very
well conceivable that a Universe should evolve without a constant need
for corrections, like a good computer programme. (2) The existence of pain,
disease, aggressiveness and other kinds of 'unhumane' and 'undivine' traits
of 'his' creation (and his officers!) is often used as perhaps the most
incisive argument against the whole creation idea. The phenomenon of 'evil'
is treated in another page (under construction), but anyway got special
attention from Teilhard de Chardin. It is still conceivable, perhaps
unavoidable, to accept the hypothesis of a designer and the existence
of suffering.
3.
The pro-creation hypothesis. As the constant induction ('creation')
of ever more complex and conscious organisms seems to be the most fundamental
characteristic of universal evolution, and as this preoccupation stimulates
humanity to progress in science and technology with the ultimate motivation
of reducing and eventually eradicating any form of suffering, at the same
time participating consciously in the completion of this evolutionary process,
a moment will inevitably arrive where everything is realized, and mankind
(or whatever will succeed to it) has nothing more to do, but to enjoy all
this unlimited happiness. This conscious humanity / Global
Brain / or whatever may try to continue applying the most fundamental law
of existence. And what better idea could we think of (currently...) than
a Universal Project, i.e. conceiving and starting a new Universe, perhaps
using therefore all available resources i.e. our own Universe. The existing
but now completed universe could make the option to consciously restart
a new universe, putting all its matter and remaining energy into this project,
as do the procreating ovum and spermatozoid.
This could lead to a new universum,
and perhaps to a chain of universes, or simply to an ouroboros universe.
The 'Creator', sometimes called 'God', appears to be nothing more than
our own or another Universe, perhaps the perfect humankind.
This hypothesis could make
the God hypothesis obsolete, and reduce the conflict between the pro and
contra God factions to a fight against one's shadow. We ourselves appear
to be creating God...
