What If We’re Wronger Than Wrong About the Nature of Reality?
Counter-intuitive scientific findings have been forcing thinkers to ask whether we may have been wrong all along in various ways: wrong about consciousness, wrong about atoms, wrong about universal constants, wrong about geometry, time and space itself. But…
What if we’re wronger than wrong? What if we have it exactly 180° backwards, at the most fundamental level?
As human beings, we crave certainty. While our approaches to achieving it may differ, ranging from religious faith to scientific doubt, our desire is to know. We perceive the world of our senses, and seek to imagine rightly what is beyond them, to have an accurate map of the ultimate context at the peripheries of our existence. It’s the fundamental drive behind all religion, science, philosophy, and spiritual seeking: the longing for truth.
In this search for truth, we build imaginal maps of reality on top of our most basic assumptions, like a foundation. However, the more we build, the more difficult it can become to call into question those basic assumptions. We grow attached to the image structures we have come to cherish, and fear losing them. We risk losing our sense of stability, or orientation in the world. Yet, at times it’s essential to do so.
We have all hopefully experienced shifts in our foundational assumptions. For instance, at the point when you learned, and I mean truly integrated into your map of reality, the fact that the Earth is round and floating through space. Though we tend to forget its gravity, this early realization radically shifts or re-frames everything we think we know about the world.
Change in the Air
In today’s era of mainstream materialism (or physicalism), many dissenting voices have heralded a similar “sea-change” or paradigm shift in how we view the universe, in one way or another, and have been met with varying degrees of acceptance or tolerance by the mainstream physicalist orthodoxy in the intellectual culture.
The rise in popularity of panpsychism, Buddhism, nondualism, idealism, and counter-intuitive scientific findings and theories all point to a need to reassess some of our fundamentals. The disagreement is about exactly what should replace the old assumptions, with many competing new models.
Today, I want to ask if our consensus reality maps may be wrong not just in some abstract or nominal way, but if we are in fact wrong in the most fundamental way possible, at the foundational level. How could a 180° shift at that level change how we view the universe?
Everything and Nothing
If we’re going to take a new look at foundations, it makes sense to also briefly examine origins. In this way, we can see how our world-image is not only rooted in our basic assumptions, but also a historical chain of thinking.
From the beginning, various ideas about the fundamental nature of the universe competed with one another. Every religion was a way of explaining this, and with the emergence of philosophy, people began to try to work it out logically and question or reinforce religious assumptions. This led to many ideas emerging in various schools of thought around the world, in all sufficiently advanced cultures.
Some of these ideas were not so fantastic, from the modern perspective. For instance, many Greek philosophers believed that the world was made out of one or another of the basic elements. In other words, “Everything is fire,” or “Everything is water,” etc. Other ideas that seemed more plausible caught on and have endured and been revisited in various times and places.
Our mainstream ideas about reality today in the West mostly stem from a lineage of thinkers originating in Greece, and extending from Aristotle to Descarte, and various modern and postmodern philosophers since.
Understandably, the accomplishments of science have led many of us to cast aside all but ideas that are related to the lineage which produced scientific thinking. On the one hand, this is understandable, given the feats of technology and analytical understanding; however, as with any case where we become very invested in our models, we risk our great system being built on faulty foundations.
Faulty foundations often become clear only after a certain amount of structure has been built on top of them.
If only a very small structure is built, you may never know; if a grand and extremely heavy structure is added, however, the quality of the foundations reveals itself. We might say that a similar principle applies to foundations in philosophy.
Ironically perhaps, science itself is a large part of what is pushing many to question these foundations. Major scientific thinkers are asking radical questions, such as whether we might be living in some type of computer simulation, if the universe may be made of pure information, or if consciousness may exist in varying degrees throughout the universe. All of these ideas are being considered because of emerging science and the standard theories’ inability to explain the phenomena being discovered.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition
Thomas S. Kuhn
With The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that … those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of “normal science,” as he called it.
Here, I’m interested in questioning one of the most fundamental assumptions of all: The assumption that our embodied existence, along with that of all other bodies and objects, is suspended in empty space, and made up of a mysterious something we call “material” or “substance,” which science now indicates is more accurately described as energy, fields, or even information.
Still, even if we now think of matter as less substantial energy patterns, as we now should according to the sheer facts, we nevertheless generally believe that everything is made up of a bunch of somethings, be they atoms, energy fields, strings, or whatever, which arose from and are suspended in nothing, fundamentally.
One of the quintessential questions in philosophy is: How did something come from nothing? But…what if it didn’t? What if “something” and “nothing” aren’t even what we think they are?
This is what I mean about being possibly wronger than wrong. If we are wrong about the fundamental nature of existence being things in nothing or objects in empty space, then everything we think we know would have to shift, and there’s a chance it could be the key to the next step in our understanding of reality. That’s why I believe this question is worth exploring.
So, how could the universe not be things in space, not be the flickering light of existence in a vast void or nothing, which it seems to be? When we gaze into the night sky, we see stars strewn about in the dark emptiness, and we think ourselves to be points of awareness suspended in that same sea of darkness. Might this be an illusion?
The Infinite Cornerstone
Throughout history, there have always been dissenters or alternative voices, those who have not accepted the ideas of the scientific, analytic lineage. Although there were also many bad ideas, at times coherent and intriguing alternatives were presented, who maintained their own following into the present day.
Among the better ideas was that the most fundamental thing in reality was proposed not to be a dark, empty nothingness, but rather an infinity. By infinity, we mean not just a mathematical concept, such as an infinite series of numbers or infinite geometric axes through space, but infinity in the truest sense of the word, something completely boundless.
Versions of this were echoed at various times in the history of Western philosophy, with perhaps the earliest being the pre-socratic Parmenides and Zeno, who believed reality to consist of “the whole of what is possible,” or Neoplatonists like Plotinus, who saw everything as The One, which is “a divine unity... described as metaphysically infinite: supremely adequate, autonomous, all-transcending, most utterly without need (Enn VI, 9, 6).”
In the Renaissance, Giordano Bruno argued that the supersubstantial being [God or Ultimate Reality] “was a ‘plenitude’ without a counterpart “non-being” (BOL III, 40).” Spinoza’s God was somewhat similar, conceptualized as “a singular self-subsistent Substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.”
Various idealist philosophers have considered consciousness, which is essentially formless with no finite boundaries, to be the fundamental reality. In this ontological idealist view, the universe of things are fundamentally mental in nature, thoughts within a universal consciousness. Today, the most vocal proponent of idealism and critic of physicalism in academic philosophy is Bernardo Kastrup.
The Idea of the World
Bernardo Kastrup
A rigorous case for the primacy of mind in nature, from philosophy to neuroscience, psychology and physics. The Idea of the World offers a grounded alternative to the frenzy of unrestrained abstractions and unexamined assumptions in philosophy and science today.
Of course, the idea that infinity is the basis of reality is even more familiar in the Eastern realms of philosophy such as Vedanta, particularly it’s Advaita tradition, various types of Buddhism, and Taoism. Versions of this idea are so ubiquitous in these more mystical philosophies that it seems unnecessary to even point out examples. We could perhaps say this is one of the foundational points on which East and West have diverged, historically.
Finally, certain modern thinkers in the West have also turned to some approximation of this idea, when faced by the mysteries of the subatomic world, as well as the human mind. The main figures that come to mind are David Bohm and Carl Pripram, with their theories of the holographic universe and holographic brain respectively, and other alternative voices like Nassim Haramein have also put forward similar ideas more recently.
So, what if this idea that has been mainstream in the East, and persistent yet heretical in the West, is actually true? What if the foundation, the context of everything is infinity, rather than nothing? How could we conceptualize this in a way that is compatible with science, and how would that totally transform our picture of the universe at a fundamental level?
Photo Credit: Dr-Pen
The Infinite Context
Visualizing infinity is extremely challenging or even impossible, as it is by definition formless. We might be tempted to say that it’s like space, however, even space is finite, with its three-dimensional axes. This kind of limited infinity concept might be likened to an adjective, infinitely, not a true infinity.
To approach how to imagine infinity, one approach would be to simply consult those who claim to have experienced it, of which there are many. Mystics have reported experiencing an infinite, absolute reality throughout history, and we might liken an aggregate of their descriptions to resemble an infinite ocean of luminosity with no time, space, or objects.
In other words, infinity seems to appear to us as an ocean of the quality we know as light or brightness, not shining out from some object through space, as with the sun, but as a fundamental, endless, limitless reality permeated with this quality, without the context of space or time. Of course many will have serious doubts about whether a person can truly experience infinity, but for now, let’s work with this as a stand-in image.
Here’s a useful way to turn this into a picture in your mind: we’ve all looked at the sun, if only briefly, and when we do, we don’t see an object as such, but rather, we see a disk of what can only be described as maximal luminosity. Now, recall that experience, and then imagine that rather than being just a disc in the sky, that quality of maximal luminosity was in fact the whole of experience, as if your awareness were inside the sun.
In other words, in infinity as described by mystical experiencers, there is no world, no objects, no body, no mind, no self, only an infinitely luminous existential “plane,” transcendent of any concepts of space and time, because it lacks any objects or movements by which to trace them.
It goes without saying that if this infinity truly exists, the key will be to understand how the finite mundane reality we normally inhabit relates to it and is allegedly a manifestation of it.
Infinity Formulates Finity
I’ve introduced the concept of infinity as a context and given an approach to visualizing it, now we must ask the much more difficult question: If it’s the ground of existence, then how might space, time, and forms arise from/within it? This may sound like an impossible task at first, but upon reflection, it’s no more difficult than explaining how the universe of things emerged from nothing, in the current paradigm. Actually, it may be slightly easier.
Without a doubt, any finite thing is “less” than infinity. It’s very thing-ness is defined by its boundaries and limitations.
Material things, for instance, have shape, texture, mass, and other qualities, and each of them is one particular thing out of all the things it could theoretically have been, and is in one particular location in space and time out of all the loci it could theoretically have occupied. In simplest terms, it is this thing or that, here or there, now or then. We could think of these as qualities it possesses, or we could consider these the limitations which define it, what it fundamentally is.
This applies not only to objects as we normally think of them, like pencils or planets, but also to space-time itself. This would be true regardless of its ultimate qualities, to be ascertained by physicists, or its ultimate number of dimensions, which may be as many as 12 according to aspiring theories of everything like M-Theory. Whatever it’s true qualities may be, in this view it is fundamentally less than infinity, and yet must be rooted in it, or emergent from it, like all else.
So, in this model, both what we perceive as objects and what we perceive as their container of space-time dimensions, are both in fact finite forms, somehow emerging from formless infinity, which is by definition beyond them. But how?
One of the many interesting aspects of infinity is that to be truly infinite, not only must it be unitary (there can be no two infinities) and formless (no boundaries allowed), but it must also paradoxically be or manifest as finite and multifarious forms. Why? Because even the division between formless and form, infinite and finite, unity and multitude would itself be a boundary. Even remaining in the formless state would be a limitation.
This means that the emergence of multifarious forms from the infinite ground actually needs no explanation per se, because it is inevitably inherent in the very concept of infinity itself.
So, how can we understand or imagine this emergence to be taking place?
Infinity’s Chisel: Creation by Subtraction
At the most fundamental level, I want to reiterate that every finite thing, including the space-time framework itself, is less than infinity. If it emerges from infinity, then it logically follows that it’s emergence must take place by virtue of something akin to subtraction. In other words, infinity must have a capacity to somehow subtract itself from itself, leaving only a finite form remaining.
For the sake of making this tangible, let’s imagine an object, like a ball. The ball, as we experience it, exists here and now, it has loci in space and time. According to this view, the ball is constructed from a set of limitations or subtractions from the totality of possibility included in infinity. So, we might say it’s ball-ness is those limitations, since apart from them, it would only be infinity.
The existence of the ball is limited to a spherical shape, which limits or excludes all other dimensions it might have; depending on it’s material, it has certain properties, and is therefore limited from other properties it might have; it is here, which limits it from all other places it could be; it is now, which limits it from all other times when it could be. Therefore, the ball’s very ball-ness fundamentally is a specific set of limitations of infinity. It is wholly constituted by limitations or subtractions from infinity, and the same would apply to all finite things.
Everything Forever
Gevin Giorbran
Giorbran builds a spectacular vision by extending the ideas of David Bohm and Stephen Hawking, creating a visual model of the space of all possible states (soaps). Gradually this image of all possibilities transforms into a God's eye perspective of the many-worlds predicted by quantum theory.
We can also imagine that there are relatively less finite forms, which nevertheless are similarly limited subtractions from infinity, but merely less limited. The prime example would seem to be the space-time framework. Space and time seem to go on infinitely along their axes, and so in this way can be thought of as partially infinite, or containing traces or elements of infinity.
We might visualize this strange ability of infinity to shift itself into existence and non-existence, figure and ground, as a kind of darkening of the infinite ocean of luminosity described earlier. In other words, just as a light shining on a screen must be selectively darkened by film to form the figures and stories of a movie, so must this fundamental illuminated “screen” of infinity be selectively darkened to become finite multifarious forms, and beings.
In the case of the fundamental darkening we recognize as the space-time framework, elements of infinity remain (infinite continuation along spatial dimensions), and perhaps this is key to why it serves as the framework for more limited forms like our ball.
In other words, perhaps finity manifests from infinity downwardly, so-to-speak, with relatively more finite forms being built upon less finite objects serving as frameworks.
We might even infer from this that yet less limited frameworks serve as the basis for our 4D space-time, in a process that continues until the final ground is recognized to be the completely limitless infinity itself.
Do we have any reason to think this might be the case? I would propose we do: the very fact that physicists’ attempts to explain the observable universe seem to require extra dimensions could itself be considered evidence for this idea. Why? Because in this model, what are higher dimensions, if not less limited frameworks, constituted of lesser limitations on infinity?
This would mean that rather than expanding out from zero to however many higher dimensions like an explosion, it would be more accurate to envision infinity contracting down to fewer and fewer dimensions, a process which is very much like what I’ve been referring to up to this point as subtraction, or limitation, or we might even say focus or concentration on particular finite forms, rather than the complete infinity.
The 180° Reality Flip
Okay, I’m covering a lot of territory in a single post and breezing over a lot of nuances and details that could be discussed, but to wrap up this discussion, I’d like to look at how our picture of the universe we see around us might shift if we were to adopt or at least entertain this infinity-first view.
To me, the most startling implication of this is a fundamental figure-ground shift it seems to imply. Just as in images where you shift what is figure and what is ground to form different objects in the picture (see below), the fundamental aspects of being and non-being can likewise be shifted. In other words, the fundamental dichotomy of space and object becomes the exact opposite of what we normally consider it to be.
Why? Because in this model, space is fundamentally a kind of object, albeit one without limitation along it’s axes. What we normally consider objects (chairs, galaxies, etc.), on the other hand, are the last remaining “bits” of infinity that were not subtracted.
That is, although their boundaries are defined by non-existence or limitation of infinity, the positive or extant aspects of their existence are none other than “bits” of that infinity itself that were not subtracted. However small the fundamental objects are, this would still hold true, even down to the Planck scale.
Continuing with the metaphor of the movie screen, the figures and objects which do appear on the screen, while defined by the selective darkening from the film which gives them their forms, are nevertheless constituted of the original light that was darkened by the film. The light which gives them their “existence” is none other than the original light of the infinite, the fully illuminated screen before it was darkened; they are simply the places on the screen that were not darkened by the film.
We can also say something similar applies to energy. Waves of various kinds propagating in the space-time continuum would be fundamentally existential in nature, and so they would be instances of non-subtracted infinity appearing within space-time, waves of partial infinite existence appearing in a massive space-time object that’s serving as the now-darkened screen or background on which these bits of infinity appear.
Somethings and Nothings Reversed
Another way of phrasing this is to say that in this model, rather than a context of non-existence or nothingness, the context is existence, or everythingness, infinity. Within that context exists space-time, which like the ocean, although massive, is nevertheless a thing made up of partial existence, a kind of object defined by the non-existence of what has been subtracted from infinity in order to manifest it.
In other words, although space-time darkness appears to be the screen on which our lives unfold, in this model it is actually an artificial darkening of the true screen of infinity, and this darkening is itself an object, ultimately defined similarly by the non-existence/existence of yet higher dimensions, just as objects like our ball are defined by the boundaries of it’s own existence/non-existence.
Furthermore, objects as we know them, like our ball, although likewise defined by the non-existence or subtractions from infinity that give them their defining boundaries, are fundamentally made up of existence, bits of infinity itself, which is the context for the space-time framework that itself seems in our perception to be the context for those objects. The same would be true of space-time: like any object, it would be made up remaining existence of what was not subtracted, namely the existence of the 4 dimensions.
This would mean that the answer to Steven Hawking’s question, “What breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” would be: infinity itself is the fire, and that into which it is being breathed is an illusion of non-existence which defines it. The equations merely describe the dynamics of this interplay.
If true, this would mean our normal way of looking at things would have it exactly backward. Space-time is a substantial thing, and objects and energies are instances of that thing’s absence, allowing the true context of infinite existence to “shine through.”
Although extremely counterintuitive, what this would imply, if you really think about it, is that space-time with its seeming nothingness or emptiness is actually a sort of thick somethingness, and all energy and matter (objects) are actually infinity to various degrees piercing, shining through, or appearing within that thick substance of space, just as objects on the movie screen are merely aspects of the original light that weren’t darkened by the film.
So, what we normally consider emptiness would actually be a particular kind of spatial substance, and what we normally consider substantial objects are actually instances of emptiness of that spatial substance, which by contrast to the spatial substance, seem like somethings or objects.
Bubbles in the Ocean of Space-Time
A good metaphor to facilitate this shift in perspective is bubbles. Bubbles in the ocean appear to be objects, but actually they are instances of ocean-emptiness, in that the bubble itself is made of a lack of ocean, which means a presence of air. When the ocean is the context, which it seems to be when you’re in it, the bubble seems like an object or a something, even though we know that it’s actually less substantial than the ocean around it.
So, just as air is the true context of the ocean in our world, and the bubble is merely an instance of that context within the substantial ocean, so are finite objects in this model instances of the context of infinite existence appearing within the thick, substantial ocean of space-time, which merely seems like non-existence or nothingness because we’re inside of it, just as the ocean seems like the context when you’re underwater.
This would mean that existence, the very existential quality of every object or energy which we know of as existing in space, is in fact remaining elements of the fundamental reality of infinity, and space-time is a kind of subtle “thing” which appears within it, and conceals it, and wherever it doesn’t, bubbles of infinite existence make up objects. Therefore, what we normally consider objects existing are actually space-time not existing in specific parameters, the parameters which make up the boundaries of that object.
In a sense, it’s like a photographic “negative” in which all colors are their opposites; empty space becomes substance, and “substantial” objects become bubbles of spatial-emptiness, which is to say bubbles of infinity, like bubbles of air in the ocean. Of course, I’m not suggesting that they’re literally spherical like bubbles, it’s just a metaphor to help us imagine how what we think of as objects could actually be instances of emptiness of space, which actually reveals bits of infinite existence here or there, now or then.
For Your Consideration
Granted, I’m not a physicist, so I’m not qualified in any way to claim that this is true; all I really mean to do here is to put forward a novel (as far as I know) idea, which if found to have some merit, could potentially be fleshed out and explored in a more rigorous academic fashion, and actually applied to the facts and equations of physics.
Why should anyone want to do that? Well, given that infinity shows up in so many ways in our attempts to understand the natural world through physics and mathematics, I think an infinity-based model of the universe is worth exploring, at least as long as the nothingness-based models continue to fail. Why not give it a go?
