Theory of Everything

So, before the Lavender one set off for Korea, she asked me if I "believed" in super-string theory (one of the latest developments in theoretical physics, yadda, yadda, already superseded by the emerging M-theory, so I‘m told). I didn't have the necessary language or intellectual constructs to answer the question adequately at the time, but I have recently come across both and so will try to present a somewhat exhaustive explanation of my feelings on the "reality" of any theory, scientific or otherwise, below.

The cogent phrase to keep in mind for the following is this: the model is not the reality. This is a restating of Alfred Korzybski's phrase, "the map is not the territory", or as Robert Anton Wilson puts it, in a more gustatory form, "the menu is not the meal." This may seem obvious enough, but if we consider that no sensation, no stimulus, neither internal nor external, comes to us but through a model or map of reality that we use to order and make sense of the near-infinite amount of stimulus with which we are constantly bombarded, we begin to see the depth and implications of this thought.

First, a little background may be in order, so that we might begin to grok the depth of this. For one, scientists have known for some time now (or at least theorized) that the vast majority off all the “stuff” in the universe is "dark" matter. In fact, all the matter and energy that we can sense, with even our most sensitive and powerful scientific instruments, amounts to only about 5% of all the matter and energy in the universe. This seems an almost comically small base of information to be theorizing about the nature of the universe from.

As for objective reality as we, as mere humans, experience it; while we think we see the world around us as it actually is, we are oblivious to all sorts of stimuli and phenomena occurring all around us, all the time. The entire electro-magnetic spectrum, outside the relatively small band of visible light, is invisible to us. We know that radio waves are passing through the air around us (and us) all the time, and yet, without the aid of a radio, we are totally insensate. The same goes for infra-red, ultraviolet, X, and gamma radiation, not to mention all the sonic vibrations above and below our normal range of hearing and the minute aromas of which we are (blissfully?) unaware, but which seem quite apparent to our four-legged friends. And beyond the merely bio-physical limitations restricting our range of awareness, we also have to contend with psychological phenomena that serve to distort or totally block out much, if not all, of the stimuli that we do perceive. We have all had the experience of selective hearing, where we block out the environmental "noise" around us while focused on some absorbing task. Added to this sort of attentional blocking we humans, highly-developed as we are, are also prone to all sorts of psychological imprinting and conditioning, manifesting as various defense mechanisms and prejudices that can and do greatly distort all of the input we receive from our physical and social environments. Equally important is our neuro-linguistic programming which literally hypnotizes us into seeing things like “trees”, which, in reality have no existence outside of the neuro-linguistic structure itself (there is no such thing as “a tree”, in the generic sense, only this or that particular tree, which is genetically and existentially unique from all other “trees”).

It would be possible, at this point, to bemoan our sorry state as "objective" observers of the universe, and conclude that any "true" knowledge of the universe is precluded by our immense perceptual handicaps. Consider, however, that if we really could perceive every stimuli and phenomena that makes up the universe, we would be functionally "blind". If you were aware of all the ultraviolet and infra-red light along with radio waves and cell phone transmissions, not to mention "dark" matter, it would be exceedingly difficult to drive your car to the grocery store to pick up some bread and ice cream, not to mention carry on a conversation, view a sunset or run a multi-national corporation. And without the abstractions and generalizations of our neuro-linguistic models, scientific knowledge would be impossible, as would be forest management programs. In short, in order to function in the universe it is necessary that we remain unaware of the vast majority of the stimuli we are constantly assaulted with and necessary that we order, sort, and distort the stimuli that we do receive.

The stimuli that we filter out and/or distort, and the ways in which stimuli are distorted, is the function of something I've taken to calling our "reality tunnel," after the great Dr. Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson. Our reality tunnel starts, on the most basic level, with the body/mind apparatus, which, as we have seen, serves to block out the vast majority of all the "stuff" in the universe and allows us to deal with the little bit left over. Layered on top of that are our neuro-linguistic programs that order and shape our perceptions, along with the various psychological screens mentioned above (i.e. a pessimistic attitude, or a fear of rejection). The effect of all these social, psychological and biological blocks and distortions is what I will refer to as our reality tunnel.

To some extent our various reality tunnels agree with one another. This is what we call "consensus reality". We all agree, for instance, that this is a chair that I am sitting in. However, our reality tunnels may also diverge from one another. I may see the chair I am sitting is as a humble and rather shoddy piece of furniture, while someone from another culture may see it as an ostentatious display of wealth. Consensus reality, then, forms only a very small part of “reality,” or perhaps better, of “realities.” These realities correspond to our varying models of the universe but, of course, the model is not the reality.

Because the only thing we can have knowledge of are our individual reality tunnels, no particular reality tunnel can be said to have precedence over any other. In fact, the only statement that we can make regarding the “truth” of any particular reality tunnel is that it is not “the truth”, that is, it is not reality. We are reminded here of Einstein’s thought experiments that led ultimately to the theory of special relativity. These experiments showed that the concepts of physics such as distance and motion are dependent upon the perspective from which one is observing them. Right now I am sitting practically motionless in front of my computer, spinning around the earth’s axis at thousands of miles an hour, and/or hurtling through vast reaches of space at near light speed, all depending upon which perspective one views the motion of my body from. As to whether my body is “really” sitting still or traveling at mind-numbing speed, science can only answer “both and neither.” There is no privileged perspective on reality, and so all perspectives must be granted equal validity.

This thought should give us pause to reflect. We have spoken of “consensus reality” above, but even the most widely held of consensus views cannot be given precedence over divergent views, even if held only by one person. Everyone around me may claim that what I am sitting in is a chair of the standard variety, but if I persist in claiming that it is in fact a terrifying dragon with sixteen wings and seven heads, there is no way to “objectively” determine which view is “real”. A physicist, of course, would claim that, whether dragon or chair, it is almost entirely empty space. All of these views are epistemologically equal in that they are all created by models of reality and, once again, the model is not the reality. In answer to the question of what I am “really” seated on, a chair or a dragon or empty space, the only honest reply is, “all of them and none of them.”

Now, this may all seem a little far-fetched to some. Is there really no objective way of knowing what it is I’m sitting on, a chair or a dragon or just empty space? No, there is not. The reason is that our answer will depend on what model of reality we are referring to in gathering information about the object in question. If we see a chair, we are most likely referring to a standard human nervous system model, which, as we have seen, blocks out far more information than it gathers. Tweak that model just a little though, adding some serotonin here and blocking some acetylcholine receptors there, and the resulting view of reality can change drastically. A chair, for instance, becomes a dragon. Or perhaps we forsake the human nervous system model altogether, tweaked or otherwise, in favor of the scientific model, in which case we “see,” with the assistance of super-sensitive analytic equipment and some high-level math, that the chair is in fact almost nothing but empty space, perhaps with a few one dimensional vibrating strings zooming about inside it’s boundaries.

This is why Korzybski felt the word “is” to be the biggest stumbling block in our linguistic conceptual apparatus. Whenever we say something “is” something (“that basketball is orange”), we lie by omission. We know, for instance, that the basketball is not, in fact orange, but is actually blue. It appears orange to us because the ball reflects orange light (or rather, a wavelength of light that our brains present to us as orange) and absorbs blue light. We also know that a color-blind person, or someone with cerebral damage to certain parts of the brain, sees the ball as a different color than we do, yet their perceptions have just as much “validity” as ours. What we should say is, “that basketball appears orange to me at this time,” or, “that object on which you are sitting appears to me, at present, to be a chair.”

And yet, while we cannot say what it is that I am “really” sitting on, chair or dragon or empty space, we do know that there is something there, some source of stimulus, even if we can’t say “objectively” what it is. There must be some reality, therefore, that underlies our personal realities, some ultimate reality which is the source of all the stimulus that we build into our discrete realities by way of our various models. There is an objective reality, but we can only know about it subjectively.

But might we not experience this greater reality directly, without the intermediary distortion and blocking of our biological and psychological models? The answer, I think, is yes, and that many women and men from all over the world have, in fact, had this experience. However, because the experience of this ultimate reality takes place outside of all reality tunnels, there is, by definition, no way of having knowledge of it, since knowledge is a product of the sorting and ordering of stimuli that is the work of the models that have been left behind. Ultimate Reality cannot be known, therefore, only experienced. However, even saying that this ultimate reality can be experienced may be misleading, since perception requires the selective blocking of certain stimuli which is incompatible with the “experience” of ultimate reality, and who can imagine an experience without perception? This is no doubt the source of the highly metaphoric and ambiguous language used by the mystics, saints, and sages of all times, and why many talk of being, becoming, or being filled by God, or Godhead, rather than perceiving it (God, in this case, being just another name for the ultimate reality that lies behind our individual realities). Perhaps we should say that one can not know or experience reality, but only be it.

But what about science? Doesn’t science offer us an objective view of the cosmos, or at least the 5% of it that we can sense? If something can be scientifically proven, can it not be said to be more real than an individual’s skewed perceptions? No. Science is not objective, firstly for the simple fact that it is not possible to test all conceivable hypotheses. Because of time and resource limitations, not to mention sheer impossibility, as regards dark matter for example, science must necessarily limit its investigations to testing those hypotheses, which seem plausible to the scientist at the time. Hypotheses are subjectively chosen, in other words. A truly objective science would have to give equal weight to all hypotheses, until all could be tested and either verified or disproven. Only then, after testing all conceivable hypotheses, could an objective science give a truly objective answer .

For instance, I have a hypothesis that all matter is in fact composed of very small fairies who fly about, much like the particles of conventional physical theory, and the flapping of whose wings gives objects the appearance of solid form. Oh yes, and these fairies are smaller than anything yet discovered in physics, in fact they compose the very strings of string theory. Now what does our supposedly objective scientist have to say about my hypothesis? That it is ridiculous? That it is a piece of raving lunacy and that I would do better to devote my time to making mud pies than to theorizing about the nature of the universe? Of course not, for she is an objective woman, our scientist, and simply informs me that my hypothesis is very interesting but there is, at present, no way of testing any part of it and so a hypothesis it must remain. Not proven, but not disproven either, and so still a possibility. A science (like our actually existing science) that pretends to give a definitive answer before all the hypotheses have been duly tested cannot be said to be in any way objective. From the minute that the scientist forms her hypothesis, she is relying on a huge mass of unstated social biases, neuro-linguistic programming, and physical and conceptual limitations that make the whole endeavor hopelessly subjective from the very beginning. And if the science is subjective in the beginning, can it really be said to be objective in the end?

To demonstrate: math is widely considered to be the most objective of sciences. “2 + 2 = 4” is practically synonymous with undeniable truth. It has been shown, however, that even the most basic of our mathematical principals are based on nothing but human subjectivity. The story of Euclid’s fifth postulate is instructive.

As we should all know, the Greek Euclid was the first person (the first that we know of, anyway) to create a systematic and logical system of geometry. He based his geometry on five postulates or axioms. The first four were pretty straight forward, “between any two points there exists one line connecting them,” stuff like that, that just seems too obvious to second guess. His fifth postulate, however, was quite a bit more wordy and complicated, something about converging lines and the angle of incidence being less than ninety degrees. Just looking at the five postulates, the fifth one seems really out of place. Euclid wasn’t too pleased with it. He tried to get rid of it by proving it as a proposition based on the other four axioms, but no dice, it couldn’t be done. He wanted like anything to just get rid of it somehow, problem was, he couldn’t prove more than 28 propositions without assuming it. It seemed right to him, but somehow it seemed wrong too.

The fifth postulate came to be known as the “parallel postulate” because rephrased, what it says is this; given a line l and a point A not on that line, there exists one line through A that is parallel to l (draw it out, it’ll make sense). It continued to seem wrong to mathematicians long after Euclid was returned to the dust from whence he sprang, and many a budding mathematician whiled away countless hours of their youth working on the mysterious fifth postulate. Most of them grew out of it eventually and went on to more productive areas of math, and for more than a millennia, no one got any farther on the problem than Euclid did. Then a couple of mathematicians thought they’d try to show the necessity of the fifth postulate by showing that assuming something else would lead to insoluble contradictions in the resulting geometric system. One guy assumed that there were an infinite number of lines through A that were parallel to l, somebody else assumed that there weren’t any parallel lines. The thing was they found that the resulting mathematics, using the “nonsensical” alternate fifth postulates, worked out just as well as Euclid’s geometry. This was puzzling.

Eventually, it was discovered that the new “non-Euclidean” geometries were simply descriptions of geometry in “non-flat” space. For instance, the geometry that assumed an infinite number of parallel lines was describing geometry in hyperbolic space, that is, if space is shaped like a hyperbola rather than a flat plane. The geometry that assumed no parallel lines described geometry on a sphere. This was interesting enough in itself, while still remaining in the realm of mathematical abstraction, but then Einstein went and used Riemann’s non-Euclidean geometry in his groundbreaking theory of physical reality, and showed that it was necessary for describing the universe. Robert Anton Wilson has a phrase for this kind of thing. It begins with “mind” and ends with a four-letter explitive starting with “f”.

So, does that mean that Riemann’s geometry is right and Euclid’s is wrong? No, it means that they each describe reality from a particular perspective. Our universe is neither Euclidean nor non-Euclidean, so neither are “right” or “wrong,” in the usual sense, rather, they each present us with a different aspect of some larger, more fundamental truth, of which both are but particular expressions (the particulars of that expression depending on the fundamental axioms upon which the system is founded).

And the thing about axioms is that they are, by definition, unproven (and therefore, at least possibly, subjective). Perhaps it is the case that we first discovered Euclidean geometry not because it is somehow more fundamentally “real,” but because of some idiosyncrasy of our bio-physical or neuro-linguistic apparatus. Maybe it was because Euclid worked out his theorems on a flat surface and not a hyperbolic one. Either way, it seems likely that we first discovered Euclidean geometry because our models of the universe somehow predisposed us to. But of course, the model is not the reality.

Returning now to the “hard” sciences, we see additionally that science experiments do not yield theories or explanations, only data, and it is then up to the scientist to formulate a model of some sort to explain all, or most, of the data. However, even if the model does explain all the data, that does not necessarily mean that it is the “real” explanation of reality, only that it seems to explain all the data we know about at this time, and that we haven't devised any other model that explains the data as well or better. Again, formation of the model to fit the reality is a totally subjective endeavor, dependent largely upon what the scientist thinks is likely.

The final nail in the coffin of “objective” science comes from Kurt Gödel, whose eponymous theorem proved that no logical system can be both complete and non-contradictory. That is, if a logical system describes all that it purports to describe, it will necessarily contain a contradiction (for instance, a mathematical system cannot prove the axioms upon which it is founded), or, on the other hand, if the logical system is free from contradictions, it is necessarily incomplete, having as it were, some dark areas which the system cannot “see.” This is the case for what is called “neutral geometry,” which is basically Euclid without the fifth postulate. You can solve a number of geometric problems with neutral geometry, but there are many more that you can’t solve. For instance, we all know that the sum of the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry, but neutral geometry isn’t able to give an answer one way or the other. To quote Wikipedia:

Absolute geometry is an example of an incomplete postulational system. Consider the statement "The sum of the angles in every triangle is equal to two right angles". This is not provable in absolute geometry, because if it was, it would be true in hyperbolic geometry, and the sum of the angles in a hyperbolic triangle is less than two right angles. However, the negation of the statement, that there exists a triangle whose angles don't add up to two right angles, is not provable either, because if it was, it would be provable in Euclidean geometry, and the sum of the angles in Euclidean geometry is always two right angles. Therefore this proposition is undecidable in absolute geometry.

Science, of course, works through the medium of logical systems and therefore all supposedly comprehensive scientific theories, such as the physicists’ coveted “theory of everything” (or T.O.E.), must fall prey to Gödel’s theorem (if everything is, in fact, composed of one-dimensional vibrating strings, what are those made out of and where did they come from?). It is futile, therefore, to look to science to provide us with any ultimate answers. It is probable, I think, that if physicists are successful in their hunt for the elusive T.O.E., that it will only be a matter of time before a competing T.O.E. arrives on the scene, like Non-Euclidean geometry, to throw a monkey wrench in the whole works again. At that point, of course, we have to start looking for a new T.O.E. that can explain how there can be more than one T.O.E. And round and round we go…

Reality, however, Ultimate Reality, that which lies behind all of our theorizing and conceptualizing, that source of all stimuli which our bodies and minds literally shape around us into our perceived “realities”, is neither incomplete nor contradictory. It is what Rene Guenon terms the “metaphysical infinite”, and our reality tunnels are far too constrained and finite to ever contain it. We may be able to experience It (or be It), but we can never conceptualize It, never know It. All our perceptions are the result of our particular reality tunnels, our models for organizing and interacting with the universe, and the model is not the reality .