The Energy Information Implicate Order that Started It All
Another way to think about the Big Bang Singularity
Do we know how the universe began? This will sound academic, but in all honesty the answer to this question is that it depends on what you mean by “we,” “know,” “how,” “universe,” and “began”. In this blog, I attempt to address this question from the vantage point of UTOK metaphysics.
The first point of entry pertains to knowledge and knowing. I will forgo a long analysis of knowledge, but instead simply point to this blog on seven ways of knowing about truth and reality that allows folks to enter this space. I consider natural science to be the best epistemological method for arriving at generalizable and objective truths about the material world. Science generally operates on the correspondence model of truth. This involves building models that map or represent how the world works. It does this by a number of tools, such as quantification, logical analysis, experimentation, and it attempts to arrive at what David Deutsch calls the best explanations (which are a kind of justification in the language of UTOK).
Turning to our more immediate question regarding how the universe began, the first point of entry here is what we might call the standard or basic “Big Bang” model. What is the standard model? It is the idea that the present universe is expanding and, if you “run the clock all the way back to the beginning” you see it contract into a very small, very dense, very hot, very condensed a form of energy. Here is the description from the Institute of Physics:
Most physicists believe the universe was born in a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. In it, the energy making up everything in the cosmos we see today was squeezed inside an inconceivably small space — far tinier than a grain of sand, or even an atom. Then, this unimaginably hot and dense cauldron — for whatever reason — ballooned at a terrifying rate.
In the very first second of the universe’s existence, our understanding of what was going on is surprisingly good. We know that the concepts of time, space and the laws of physics very quickly solidified. From there, order started to emerge out of the chaos. First to take shape were subatomic particles like quarks. Then bigger particles like protons and neutrons. About three minutes later, the universe had cooled to 1 billion °C. This allowed protons and neutrons to come together through fusion and form nuclei, the charged cores of atoms.
The vast majority of cosmologists agree with this model. I tried to find some stats on it, but I could not. My guess is that it is more than 95% and maybe more than 99%. This blog by Ethan Siegel provides the details as to why. And yet, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority support the model, it must be noted that there are some bona fide physicists who disagree with this basic picture. In The Big Bang Never Happened, Eric Lerner explains why he thinks the entire model is wrong. Here he is making this case more recently.
The UTOK metaphysical-physical-ontological-cosmological picture of the universe is somewhat dependent on the standard Big Bang model. That is, if the standard model is wrong in the way Lerner argues, then UTOK takes a serious hit in its cogency. The reason is that it strives to be a coherent metaphysical naturalistic system. And it has been built from an Energy-Matter-Life-Mind-Culture ontology that is grounded in the basic Big Bang model (and quantum field theory). Once we move into the specifics of the Big Bang model, then we get see that there are many variations within the basic model that are open for dispute. These variations within the model are generally not crucial for UTOK metaphysics, but they are interesting.
One such issue that I focus on here is the idea of a “singularity” and differences in the literature about what this means. One way to imagine the Big Bang model is to imagine the observable universe as being “vacuumed” back in time and collapsing into a single point. Here is a common depiction that will help. Consider the expanding part being sucked back into a “point” on the left hand side. That is the Big Bang cosmic inflationary spot. The word point is in quotations here because the exact meaning is debated.
That singular state is often referred to as a “singularity,” and you will often hear the term “Big Bang Singularity” in reference to it. Is this notion of a “singularity” the proper way to thinking about it? The answer is it depends on what one means by “singularity”. As this Wiki entry makes clear, the word singularity has many different meanings and referent points.
In math, a singularity is represented as f(x) = 1/x, as x = 0. This connects to the concept of the Big Bang, because it can simplistically be framed as the point at which spacetime goes to zero and energy density goes to infinity. Many have framed the universe as beginning at the Big Bang Singularity, the meaning is that time and space go to zero, and it is from there that the universe flared forth.
But is that the mathematical representation best and only way to think about the Big Bang Singularity? Not necessarily. Why not? Because, as Ethan Siegel makes clear in his recent post, If the Big Bang Was Not the Beginning, What Was It?, the mathematical concept of a singularity may have no correspondence in the actual physical reality. Indeed, there are good arguments as to why it would not. Siegel reviews recent developments in cosmology that challenge the notion of the Big Bang emerging out of a mathematical-type singularity that started it all. Rather, he notes that picture gets fuzzier and fuzzier as we drop back further and further in time, as we approach time 0. It is crucial to note that we can go back very far in time. Indeed, most physicists I talk to argue that we are pretty clear that we can go back to t = 10 raised to the negative 12th seconds. That is 0.000000000001 seconds old! That is when the weak nuclear force and separates from the electromagnetic force. From a human perspective, this is certainly “adjacent” to time zero!
But it is not time zero. Indeed, relative to infinitely small, one can think of that as a long time. So, everything is relative to the frame of reference, which gets us back to the opening of this blog and the nature of knowledge. If the Big Bang was not the beginning for Siegel, what was? His answer is cosmic inflation. He writes:
Instead of extrapolating the Big Bang all the way back to a singularity, inflation basically says that there’s a cutoff: you can go back to a certain high temperature and density, but no further. According to the big idea of cosmic inflation, this hot, dense, uniform state was preceded by a state where:
- the Universe wasn’t filled with matter and radiation,
- but instead possessed a large amount of energy intrinsic to the fabric of space itself,
- which caused the Universe to expand exponentially (and at a constant, unchanging rate),
- which drives the Universe to be flat, empty, and uniform (up to the scale of quantum fluctuations),
- and then inflation ends, converting that intrinsic-to-space energy into matter and radiation,
and that’s where the hot Big Bang comes from.
In concluding his article, he writes, “It is no longer considered inevitable that space and time emerged from a singularity 13.8 billion years ago.” As I read his summary, I was nodding along. But it was also the case that as I was reflecting on this from the vantage point of UTOK metaphysics, we can reframe the concept of “singularity.” Rather than being tied to the mathematical concept, I refer to the singularity as the “pure energy-information singularity,” which is framed as a physical concept.
Below is a basic depiction of the above diagram from the Tree of Knowledge perspective. If we consider this on the time dimension and the roll it back, what we see are the dimensions of Culture, Mind, Life, and even Matter ultimately collapsing back into a state of pure Energy-Information, which is the black circle.
In UTOK speak, this Energy-Information Singularity is the term for the implicate order that exists beneath the Matter plane of complexification. This Energy Information Implicate Order corresponds to what Siegel describes above as the “energy intrinsic to space.” UTOK claims this Energy-Information Field is the ultimate common denominator in the universe in the sense that it is the substance-entity from which all things emerge. Of course, as the ToK representation makes clear, things in the universe are not just energy-information. Rather, the properties of Matter, Life, Mind and Culture are what makes the world what it is in all its glorious suchness, moreness, and aliveness.
This set of claims about collapsing into a singular energy information field becomes clear when consider the four fundamental forces of nature and how they collapse into a singular force field. That is: (1) electromagnetism; 2) gravity; 3) the strong nuclear and 4) weak nuclear forces are the four fundamental forces that frame cause, change and effect in the universe. Rolling the tape back, they all collapse into the intrinsic energy field that Siegel writes about. This excellent video titled “Is There One All Powerful SUPERFORCE Controlling The Universe?” on the history of the universe describes it as, “a grand unifying superforce” at the beginning of our universe. I am taking the term “superforce” from them.
So, for me, the observable universe begins in a collapsed state that can be described as a “Singular Energy-Information Superforce Field” that started it all. It can also be framed as the Energy Information Implicate Order that exists beneath the Matter dimension of complexifcation. This frame is consistent with the basic Big Bang model and the cosmic inflation model that Siegel lays out in his article, which he ends by saying:
The Big Bang might not be the very beginning of the Universe itself, but it is the beginning of our Universe as we recognize it. It’s not “the” beginning, but it is “our” beginning. It may not be the entire story on its own, but it’s a vital part of the universal cosmic story that connects us all.
So, to return to the beginning of this blog, do we know how the universe began? My tentative conclusion is that humanity does seem to be groping our way toward a physical-metaphysical picture that probably has some transcendent validity.
