A Brief History of Creation - Part One
What is the loop of Creation? How is there something from
nothing?
In spite of the fact that it is impossible to prove that
anything exists beyond one's perception since any such proof
would involve one's perception (I observed it, I heard it, I
thought about it, I calculated it, and etc.), science deals with
a so-called objective reality "out there," beyond one's
perception professing to describe Nature objectively (as if
there was a Nature or reality external to one's perception). The
shocking impact of Matrix was precisely the valid
possibility that what we believed to be reality was but our
perception; however, this was presented through showing a real
reality wherein the perceived reality was a computer simulation.
Many who toy with the idea that perhaps, indeed, we are computer
simulations, deviate towards questions, such as, who could
create such software and what kind of hardware would be needed
for such a feat. Although such questions assume that reality is
our perception, they also axiomatically presuppose the existence
of an objective deterministic world "out there" that
nevertheless must be responsible for how we perceive our
reality. This is a major mistake emphasizing technology and
algorithms instead of trying to discover the nature of reality
and the structure of creation. As will be shown in the
following, the required paradigm shift from "perception is our
reality fixed within an objective world," to "perception is
reality without the need of an objective world 'out there,'" is
provided by a dynamic logical structure. The Holophanic loop
logic is responsible for a consistent and complete worldview
that not only describes, but also creates whatever can be
perceived or experienced.
Stating that it is impossible to prove the existence of anything
beyond one's perception is not saying there is nothing beyond
perception, only that if there is anything, then whatever that
is, is indefinite. It could be argued that the existence of
physical laws, the universal perception that the apple falls to
the ground is proof of an objective reality. However, this
universal agreement is also our perception. It could be argued
that if we cannot decide what to perceive, and everybody
perceives the same physical reality, then there must be some
lawfulness that dictates how we perceive and therefore, this
lawfulness could be external to our perception. However, this
lawfulness, as we shall see later on, is the precise lawfulness
that creates perception, the process of definition, which is not
external to perception (this process creates the perceived and
the perceiver, which then gives meaning to this process - a loop
- but about that, later). It could be argued, that hitting our
knee on the table - whether we believe in the table or not -
will hurt. The table is external to our body, but not to our
perception. What then is perception? It is relating, a process
of definition, defining and thereby rendering meaningful what
has been perceived.
What then is this process of definition? It is creating borders
within which one's perception gains meaning. The word
"definition" comes from the Latin de finire, meaning,
making finite or limited. In Hebrew, definition is HAGDARA
(הגדרה), meaning, to border. Any
definition necessarily implies what the definition is not, or
stated differently, to have meaning, whatever is defined
explicitly includes the meaning by implicitly excluding
everything else. Consequently, to define means to place the
defined object within borders that by default create something
beyond the borders of the definition. What is this something
beyond the defined? The implicitly excluded everything else, or
in other words, the indefinite. The paramount importance of
incorporating the indefinite within a consistent logical
structure cannot be overemphasized. The indefinite itself is a
paradox, and incorporating it within the Holophanic logical
structure engenders the loop of Creation where the dynamic
structure of paradoxes is both the creative force of existence,
and also the proof of the necessity of existence.
To better grasp the impetus of Creation, let's look at the
indefinite and paradoxes. What does "indefinite" mean? Anything
as long as it is not specified (not defined); anything that
appears both within and beyond the borders of the definition and
thereby rendering the border superfluous, which means, no
border, no definition. If nevertheless we would attempt to
define the notion "indefinite," then that's a paradox because if
we succeed, then it is defined, which contradicts its meaning -
its indefiniteness - and the word "indefinite" means that it
cannot be defined. This is an example of a paradox, that in
essence means, if it is what it is, then it is not what it is,
yet if it is not what it is, then it is what it is. A paradox is
a creature that consists of a structure (how it is defined, the
dynamic process on its way to stabilization) that contradicts
its significance (what it is, the stabilized entity). What
characterizes a paradox is the motion between its
structure and significance, where the structure implies
that its significance contradicts its structure, and vice versa.
Another example of a paradox would be "wholeness." Wholeness
(totality, infinite, boundless) can only be wholeness if we can
find a way to define it so that it includes everything and there
is nothing beyond it. However, if we define wholeness, then to
have meaning, it must be bordered within the walls of the
definition, which implies that there is something beyond this
border, in which case it is not wholeness. Or in more formal
language, wholeness is only wholeness if it is not wholeness,
which is an inconsistency. If we are satisfied with that, then
we have completed the definition of wholeness. However, if we
try to include the beyond created by our earlier
definition within the borders of our next attempt at defining
wholeness, then we gain a new definition of wholeness, which by
the sheer structure of the process of defining creates a new
beyond. In this case, the process of defining wholeness
will be consistent but incomplete, and wholeness will remain
indefinite.
Contemplating the paradox of Creation, the ancient Egyptian myth
of Creation springs to mind, the myth of the self-creating god,
Amun (or Amon). Amun masturbated and swallowed his semen, after
which he spit it out in the form of a ball, thereby impregnating
his mother, the sky. And only then, was he born. Thus Amun was
his own father. Those pious who discovered the illustrated
version of this myth in Karnak covered up the erect phallus of
Amun, and with it, this story of Creation was laid into
obscurity. The Holophanic model of Creation could regard this
Egyptian myth as Amun retromorphously creating himself. I
have coined the word retromorphous to mean, defining in
retrospect, turning non-being into the potential of whatever the
observation is made from, or in other words, creating the past
from the present, creating the source from its outcome, which is
the basis of complexity in the context of the loop logic. That
is, only after Amun was born can he give meaning to his mother,
the potential from which he emanated and to the process that
created him (as represented by masturbation and incest) whereby
he was born. Of course, neither the sky nor the masturbating
Amun have meaning until Creation takes place de facto and
Amun emerges. I find this an enticing illustration of the basic
paradox of existence.
So how can there be something from nothing?
To be continued...