Creation

Most scientific arguments for and against the probable existence of that which is “outside science”, outside the reality that we observe, ignore a remarkable, purely objective, fundamental question. Simply stated, before we can legitimately discuss what must exist for trees and animals and human beings to evolve, we need to ask what the probability is that something or someone outside the reality that we know must exist for our very universe to exist. The apparent answer will surprise many.

At the time this note was written it was generally accepted that all of space-time was created at or near a point in time popularly known as the "big bang". By the time you read this, science may have discovered a better description for the beginning second of the cosmos, but the possible implications of current knowledge are too interesting not to mention. Entropy is a measure of disorder. If a glass of milk turns over, the milk will pour out onto the table, yet one will never see milk flow from a table back into the glass. This is because the entropy (disorder) of the system tends to increase over time. Another example, you may pour cream into your coffee to lighten it, but the cream will never remove itself to make the coffee black again. As a rule, complex systems tend to become more disordered over time.

The universe we live in is a place of amazingly low entropy, were it not so we would not be alive. Each of us is an example of a highly ordered, low entropy, system. Every star, planet, rock, tree, living creature, everything in the universe that is more ordered than the diffuse interstellar gas clouds that surround us, is an example of a system with varying degrees of low entropy. It is generally accepted that for our universe to have the extremely low entropy it now has required as the "starting point" at the big bang the selection of a virtually infinitesimally tiny volume of the total phase space of all possible universes (phase space is a complete mathematical description of any physical system).

To be more exact, the universe we live in apparently began at a point constituting approximately 1 part in 10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power of the entire phase space volume of all possible universes! This is a deceptively large number, which in fact cannot be written out! If you tried to write it out by writing the number "1" on a piece of paper, you would have to write a 0 on every single atom in the universe just to approach the number of zeros that follow the one, even then you would not be close to writing out the entire number. This amazing requirement for the initial condition at creation suggests that the odds are no better than 1 in 10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power that the universe in which we live was created by random chance. If the math holds true, and this interpretation is as logical as it seems, it means that the chance that the universe was created at random is as about close to zero, as close to impossible, as one can get!

Many find comfort in believing that, even if science has not yet discovered all of the laws, every physical event from creation onward evolved according to a set of absolute physical laws. The mathematically precise physical structure of the universe, the tiny place we have in the incredible vastness of space, the biologic characteristics we share with animals, etc., all may be interpreted as evidence of a purely mechanistic process that governs our lives. Yet if we consider the complexity of that which we observe, and if we are honest with ourselves, we cannot escape the intuitive feeling that there is an "order" in the chaos that cannot be explained by science.

Even if the odds against the random selection of the total phase space of all possible universes that is required for the observed entropy are not quite as impossible as they seem, we simply cannot ignore the intuitive feeling that the odds are almost infinitely against the random creation and existence of all of the following: a) matter and energy and the physical laws that govern them; b) the expansion of the universe from a tiny speck to the vast expanse which we see today; c) the defeat of entropy and the combination of matter and energy in exactly the right way to form every object in the universe; d) inanimate chemicals structured in precisely the correct way to create "life"; e) biologic processes that give the human species consciousness at a level that supports rational thought; etc. Think about this for awhile. No matter how strongly we may feel that life is the result of physical processes only, if we are objective we must admit that it intuitively seems virtually impossible that a purely random physical process could create the almost infinitely complex, yet extremely well ordered, low entropy, universe in which we live.

While it seems that the underlying laws of the universe could not have been created by chance, I have no explanation why it also often appears that the observable physical universe deterministically evolves according to complex statistical laws. I don't know why reality is such that life appears to many as nothing more than a complex, biologic process, riddled with physical imperfections. I am not willing to say with certainty that the universe does not appear to exhibit many of the characteristics of a physical entity devoid of the non-physical.

None-the-less, I am convinced that there is no objective statistical support for the conclusion that the world in which we live is the result of purely physical processes. No matter how hard we might try to ignore them, we are confronted by astronomical odds against random selection of a set of initial conditions that could create a low entropy universe that exhibits the complexity of our universe. We are faced with a mystery that, if we are honest with ourselves, at the very least leaves us with the possibility that the observable physical universe is not "all there is".

It is very, very, important to understand that, no matter what you may have been told or what you may think, no human being has any idea whatsoever what the fundamental physical nature of the universe really is. The consensus is that our universe began as a single, almost infinitely massive, almost infinitely small, "speck". As of this date, no one has been able to comprehend, let alone explain, the mechanism during the microsecond of the Planck epoch that allowed the universe to expand from a dot smaller than an atom, into the billions upon billions of stars that fill our universe. Anyone who takes the time to try to visualize billions of stars bursting out of a pinhead, will realize the impossibility of making "sense" of what appears to be a scientific fact. No one has a clue how to understand the reality of a quantum particle that is quite literally "everywhere" at the same time. No one knows how the "action at a distance" that relativity suggests cannot occur, actually does occur, if it really does. No one knows how to define or quantify "human consciousness". There is only one scientific deduction we can be relatively certain of, and that is that human beings do not know and understand the fundamental nature of physical reality.

What all this tells us is that we have no real idea at all what the true nature of our life on earth is, or what the possibilities are for our continued existence after death! We are so much a part of the tiny portion of universe in which we live that we seldom realize the significance of our limitations. Instead of viewing our lack of knowledge as profound and exciting, we tend to accept with curious apathy that there may be far more to our existence than we know.

At this point in our journey I am not trying to suggest that anything exists beyond our perceived universe, nor am I trying to suggest that nothing exists beyond our known universe. I am not suggesting if we survive the grave we will find ourselves in some dimension beyond the one we can sense and measure during our physical lives, perhaps so, perhaps not. Nor am I suggesting we can never sense and know about that which lies beyond the grave, if anything, until we experience physical death, perhaps so, perhaps not.

What I am saying is scientific study and statistical analysis are absolutely limited to that which we can observe and measure. The absence of scientific proof does not make it less likely, nor make it more likely, that something, which is true and real, lies beyond human observation. The important thing to remember is that no matter how likely or unlikely you "FEEL" it is that something exists, if it is beyond human ability to observe, you CANNOT "KNOW" if it is likely or unlikely that it does exist.

This is true for the probability of the existence of life after death. From a scientific standpoint we simply cannot say it is likely that life after death exists. It is equally true that we absolutely cannot say it is likely that life after death does not exist. We simply cannot say that is likely or unlikely that life exists after physical death.

While scientists may offer attributes of physical death as proof that human beings do not exist beyond the grave, the real answer to the question lies beyond human ability to scientifically prove, one way or the other. Indeed, we cannot say anything objective at all about the possibility of life after death. If life after death does not exist, it does not exist, period. If life after death does exist, it does exist, period.

Many of you will read what we have just discussed, agree with it, and then let it fade out of your mind as you move on to whatever comes next. If what we are saying is true, it is fundamental and “profound”. Perhaps it will be important and helpful to you later on when we discuss what may be the most important choice in your life. For this reason we urge you to think carefully about what has been said, being certain you understand what we are talking about.

For those who might think the conclusions above are not based on science, we reprint Roger Penrose’s (an eminent physicist who in 1969, along with Stephen Hawking, proved that all matter within a black hole collapses to a singularity) short yet detailed analysis:

Penguin Books – out-of-print – often available in libraries & used book stores)

How special was the big bang?

Let us try to understand just how much of a constraint a condition such as WEYL

= 0 at the big bang was. For simplicity (as with the above discussion) we shall

suppose that the universe is closed. In order to be able to work out some clear-cut

figures, we shall assume, furthermore, that the number B of baryons-that is, the

number of protons and neutrons, taken together-in the universe is roughly given by

B = 10^80.

(There is no particular reason for this figure, apart from the fact that,

observationally B must be at least as large as this; Eddington once claimed to have

calculated B exactly, obtaining a figure which was close to the above value!

No-one seems to believe this particular calculation any more, but the value 10^80

appears to have stuck.) If B were taken to be larger than this (and perhaps, in actual

fact, B = infinity) then the figures that we would obtain would be even more

striking than the extraordinary figures that we shall be arriving at in a minute!

Try to imagine the phase space (cf. p. 177 of Penrose’s book) of the entire universe!

Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe

might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a `pin' which is to

be placed at some point in the phase space (Fig. 7.19 not shown). Each different

positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed

for the Creator's aim depends upon the entropy of the universe that is thereby

created. It would be relatively `easy' to produce a high entropy universe, since then

there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. (Recall

that the entropy is proportional to the logarithm of the volume of the phase space

concerned.) But in order to start off the universe in state of low entropy-so that there

will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics-the Creator must aim for a much

tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a

universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result? In

order to answer this question, we must first turn to a very remarkable formula, due to

Jacob Bekenstein (1972) and Stephen Hawking (1975), which tells us what the

entropy of a black hole must be.

Consider a black hole, and suppose that its horizon's surface area is A. The

Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the black hole's entropy is the:

S_bh = A/4 + (kc^3 / Gh)

where k is Boltzmann's constant, c is the speed of light, G is Newton's gravitational

constant, and h is Planck's constant over 2pi. The essential part of this formula is the

A/4. The part in parentheses merely consists of the appropriate physical constants.

Thus, the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its surface area. For a

spherically symmetrical black hole, this surface area turns out to be proportional to

the square of the mass of the hole

A = m^2 x 8pi(G^2/c^4).

Putting this together with the Bekenstein-Hawking formula, we find that the

entropy of a black hole is proportional to the square of its mass:

S_bh = m^2 x 2pi (kG/hc)

Thus, the entropy per unit mass of a black hole is proportional to its mass, and so

gets larger and larger for larger and larger black holes. Hence, for a given amount

of mass-or equivalently, by Einstein's E = mc^2, for a given amount of energy-the

greatest entropy is achieved when the material has all collapsed into a black hole!

Moreover, two black holes gain (enormously) in entropy when they mutually

swallow one another up to produce a single united black hole! Large black holes,

such as those likely to be found in galactic centres, will provide absolutely

stupendous amounts of entropy-far and away larger than the other kinds of entropy

that one encounters in other types of physical situation.

There is actually a slight qualification needed to the statement that the greatest

entropy is achieved when all the mass is concentrated in a black hole. Hawking's

analysis of the thermodynamics of black holes, shows that there should be a

non-zero temperature also associated with a black hole. One implication of this is

that not quite all of the mass-energy can be contained within the black hole, in the

maximum entropy state, the maximum entropy being achieved by a black hole in

equilibrium with a `thermal bath of radiation'. The temperature of this radiation is

very tiny indeed for a black hole of any reasonable size. For example, for a black

hole of a solar mass, this temperature would be about 10^-7 K, which is somewhat

smaller than the lowest temperature that has been measured in any laboratory to

date, and very considerably lower than the 2.7 K temperature of intergalactic space.

For larger black holes, the Hawking temperature is even lower!

The Hawking temperature would become significant for our discussion only if

either: (i) much tinier black holes, referred to as mini-black holes, might exist in our

universe; or (ii) the universe does not recollapse before the Hawking evaporation

time-the time according to which the black hole would evaporate away completely.

With regard to (i), mini-black holes could only be produced in a suitably chaotic big

bang. Such mini-black holes cannot be very numerous in our actual universe, or

else their effects would have already been observed; moreover, according to the

viewpoint that I am expounding here, they ought to be absent altogether. As regards

(ii), for a solar-mass black hole, the Hawking evaporation time would be some

10^54 times the present age of the universe, and for larger black holes, it would be

considerably longer. It does not seem that these effects should substantially modify

the above arguments.

To get some feeling for the hugeness of black-hole entropy, let us consider what

was previously thought to supply the largest contribution to the entropy of the

universe, namely the 2.7 K black-body background radiation. Astrophysicists had

been struck by the enormous amounts of entropy that this radiation contains, which

is far in excess of the ordinary entropy figures that one encounters in other

processes (e.g. in the sun). The background radiation entropy is something like

10^8 for every baryon (where I am now choosing `natural units', so that

Boltzmann's constant, is unity). (In effect, this means that there are 10^8 photons in

the background radiation for every baryon.) Thus, with 10^88 baryons in all, we

should have a total entropy of

10^88

for the entropy in the background radiation in the universe.

Indeed, were it not for the black holes, this figure would represent the total

entropy of the universe, since the entropy in the background radiation swamps that

in all other ordinary processes. The entropy per baryon in the sun, for example, is of

order unity. On the other hand, by black-hole standards, the background radiation

entropy is utter `chicken feed'. For the Bekenstein-Hawking formula tells us that the

entropy per baryon in a solar mass black hole is about 10^20, in natural units, so

had the universe consisted entirely of solar mass black holes, the total figure would

have been very much larger than that given above, namely

10^100.

Of course, the universe is not so constructed, but this figure begins to tell us how

`small' the entropy in the background radiation must be considered to be when the

relentless effects of gravity begin to be taken into account.

Let us try to be a little more realistic. Rather than populating our galaxies

entirely with black holes, let us take them to consist mainly of ordinary stars-some

10^11 of them-and each to have a million (i.e. 10^6) solar-mass black-hole at its

core (as might be reasonable for our own Milky Way galaxy). Calculation shows

that the entropy per baryon would now be actually somewhat larger even than the

previous huge figure, namely now 10^21, giving a total entropy, in natural units, of

10^101.

We may anticipate that, after a very long time, a major fraction of the galaxies'

masses will be incorporated into the black holes at their centres. When this

happens, the entropy per baryon will be 10^31, giving a monstrous total of

10^111.

However, we are considering a closed universe so eventually it should recollapse;

and it is not unreasonable to estimate the entropy of the final crunch by using the

Bekenstein-Hawking formula as though the whole universe had formed a black

hole. This gives an entropy per baryon of 10^43, and the absolutely stupendous

total, for the entire big crunch would be

10^123.

This figure will give us an estimate of the total phase-space volume V available

to the Creator, since this entropy should represent the logarithm of the volume of

the (easily) largest compartment. Since 10^123 is the logarithm of the volume, the

volume must be the exponential of 10^123, i.e.

V = 10^10^123.

in natural units! (Some perceptive readers may feel that I should have used the

figure e^10^123, but for numbers of this size, the a and the 10 are essentially

interchangeable!) How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator

had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of

thermodynamics and with what we now observe? It does not much matter whether

we take the value

W = 10^10^101 or W = 10^10^88

given by the galactic black holes or by the background radiation, respectively, or a

much smaller (and, in fact, more appropriate) figure which would have been the

actual figure at the big bang. Either way, the ratio of V to W will be, closely

V/W = 10^10^123.

This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an

accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.

This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number

down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10^123

successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each

separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles

as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure

needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no

way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become

accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's)

which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.

But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the

singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would

appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL

part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find

is that there is a constraint

WEYL = 0

(or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final

singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very

tiny region of phase space. The assumption that this constraint applies at any initial

(but not final) space-time singularity, I have termed The Weyl Curvature

Hypothesis. Thus, it would seem, we need to understand why such a

time-asymmetric hypothesis should apply if we are to comprehend where the

second law has come from.

How can we gain any further understanding of the origin of the second law? We

seem to have been forced into an impasse. We need to understand why space-time

singularities have the structures that they appear to have; but space-time

singularities are regions where our understanding of physics has reached its limits.

The impasse provided by the existence of space-time singularities is sometimes

compared with another impasse: that encountered by physicists early in the

century, concerning the stability of atoms (cf. p. 228). In each case, the

well-established classical theory had come up with the answer `infinity', and had

thereby proved itself inadequate for the task. The singular behaviour of the

electromagnetic collapse of atoms was forestalled by quantum theory; and likewise

it should be quantum theory that yields a finite theory in place of the `infinite'

classical space-time singularities in the gravitational collapse of stars. But it can be

no ordinary quantum theory. It must be a quantum theory of the very structure of

space and time. Such a theory, if one existed, would be referred to as `quantum

gravity'. Quantum gravity's lack of existence is not for want of effort, expertise, or

ingenuity on the part of the physicists. Many first-rate scientific minds have

applied themselves to the construction of such a theory, but Without success. This

is the impasse to which we have been finally led in our attempts to understand the

directionality and the flow of time.

[Comment: It seems that the only reasonable theories that might argue against the physical reality of Penrose’s conclusions belong to the multiverse / many worlds school of thought, with perhaps the most promising being Andrei Linde’s idea that our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation (allowing for the possibility of probabilistic multiverses where observation selects only one or a few actual universes). It also seems fair to say that all such theories are very highly speculative, and that being so highly speculative none present a real challenge to the Penrose calculations.

The truly amazing conclusion that we are confronted with is the objective fact that it appears that the creation of our universe cannot be the result of chance. Many will dismiss this fact because they misunderstand the solid science behind it, and the enormous significance if in fact it is true. For anyone with an open mind, the objective fact that it appears that our universe cannot be the result of chance, while perhaps not 100% conclusive, offers an extraordinarily strong argument that a Creator must exist. We will return to that question a bit later, after we discuss the difference between truth, belief, and faith.]

NEXT > Why? HOMEPAGE