The premise that the Universe was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event is a common assumption that appeals seductively to human intuition. Many secular scholars calculate it all began about fourteen billion years ago. Religious models depict a much more recent event, but both science (with noted exceptions) and religion seem to agree the physical presence of our cosmos must be the product of some ancient omnificent manifestation. While it may be tempting to defer to the ostensibly superior knowledge of scholarly pundits with monikers suffixed with magna cum laudinous acronyms of academic achievement, the truth is that the mindset of contemporary academia is mired in a popular but illogical myth that persistently impedes the progress of human enlightenment. They call it "Creation".

The conspicuous logic which destroys the mythology of Genesis and mathology of Big Bang isn't exactly rocket science: Before something can change, before it can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

This is a rather simple axiom, intrinsically self-evident since any who might dissent must believe in things that don't exist. Existence in the absence of change is possible, change in the absence of existence is not. The fact that existence is required in order for change to occur explicitly means cause and effect is a function of (derived from) the phenomenon of existence. The Universe didn't suddenly transform from a condition of non-existence into a state of physical being because existence isn't a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. No phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative and the incongruities that result from any conceivable premise of creation are obvious:

If there ever was a time when non-existence prevailed then neither matter nor energy (basically the same thing according to Einstein) nor space (ibid spacetime) would have existed. The cosmos would not have just been empty, there would have been no cosmos and no place for existence to begin. If we disregard this absurdity and continue to presume the physical presence of the Universe was created, the implied pre-existence of some form of creative impetus suddenly violates the contention that nothing existed before that original incipient event. Even if we choose to ignore both of these logical incongruities, the contention that existence requires creation means that whatever sired the Universe was the product of a predecessor which, in turn, must have been similarly predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The perpetual spiral of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that haunts every cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

Existence wasn't 'created'. Everything in the cosmos has always been present in one form or another.

Scholars are quick to point out infinity doesn't exist and they are absolutely correct, but that doesn't mean the cosmos is finite. Infinity is the non-existence of a limit and if a non-existence existed, it wouldn't be a non-existence.

The distance between any two points in the cosmos is certainly finite and a cosmos with a finite amount of space and a finite amount of matter and energy must also be finite in volume, hence, there must be (and always was) some boundary - a distinct location where the cosmos ends and you can go no farther.

A simplistic boundary could be envisioned as a barrier with only a front (facing the cosmos) but no back and nothing would exist beyond. How sad that we would forever have to wonder what it is like on the other side. What would such a boundary look like and could it be made of that proverbial green cheese?

Since there seems to be no evidence that such a culinary boundary exists, theorists have come up with an interesting hypothetical twist in which space curves in upon itself in such a way that for every given point 'A' there is a point 'B' within a finite distance at which motion in any direction will not increase the distance between the two; in fact, if a traveler who could instantaneously traverse a sufficient distance encountered such a point, he would begin to return to his point of origin. The concept describes a "finite but unbounded" Universe and implies a cosmos enveloped in a spherical spacecage. But if finite means limited (and it does) and unbounded means unlimited (and it does), then finite but unbounded is simply oxymoronic. There is no evidence, no principle of science or mathematics and no law of nature that implies the existence of any point, however distant, at which progress becomes regress. While it may be a fascinating hypothesis, it has no basis in reality and relatively few reputable cosmologists still adhere to this model of the Universe.

One popular version of Big Bang (there are many) asserts that once upon a time all the energy, space and matter in the cosmos was compressed down to an infinite density at a single point called the singularity. Fourteen billion years ago, that singularity spontaneously inflated at an enormous rate into a Big Bang that is still expanding at a pace faster than anything except our hypothetical instantaneous traveler could overtake. But at the time of the initial inflation, that infinitesimal singularity was supposedly the entirety of the cosmos. Nothing - not even a location - existed beyond its boundary. So how did it expand? Did it conjure new locations to occupy as it inflated? And since existence isn't temporal, I can only wonder why that singularity waited so long (throughout an eternal past) to blossom.

It is obvious that in a finite and temporal Universe there could be no point of existence beyond 999^999,999 light years from Earth, so to anyone who would venture beyond the safety of our planet I would issue the following warning:

Another version of Big Bang theorizes that although space is infinite, only a finite quantity of mass/energy (same thing according to Einstein) exists within it. Certainly an infinity of space would require no less justification than an infinity of matter, so how do they rationalize imbuing the element of space with the singular attribute of infinitude? In any case, could the cosmos be like a tiny drop of soap blown into a bubble, a single field of existence oscillating in an infinite void between phases of expanding singularity and ultimate collapse in a never ending cycle?

No.

In the battle between gravity versus the second law of thermodynamics even a cyclical Big Bang would eventually suffer an entropy death. Photons have no mass and could not be recalled by the forces of gravity. They would continue to propagate into the infinite realm of space and each Big Crunch would suffer a loss of energy which would have led to its ultimate demise an eternity ago.

If there ever was a Big Bang (and the jury is certainly still out), the only logical version would be that within our local neighborhood (45 billion light years or so with its theoretical expansion factor) of that infinitely populated expanse we call the cosmos, an immensely large volume of mass somehow collapsed into a hyper-critical black hole which then regurgitated. I could almost (but not quite) lend credence to that scenario, but it certainly didn't create the Universe. At most it was a colossal rearrangement of elements which already existed. Cosmologists have spent billions of dollars and thousands of man hours measuring cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and analyzing the spectra of elemental markers in ancient light from distant galaxies (Hubble Red Shift) to speculate about the scope and age of this hypothetical event. But even our most modern technology can, at best, only be considered post-Neanderthal. When you actually think about it, what do we really know about billion year old light waves? Their study has; however, led to a consensus that space, itself, may be able to expand. If such is the case, shouldn't it also have the capacity to shrink? And if space shrinks specifically in the presence of mass, might that not resolve the enigmatic phenomenon of gravity?

Some of the more esoteric cosmologists have assaulted the common laity with convoluted String Theories and M-Theories with extra dimensions, multiverses, parallel dimensions and other hypotheses backed by sophisticated equations. Equations can describe fantasy just as readily as reality and just because an equation is 'beautiful' doesn't mean it isn't falsely premised. Most of those theories literally fly in the face of Occam's Razor and when simple logic gets in the way, they usually employ a reverse engineered 'work-around' to resolve the discrepancies. Simple common sense is not just rarely applied in theoretical cosmological circles, it is often actively discouraged when it conflicts with the status quo or with new esoteric theories promulgated by scholars who must either publish to survive or perish.

Haldane tells us that the world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. But Occam readily assures us that if theories sound far-fetched, it's probably because they are.

The phenomenon of existence is explained by a principle, not a process. That principle is embedded within the architecture of every element in the cosmos. It rules the realm of cause and effect. Its structure is found at the heart and soul of every equation. It's a familiar axiom, universally known and accepted. Its presence is ubiquitous, yet since the inception of scientific inquiry, its true significance has remained undiscovered.

Ironically, the solution to the enigma of existence lays hidden in plain sight.

It's not by mere coincidence that mathematics - the language of science - encodes its logic into a device called an equation which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Sir Isaac Newton codified this essence of natural balance with a law of physics that states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. For every left there exists a right. For every too 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 positive numeric value there is a negative equivalent and for every vector in our three dimensional world there exists a reciprocal. This obvious, but often ignored, element of equilibrium courses throughout the entire fabric of the Universe.

What if the same paradigm of natural balance applies covertly to the realm of qualitative values? Each quality would have to be offset by an opposite equivalent. Indeed, the Standard Model of particle physics does portray the material world as paired sets of fundamental particles and anti-particles, structureless fungible building blocks that include a handful of quarks and leptons and a small assortment of force carriers. Strangely, there seems to be a lot more matter than anti-matter floating around the cosmos and if two independent particles were truly opposite existences rather than just elements in opposing condition, then instead of simply changing state from mass to energy on contact, all of their properties should entirely negate each other. No mass and no energy should remain; they should cease to exist without a trace.

The cosmic imbalance between matter and anti-matter and the fact that what the Standard Model calls annihilation is nothing more than mere conversion are problematic. The intuitive assumption of particle physicists is that qualities and anti-qualities must be disbursed between independent existences as separate particles and anti-particles, but there's another possibility. What if qualitative balance exists within the physical boundary of each entity?

If such qualitative symmetry exists, then each fundamental particle must have some form of substructure, dependent qualities and anti-qualities that cannot exist apart from the whole. 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 it may be possible for reciprocal qualitative values to exist within the physical boundaries of a single entity.

Rational Conjecture: The Substructure of a Fundamental Particle

Assume BLACK represents a null color value.

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 its 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 just two or three or any other finite number.

Reciprocal balance requires the qualitative value of every instance of being within an entity to have an opposite equivalent - but that doesn't mean the quality of each point of existence has a diametric opposite (two defined points offsetting each other). Opposing sub-qualities of any fraction of an element may be disbursed throughout the remainder of the entity. Just as the colors in the illustration above, if any fraction of 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 physical instance within the element is an interdependent contributor to its neutrality; and it is this reciprocal balance - not structureless homogeneity - that defines it as a single existence, an element comprised only of itself, an irreducible integral of null value.

In the realm of macro-physics it seems two things cannot simultaneously occupy the same space - which is why we have automobile insurance. But two points of being within a fundamental particle are not two individual things, they are two physical instances of the same thing, mutually co-dependent fractions of an elemental 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 may have the ability to morph or blend like the colors in the illustration above to produce a spectrum of different conditions, a limitless variety of states of being.

Entities 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, those 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. Similarly, if all the sub-qualities within an entity tried to self-annihilate by receding into a single non-dimensional point, it would lose its ability to change or be changed before it reached annihilation because existence is required in order for change to occur.

Natural balance defines an entity - not homogeneity. Unlike those simplistic examples of structureless and fungible particles 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_{( + )} in the Universe there is an equal and opposite value or set of values V_{( - )} such that:

The sum of those values is null

Time and space did not "begin" and fundamental particles have sub-structure. That uniquely self-justified and intrinsically logical primordial element we call "nothing" is simply an abstract interpretation of the natural equilibrium that pervades the structure of the Universe. In the form of reciprocal balance, "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.

Though particle physicists can't claim with certainty to have isolated a truly elemental particle, I personally believe I am more than qualified to speak with profound authority on the subject - because I am one. And so are you.

"Cogito ergo sum." (Descartes)

I think, therefore I am. One must exist in order to experience, and the fact you experience is convincing proof you exist.

You probably consider yourself to be "an existence", which is obviously why you call yourself 'I' instead of 'we'. But exactly what IS "an existence"?

Since the time of Democritus of Abdera (460-370 BC) it has been postulated the Universe is comprised of particles which - though they may be profoundly minute in nature - are not infinitely divisible. It is inherently logical that before the smallest non-empty set can be assembled, there must exist an individual element with which the set may be populated, a single existence that is not composed of independent parts, an irreducible physical manifestation consisting only of itself, an elemental identity I call an 'entity'. But so far, physicists have not been able to find the elusive entity and it is entirely possible they would not recognize one even if they could isolate it.

The material objects with which we interact in our 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' which are comprised of sets labeled 'molecules' which are, in turn, formed by sets labeled 'atoms', whose protons, neutrons and electrons have been fundamentally superseded by hadron groups populated by even smaller sub-sets of quark and lepton particles and anti particles which may - or may not - be truly irreducible.

An irreducible physical entity is "an existence". Everything comprised of those entities, from an atom to a galaxy, is a composite.

You may consider yourself to be "an existence", but your body is a composite - a collection of billions of separate elements or fundamental particles, each with its own individual properties. Each basic particle pre-existed your birth and will ultimately survive your demise. Each has a unique history, a separate location and physical domain. Logically this presents a conundrum. How can you be "an existence" if that manifestation which you consider to be yourself is a composite? Indeed, every existence has its own unique identity and a collection of existences will have as many separate, individual identities as there are elements in the set.

The Pinocchio Hypothesis

To reconcile this disparity, hordes of scholarly pundits with names swimming in alphabet soup profess that if you toss just the right combination of terrestrial ingredients into a primordial cauldron and stir it really, really hard for a very, very long time, you can produce a composite that thinks, propagates and experiences a single existence with an individual identity. That may sound silly (I call it the Pinocchio hypothesis), but which lowly layman in his right mind would dare contradict an entire horde of scholarly pundits, especially when they are immersed in alphabet soup. So, with an eye of newt and wing of bat, a pinch of this and a dash of that, the pundits dub this egregious departure from logic the phenomenon of "emergent properties" or EP and they credit it with the creation of all life on Earth.

But even the most tenured of scholars aren't able to explain the specific mechanics of EP that transform a body with 8x10²⁷ atoms into a single existence with an individual identity. In fact, there seems to be two distinct factions in the EP camp. The 'integration' group assures us without hesitation that some unknown power of unification melds a composite into a single identity and awareness. This faction would have us believe 8x10²⁷ = 1. On the other hand, the 'emergence' group tries to convince us 8x10²⁷ = 8x10²⁷+1, claiming any sense of self is due to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. They expect us to believe composites can conjure up a supervening entity, a temporary ego or virtual being with its own separate awareness and identity. In their practice of this mathematical sorcery, proponents of EP are idiomatically reduced to casting the incantations "integrated" and "emergent" because "abracadabra" and "hocus pocus" are still frowned upon within the orthodox scientific community.

Hogwarts! If this is science, then Harry Potter is the next Isaac Newton. If you believe you are the corporal product of emergent properties then you are claiming that you are an occurrence and not an existence. Merlin, himself, would be embarrassed by such magical thinking.

To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous character Sherlock Holmes in Chapter 6 of 'The Sign of Four',

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Life is no chemical accident, nor was it conjured into fruition by some benevolent and omnipotent deity. Life is simply the product of a spectrum of undiscovered entities, irreducible elements with the attribute of natural animation; animated fundamental existences that long ago began to manipulate the resources of this planet or 'wear the mud' so to speak. Our physical size is extremely tiny prior to our trek into life (a feature for which anyone who is, was, or ever will become pregnant can be eternally grateful), so it comes as no surprise that we haven't been able to isolate and identify that element within us that compiles and compels our corporal garb.

Your body is something you wear, not something you are. It does; however, seem to be a necessary tool in order for us to function and think in human terms. By rote and repetition you have been trained since birth to think you are that thing you see in the mirror - hair, eyes, nose, skin, and appendages. You have developed the self-image that your body is YOU. But your human corpse is, in fact, entirely removable - demonstrably so. If you cut off an appendage, it will suddenly be over there, yet you will not lose your identity. You will probably still have feeling in a phantom limb that isn't there. Just because something was held onto your corpse by molecular bond didn't make it YOU. Your corpse is simply the remnants of that hamburger and fries you ate a few years ago, that beer you had yesterday and that delicious Cesar salad from the 1990's. Most of the cells you wear today will be replaced by new cuisine within the next seven years or so. The brain is said to be the home of the id, yet you can remove any number of its lobes and still retain your identity; there is no specific cell in your entire corporal structure whose removal would cause you significant distress, much less destroy your sense of self.

As strange as it may seem, you have no idea what you actually look like because consciousness, as we know it, only occurs when you are wrapped within your corporal shell. Even if you could strip away the blood and the bones just long enough to glimpse your true countenance, you might see nothing at all, for that fundamental element which is you may not have the property of mass. Like space, your essence may be transparent - more invisible than the air you breathe.

Centuries or eons from now when the first soul is detected by a technology not yet envisioned, some interesting questions will undoubtedly arise -

* Are all life forms fungible? Does the life entity of a plant or bacterium differ in its basic nature from an insect, a fish, a bird, a mammal? Am I a human only due to the "luck of the draw"?

* At what point is the life entity 'encorporated'. Is it introduced by the sperm? Is it resident in the ovum? Is it assimilated after conception?

* Does the life form have a fixed volume or does it expand and contract? Does it grow as it grows the body or does it just weave thin fibers of itself throughout the nervous system?

* If my entity can be tracked to another life cycle, can I take it ($$$) with me??

* When the Earth was formed, were the different life forms already embedded in the cosmic cloud or did they arrive over time from other areas of our galaxy ... or beyond?

* How did we get here? Why did all life in the solar system seem to congregate about this planet? Is it possible the elements of life can propel themselves through space to a seek out a specific environment?

* How many souls are there in the region of Earth? Are others arriving? Do some leave?

* Where was I fifty trillion years ago? Where will I be fifty trillion years from now? Will there still be taxes? Will bureaucrats still rule the world?

Life and death are physical conditions, transient states of being. Existence is eternal. When you die you will be dead - but you will still be. There will come a time in the history of mankind when future societies will look back upon our modern era and wonder how creatures who couldn't even understand the nature of their own being could have considered themselves intelligent when the evidence that surrounded them was so obvious and compelling.