How was the Universe created? When did it begin?

It wasn't. And it didn't. But conventional wisdom insists the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition.

Click to start/stop

The rules of cause and effect seem to govern everything - even the realm of thought, itself - so by default the instinctive presumption is that the physical presence of the cosmos must have been coaxed into being by an instance of creation.

The existence of nothing needs no justification, it is considered essentially natural and intrinsically logical, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a dark, dimensionless primal void - a non-Universe, completely empty, without time or even space. Presumably, this featureless vacuum reigned supreme until the dawn of time, when an extraordinary transformation brought forth the physical manifestation we now call 'the cosmos'. Theologians profess that an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the earth in an act of divine inspiration, while contemporary cosmologists often espouse a version of Big Bang theory that envisions a Universe still spewing from the bowels of a spontaneously spawned singularity. But the process of cause and effect involves two basic elements - a cause and an effect. You can't have one without the other, so if the cosmos was created, it must have been created by 'something' - the presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed before the event. And if everything that exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been the product of some predecessor - which, in turn, must have been predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

There are those who would claim that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. Beware the supernatural. In the absence of logic there can be no rational argument. When the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded then so can others - without limit.

The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. A state of being may change from one condition to another. But existence is not a state of being, it is not a condition, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can act or be acted upon, before a state of being can evolve, something must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a product of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a product of cause and effect - the result of 'creation'.

Change is a function of Existence

Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of creation is contrary to logic. It is a popular myth precipitated by man's tendency to personify his world by naively equating life with existence. Life begins. Life ends. Life is a temporary condition - the phenomenon of existence is not. The cosmos didn't suddenly pop into being nor is it likely to vanish in a similar manner.

So how do you explain the physical presence of the Universe?

Although the phenomenon of existence is not explained by the rules of cause and effect, it is still very much subject to the laws of nature. It is based on a principle which is even more basic than action and reaction - a paradigm so simple and so obvious that it has remained undiscovered since the advent of human consciousness. Sir Isaac Newton almost recognized it when he codified the third law of his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) - the law of reciprocal actions. He simply didn't carry the scope of his theory far enough. The answer is locked inside the structure of every equation. It is the very cornerstone of logic, itself. But to see it clearly, it must be approached from the proper perspective.

Since the time of Democritus of Abdera (460-370 BC) it has been postulated that the material Universe is comprised of elementary components or particles that - although they may be profoundly small in nature - are not infinitely divisible. Before the smallest non-empty set can be assembled, there must exist a single element with which the set may be populated,

Click to start/stop

an indivisible existence not composed of separate parts, something that consists only of itself, an elemental identity that I call an 'entity'.

The ordinary objects with which we interact in our daily environment are composites. A chair, for example, is the label we use to conveniently describe a set of parts including a seat, legs, back and arms. If its construction is of wood, then those parts are made of sets labeled ‘cells’ that are comprised of sets called ‘molecules’ that are formed by sets of ‘atoms’, whose components have been theoretically superseded as fundamental elements by a handful of quark and lepton particles and anti-particles - along with a small assortment of force carriers. Physicists attribute all the properties of matter to this simple set of fungible building blocks. The prevailing assumption of the Standard Model of Particle Physics is that fundamental particles must be structureless and homogeneous, the essence of simplicity - and as quantum 'mechanics' experiment with the microcosm, they tend to interpret their results accordingly. But like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, their interpretation leaves much to be desired.

What is today commonly believed about fundamental particles is as much conjecture as it is theory. Physicists grudgingly confess their Standard Model includes hypothetical components - undiscovered elements like Higgs Bosons that are presumed to exist solely because they make the equations work. This might be the reason for the advent of such contrived and convoluted concepts as "String Theory" and "M Theory" - abstract paradigms that depend on exotic elements and invisible extra dimensions that rival the fertile fantasies of Lewis Carroll and Jules Verne.

The discipline of sub-atomic science is still in its infancy. And as we take our first few stumbling steps into the realm of the microcosm we would do well to remember that the evolution of knowledge is based on the perpetual process of correcting faulty interpretations. The error in the contemporary Standard Model seems fairly obvious to me. If the fundamental elements of the Universe were structureless and homogeneous, they would be internally indifferentiable - inert and incapable of change. The cosmos would be a static and timeless environment. On the other hand, if elementary particles do, indeed, have sub-structure, then how could they possibly be things comprised only of themselves?

The realm of cause and effect is universally governed by a simple basic principle called the 'Balance of Nature'. This obvious but often ignored element of equilibrium courses throughout the very fabric of the cosmos. For every left there exists a right. For every to there is a fro. For every up there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. For every conceivable vector or numeric value there exists an opposite equivalent. Newton captured the essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics that states every action precipitates a reciprocal event - an equal and opposite reaction. And it's not by mere coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes logic into a device called an equation; which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. From simple addition to quantum mechanics, reciprocal balance is a prevailing dynamic that even the rules of cause and effect must obey.

The way things act and react reflects their nature, the inherent properties of their being. If the realm of cause and effect is universally governed by natural balance, then the source of that equilibrium must reside within the very architecture of existence - within the composition of the elements, themselves. It is obvious that there exists an opposite equivalent for every numeric value and a reciprocal for every vector in our three-dimensional world. If the same law of balance invisibly applies to qualitative values as it apparently does to the quantitative and dimensional properties of existence, then for every quality there should exist an opposite. And, indeed, contemporary physics does portray the material world as particles of matter and anti-matter. Each type of particle has an anti-particle and when the two collide, they disintegrate. But there seems to be a lot more matter than anti-matter floating around the cosmos and, in fact, particles and anti-particles aren't opposite existences, they are simply elements in opposing condition - materials that react to each other by changing state and converting into energy on contact. If they were truly opposite existences they would mutually annihilate. No energy would remain. Their properties would totally disappear. They would simply cease to exist without a trace.

Just as you would expect every action to be offset by an equal and opposite reaction within the realm of an event, we would expect qualitative balance to reside within the physical boundary of an entity - not be disbursed between two or more separate existences as independent particles and anti-particles. We wouldn't normally be able to tell a quality from its anti-quality by just looking at it, but with the use of a little color coding I will attempt to illustrate how reciprocal qualitative values may exist within the physical boundaries of an entity :

Within the realm of subtractive colors, the opposite (negative) of the color quality MAGENTA is GREEN. Equivalent proportions of MAGENTA and GREEN produce BLACK. But GREEN is, itself, an equal mixture of the colors CYAN and YELLOW.

Just as the quantitative value of Ø is equivalent to two opposing numbers (+1) + (-1), the qualitative value of BLACK is equivalent to three opposing colors MAGENTA + CYAN + YELLOW. All of the opposing sub-elements must be present in precisely equal proportion in order to reciprocally balance each other and maintain a neutral value. Of course the number of opposing sub-elements within a fundamental particle may not be limited in scope to two - or three - or any other finite number.

The concept of reciprocal balance requires every instance of being within an entity to have an opposite equivalent - but instead of each point having a diametric opposite (two defined points offsetting each other), the opposing sub-qualities of any given point in an element may be distributed among the entire set of remaining points. Just as in the illustration above, if any point in the color wheel is removed, the sum of the remaining colors would not be 'perfectly black', its value would be something other than neutral and a law of nature would be broken. The substructure of a fundamental particle is not comprised of independent elements that could exist separately on their own. The very existence of each point within the entity is co-dependent upon the existence of the remainder of the parcel. Every moment of physical presence in the element is an interdependent contributor to the perfection of its balance. And it is natural balance - not structureless homogeneity - that defines it as a single existence, a unique instance of null value - something which is not whole unless all of it is encompassed, an element comprised only of itself.

There is a basic law of physics that states two things cannot simultaneously occupy the same space. But two points of existence within a fundamental particle are not 'two things', they are mutually co-dependent instances of the same element - two parts of the same identity. The rules of conduct within an entity may be very different from those that govern the interaction between two entities. Internally, an entity's sub-qualities have the ability to morph or blend like the illustration above to produce a vast range of different conditions or states of being.

Fundamental particles must be truly 'in-dividual'. They are not comprised of independent components, so no portion of an elementary entity could ever be separated from the remainder. When a composite is severed, as in slicing a loaf of bread or tearing a piece of paper, electromagnetic forces holding independent particles in proximity to each other are overcome by the force of the device used to separate the material. But the field of existence within an entity is continuous. To cleave a fundamental particle, something must be inserted between two of its continuous points. Two independent existences cannot occupy the same space, so the point you are attempting to cleave would simply move. To sever an entity at a point within its domain would require the point of separation to physically cease to exist, and if change is a function of existence, then before the most infinitesimal point of being could be annihilated, it would lose its ability to change or be changed.

It's natural balance that defines an entity - not homogeneity. Unlike those facile examples of structureless simplicity touted by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, reciprocal symmetry suggests a limitless spectrum of dynamic elements both material and ethereal in nature, a wondrous cosmic fabric of infinite variety.

For every value V( + ) there exists an equal and opposite value or set of values V( - ) such that: The sum of the values in the Universe is equivalent to the 'null' set

The phenomenon of existence is explained by a principle - not a process. That necessary but indefinite primordial element we call "nothing" is simply an abstract interpretation of the symmetrical balance that pervades the structure of the Universe. The existence of neutrality requires no justification - it is essentially natural and intrinsically logical. Nothing is, in fact, the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum and it is the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system.