Theory of Everything…Accessible. Anthropic Existentialism.

In this brief and simplistic restatement of the obvious, this represents an after-thought always lingering after reviewing any TOE model.

If we were able to consider ALL objects and events in ‘de facto’ current existence anywhere (‘everything’) as amenable to be represented or substituted by proper symbolic or sentential logic language (mathematical objects) then we can claim they belong to the ‘set of all sets’. See sets.

‘Ab initio’, what seems like a simple linguistic statement turns into an un-surmountable contradiction. How can the ‘everything’ set be simultaneously a member and a non-member of itself. See Russell’s paradox. So much for our human self evident limitation in perceptually accessing the structure and function of ‘everything’ that is, not to mention writing metaphysical logic poems about reducing ‘everything’ there is to mathematical formulations. If any brilliant physico-mathematical theoretician dares to bargain on a mathematical theory-poem whose axiomatic content can ALSO be contrived by an equally imaginative colleague into providing ‘true’ statements about its denial, then the theory is either incomplete, inconsistent, both of the above or wrong. See Gödel’s incompleteness theorem . However, this is not necessarily a call to stop writing ‘Theories of Everything’ poems because even when a final and invariant ‘reality in se’ formulation may, in principle, be found, our human species cannot corroborate it other than assessing its predictive value within our short, historical, temporal sojourn on earth.

Furthermore, if we also consider that ‘everything’ is either contained within boundaries or dispersed ‘ad infinitum’ into the great nowhere, there is no doubt that, mathematically, we’d rather compose credible scientific poems on transfinities than in-accessible infinities. If so, we need set-theoretical formulations defining the topological space containing ‘everything’ so that relevant transfinite invisibilities may be adequately homeomorphically or homotopically represented such that their interactions, connectivities, transformations or continuities may, when present, be hopefully defined as Abelian mathematical functions. See topological space.

If we where to learn something useful to apply to real time existential reality we would have to compactify our efforts and use a metric that deals with finite objects contained inside a closed container with boundaries. But if we include ‘everything’ inside, e.g., a sphere (or its homeomorphic or homotopic topological equivalent) we will find that epistemologically, that portion of ‘everything’ outside the sphere will become a subset of ‘everything’ forever in-accessible to humans as to its invariant structure and function. Is this the theological subset resisting being framed into logical formulations?

As we have discussed elsewhere, when exercising our free will faculty to consent, it is that brain attractor phase space alternative that harmonizes better with ongoing biopsychosocial well being that is consented to when making a decision, notwithstanding more rational solutions available.

Physical and metaphysical determinism are ultimately unsupported beliefs in mental closure paradigms, whether in its physico-mathematical or theological varieties. As we emphasized above, there is no denying that either position satisfies the psychic needs of their adherents and, more important, either one or both may be true and we wouldn’t be able to corroborate their possible invariant truth.

There is no doubt about the usefulness of evolutionary or thermodynamic theories in explaining the ‘why’ or ‘what’ of our macro reality complex systems yet their behavior is not predicated on micro-level physical laws because it emerges naturally consequent to their innate complexity. This way ‘emergent’ behavior may be considered a module of a ‘process’ philosophy subset as briefly suggested elsewhere. It should now be obvious to all the tremendous success of quantum theory not only in scientific but also in philosophical pursuits. The quasi-deterministic, probabilistic nature of its tenets and predictions, often leading to spontaneous mathematical chaos when initial conditions are ever so slightly changed, is in our opinion, an example of an inaccessible natural order beyond the direct reach of our perceptual and conceptual human faculties, in open violation of entropy considerations. Chaos is NOT randomness but evidence of order in a complex system. See mathematical chaos.

The order we humans experience in the sensory and historical domains maybe can be extrapolated to transfinity at the cosmological and sub-Planckian levels of reality. It is very tempting to write a poem on why and how the organizing role of Newtonian gravity in macro reality cannot play a similar role in sub-atomic micro-reality if we could only harmonize the ‘Standard Model’ relativistic and the quantum aspects of both models. Reality is one, local variations at different levels notwithstanding. While we may agree that a probabilistic quantum theoretical approach to existential reality is superior to any deterministic faith model approach because it makes room for both ontological and epistemological aspects to hybridize into a unit whole dealing with the real time probabilities and uncertainties of the mesoscopic domain of enquiry which must be, for practical purposes only, within accessible reach into representable transfinities. Leave infinities inside the esthetic domain for artists to ponder.

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra In Deltona, Florida Summer 2011