Hello!
This is my new book about the origin of the universe.
I hope you enjoy reading it and I’d be glad to receive any feedback.
Do not hesitate to point out what you think is wrong.
regards,
Martin
God - The unsolved Mystery
Why God is neither inside nor outside the universe.
by Martin Braun
Table of Contents
3 Preface
5 The biggest mistake ever
9 The meaning of life
11 The situation-based perspective
16 Where is God in all that?
God - The unsolved Mystery / Martin Braun 2007
Preface
It is said, that one can follow many different ways and choose the direction. This is not always correct, especially when looking at the origin of the universe.
After you recognise that life will come to an end some day, there are far less different ways to choose. To be precise, there are only two choices:
- To ignore the question about what happens to you after you die.
- To think about what happens to you after you die.
There is no alternative.
You can eighter think about it or not. And even when you thought about it for a fraction of a second, you did choose 1 and not 0.
Everything can be reduced to a point of separation that provides exactly two possible ways.
One is 0 and the other is 1, as we know it from digital technology. And this reduction also helps to answer to the most exciting questions ever brought up in our world.
This book is about a journey to the origin. It does not consider science, though. In fact, science would only set a frame around all arguments. Once we are in there, we would be prohibited to get out of it. We would be cought in our own system. Science is a useful tool for everyone. It increases knowledge which is necessary to understand how and why things work. However, if the most important questions need to be answered, it is essential to let go of science for the moment, so the journey to the origin goes streight and undisturbed.
The biggest mistake ever
Since humans think about their environment and surroundings consciously, a lot of mistakes and wrong assumptions were made. It is even more astonishing, that one certain mistake still is being made, which is to think in a self-centered way.
There was a time, when the earth was seen as a flat disc with the sun revolving around it. When looking up to the night sky the movement of all the stars is visual. Their repeated appearance and the way how they show up every night suggested to many people that everything which is out there is moving all the time. However, that argument also claims, that the earth does not move at all making it (humans) the center point.
Many people today like to see themselves as the tip of the evolution which appearently only is correct for the human brain and inside the limited space called planet earth.
They think they are in control here dominating all animals. In fact, they even feel so important, it occures to them to develop a strong wish to be the center of the universe. That is the biggest mistake that mankind ever has made. To be self-centered may serve someones success in life quite well, but it blocks the clear thinking which is required to see the big picture. Even today there are people, who seriously think that the world was made in a way it perfectly fits to them. It is, as if they believe that everything was created for them. But what makes them so special so they deserve this? What makes them so important?
Do you know the first name of your grandmother? Yes? Good!
Now tell me the first name of the mother of your grandmother -
I doubt you know it. So the lady was not so important after all. Same for all others. There are only a few exceptions, like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart ect. who are still known.
Since the raise of mankind, so many have died. That makes the ones who are alive a tiny minority. And they soon will join those who already are dead.
It gets even worse! Not only that humans, including family members, are forgotten in a short time, we also are very tiny creatures.
Just imagine standing on the moons surface and seeing earth from there: what do you see?
Right - not a single individual. Not even a bigger animal. Not even in an airliner you are able to see anyone down there. You first have to get closer to ground in order to see people. Your altitude would be so low, that you could walk that distance in only 30 minutes.
If there were no life on earth, no difference could be seen when watching at a distant location. It doesn’t matter if there is life or not. The earth, from space, looks the same and the sun is going to explode anyway, vaporising all planets.
By the way: what is the number you would see as a big number?
Is it 1.000? Or is it 1.000.000?
Is it:
1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 ?
You say this is a big number? Think again -
Compared to infinity it is very very very small.
So what right does anyone have to claim to be a significant part of the universe - to be in the spotlight? Who says that this is all so complex? It is just a matter of perspective.
Are you sure that life is complex? What if it is just complex enough to fulfill the physical laws? If so, life simply is forced be there. Life adapts to its environment, not the other way around.
To answer the question which is coming next, it is not relevant if mankind, or anything else, is the center of the universe.
The meaning of life
We now will take a closer look at the mother of all questions:
“What is the meaning of life?”
More questions instead of answers:
What life exactly? … on earth only? … and who is asking?
Usually a certain sub-question arises:
“Why are we here?”, or to be more precise:
“Why are we here in the universe?”
If there would not be a universe, we would not be here. As the universe is our home we live in and also we depend on it, the question can also be interpreted as:
“Why does the universe we are living in exist?”
This would be a more appropriate question because it does not put humanity in the center of the universe and so avoiding the old mistake from being repeated again.
Independent of whatever you believe in, the question can be simplified one more time:
“Why does anything exist at all?”
That would be a good replacement which brings us even further to the origin.
We do not need to understand how the universe works to think about why it does exist. At least we all do agree that there is something. It can be that, what we can see or measure. It can be much more than that which is yet to be discovered, if it can be. It might be some sort of a dream and no way to determine what reality is. But why does it look exactly the way it is?
Time to switch to another perspective.
The situation-based perspective
To get to the origin of the universe we first need to define words to be able to use the language properly.
Useful definitions for the upcoming explainations are as follows:
Universe: This is everything which is more than nothing. Any kind of model e.g. multiple universes, are a universe. There is only one universe. If there are more, they can be seen as one family. They have in common that they are all universes and they all together would be summarized as: the universe. We are part of it.
Nothingness: This is the absence of everything. No matter, no energy whatsoever. It is easier to grasp the universe than the nothingness, because the latter has no finite components that help to get any clue.
The basic idea of the situation-based perspective is to think solely about the origin and search for the only possible situations which could have been the first or better, the basic ones. These are the ones which are on top of all the other possible situations. Well, it turnes out that there are only two different situations remaining:
- Only nothingness.
- A universe.
We have situation 1 as the valid one.
[If nothingness and universe can coexist, the result would be universe again (1).]
Could there ever have been situation 0?
Clearly, it would be much more likely that situation 0 is the preferred one as it is easier to accomplish since there is nothing that needs to be accomplished at all.
So the issue is, why is there no situation 0, although it is a possible situation, too? By the way, situation 0 is the only available alternative to a universe.
Situation 0 Situation 1
Nothingness Universe
Size 0 or infinite finite (e.g. 1 feet)
Information 0 finite (e.g. 1 bit)
Time no time infinite
Age no time infinite
(time and
space unseperable)
To create a universe out of nothing would mean, that the information suddenly jumps from 0 to a finite value. If there were time, then it would happen in exactly 0 seconds. Thus, the universe had to be always there. There never was a situation 0, yet it is the only possible alternative we can think of. So it must be taken into consideration. It would be a mistake to simply ignore this only alternative situation.
Can the universe come out of nothing: No!
Can the universe be there without the alternative option nothingness: No again!
Situation 0 has no time (no motion) and no information. There are two different size-models, though.
We know that Situation 0 never ever was valid. But we also know that it must be considered as an alternative, a counterpart for the universe.
Sub-0: Situation 0 / size zero
If nothingness is a dot of size 0, then it would open up the possibility that there can be an infinite number of such dots or nothingnesses. Nothingness plus nothingness will still be nothingness and the size of each nothingness always is 0. Thus, placing only two dots together will still lead to a size of 0. However, what will happen, if the number of dots equals an infinite value? The dots would all fit into a space of 0. But what if they are infinite in number?
Sub-1: Situation 0 / size infinite
If nothingness has no limits it can be assumed that there is an infinite size available. Nothingness cannot have a limitation in size because a finite dimension requires defined borders or information about it which would be more than nothing. So the Situation 0 cannot have any borders or limits to keep its state. Its size can be seen as infinite eventhough there is no space.
Both situations (Sub-0, Sub-1) do not only remind us again of the digital world of technology.
These two situations have in common to bring two extremes, and nothing else, together.
They are:
Zero and Infinite
This is the notional origin of the universe. It never was a valid situation, yet without it, no universe could be there instead. The universe depends on its counterpart situation to be existent. The clash of the two extremes in a forbidden situation, which never happened of course, is the origin of the universe. But it also makes clear, that the origin is not to find in the universe itself and certainly not as the beginning of time.
The origin of the universe (situation 1) never occurred, but the basic two situations (one as the counterpart of the other) made it possible that situation 1 is valid and situation 0 not.
Where is god in all that?
By finding a way to unveil god it is helpful to look for the motivation that makes one seek after it. It is humanity that invented the word “god“ after all. And there are even more different names and fantasy figures.
In this book we are talking about the mother of all gods, to avoid that any of the invented gods were being made by another god which is even higher in hierarchy.
When thinking about the origin of the universe it is important to take just the one god of all gods.
There are many situations which evoke the motivation for humans to believe in god:
e.g. humans see themselves as the center of the universe and so claim to be the most advanced lifeform that exists. To compensate this arrogant claim, it is necessary to invent an intelligent being which is more powerful than everyone. By doing so, these people do no more feel arrogant as they become servants to totalitarian dictatorship with a dictator that cannot be taken away or touched by anyone.
A second motivation for believing in a god is the underestimated force of social networking. In times of loneliness and hopelessnes, perhaps even accompanied by suffering and much pain, leading to the thought that a life could come to an end in such an emergency situation, there might be no other option left as to speak to god because individuals depend on social interaction. They even invent friends and enjoy to talk to things. To get an idea of how important social networking is, go to a supermarket and you have many thousands of people work for you. They all help to bring food to the store. How many people are involved in the design of the screw of the speed indicator of the truck which will transport food to the supermarked? Social networks are often invisible today but highly organised, very broad but also strong and intact. We fully depend on it.
A third motivation is revolution. Poor or unhappy people feel uncomfortable when they have to obey rich and powerful people even if they do just benefit from them and do not share success. So the non-rich need to point with their fingers to a god which is more powerful than all the rich and all powerful people altogether. After all, every human looks quite the same and should have the same rights, too.
A more romatic way of thinking do those who go out into nature and are overwhelmed by its beauty. They say that a god is required to create such a beauty. This brings us back again to the biggest mistake because these people place themselfes to the center making the universe one that must have been made only for them. But we can put that claim to the test. Lets take a box and climb up to a high mountain. On the top of it we will enjoy a wonderful panorama. One might say, it feels like being closer to god. Not so for the animal which we have in the box. After taking our blackdevil angler fish out of it, he would turn to us and say if he could: I am sorry, I don´t understand where is the beauty here. Please let me dive down to the deepest waters so I can feel comfortable again.
It is a matter of perspective.
The blackdevil angler fish is a complex lifeform as well. They even have luminous organs which we don´t have.
The one who says that nature on earth’s surface is so beautiful, that god must have created it, simply does not consider that there is life on earth which finds a place in complete darkness much more beautiful than anything on the surface.
Since the blackdevil angler fish can live so deep under the water, wouldn’t that creature be a better candidate for the center point?
Of course we find nature very beautiful. We fully depend on it. Every lifeform will find its environment beautiful because it could not have survived otherwise. No matter how it looks, there is no other choice for us as to feel happy in your home.
If our species was not able to adapt during the whole process of its developement, it would have been extinct immediately, never having had a chance to grow.
But beside all that there are two main situations when talking about belief:
- Life was brought to the planet earth (direct approach)
- Someone or something had to build the universe including the capability to create life (indirect approach)
Going back to the origin, which is a situation, there is no time and so there are no processes occuring.
There are just situations that need to be taken into consideration. The situation which describes nothingness must be considered as well; cannot be ignored.
If we would ignore it, we would repreat the same old mistake one more time by refusing to see possibilities beyond what we can imagine within our home, the universe. That would make us again the center of the universe.
The situation 0 cannot be described by mathematics and we know that science cannot help answering our questions. But as a kind of symbolic illustration, the situation can be showen as an equation in spite of it:
Zero x Infinite = Undefined
Whereas we know that the universe cannot pop up out of nothingness, we also must see the fact that there is the possible situation 0 that brings zero and infinite together. In mathematics the result would be not defined. But given the fact that a result has to be, since the situation itself would force it to come, we need to think about what “undefined” does mean. Clearly it does not mean zero or infinite.
Since there must be a result, which is what we call the universe, “undefined” turns into finite.
That is the universe we became a part of and we are living in.
An individual who tends to feel like the center of the universe might ask: why do we look the way we do? But that is not the issue at all.
A finite universe has a finite complexity. And we, plus our whole surrounding, are the products, which have to represent that certain complexity (within finite (physical) laws).
It is popular that so many people prefer to argue a god which equals the universe, yet there is always something expected to be outside the universe, too.
We live in a time where nearly no one any longer believes in an old wise man with a white beard who is making himself comfortable somewhere between the clouds. The universe itself, however, will not be a satisfying replacement for any type of god, because it is so obviouse that there also must be something that was/is outside.
However it never was anything outside. Situation 0 only exists as situation and not as the valid reality. And that situation is called nothingness. It forces the universe to come into existence and to be the sole valid situation.
It is mostly overlooked that both situations depend on each other. There, where is no time at all, because nothingness has no time, no development can happen. So the universe always was there because it couldn’t be developed. Development requires time and it can only happen under situation 1 (universe).
Today there are even many people who go one step further and say: What we think we will never know, is most likely what can be identified as god. This is known as gap filling. At least in this case god is dividing everything into two parts: the part we know and the part we don’t know.
But when reading the previouse sentence one more time, it appears ridiculous to reduce god to the more misty part, to the part we don’t know.
God is more like a digital god providing exactly two possible situations for the origin of which one of them never had a chance to be valid. One of the two basic situations (situation 0 or nothingness) would immediately turn itself to situation 1 because of the ultimate extremes which would be brought together.
There is a question that remains, though.
Why there are exactly two basic situations?
We will never know and the question will remain a mystery. So if there is anything like a god, it is not a designer, intelligent being or one that can control something. It would be precisely this mystery which is one we can be certain of that it never will be solved.