1.4K views

Uploaded by Trevor Pitts

The essay’s subject is the dynamics of the creation, and the operation in time, of any and all possible universes capable of or presently harboring intelligent beings. It attempts to demonstrate that there can be exactly one such universe of any practical relevance by gathering together existing experimental results and accepted theories to form a summary
of a totally quantized and symmetric physical model of reality. It contains a
reinterpretation of an existing candidate for a theory of quantum gravity in order to explain time symmetry, and Quantum quasi-teleology, a speculative extension of the concept of the sum-of-all-paths version of quantum mechanics in order to explain fine-tuning and by extension the lack of need for theories of supersymmetry. Much of the material involves neglected topics in conventional physics and their philosophical implications. The results suggest significant consequences in moral philosophy.

save

You are on page 1of 46

Everything

Trevor Pitts

tpitts@pobox.com

2015-01-31

Copyright 2015

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

1

Abstract

The essay’s subject is the dynamics of the creation, and the operation in time, of any and

all possible universes capable of or presently harboring intelligent beings. It attempts to

demonstrate that there can be exactly one such universe of any practical relevance by

gathering together existing experimental results and accepted theories to form a summary

of a totally quantized and symmetric physical model of reality. It contains a

reinterpretation of an existing candidate for a theory of quantum gravity in order to

explain time symmetry, and Quantum quasi-teleology, a speculative extension of the

concept of the sum-of-all-paths version of quantum mechanics in order to explain finetuning and by extension the lack of need for theories of supersymmetry. Much of the

material involves neglected topics in conventional physics and their philosophical

implications. The results suggest significant consequences in moral philosophy.

Introduction

Assumptions

I trust that the professional physicists who built all the separate moving parts that I am

gathering together to form a summary of a totally quantized and symmetric physical

model of reality are correct in their experiments, mathematics, and accepted theories.

They already have provided the conceptual tools to eliminate any purported

contradictions and build this model. However, if we can’t put something into

comprehensible verbal form (according to Freeman Dyson), we don’t clearly understand

it. This is an attempt to do so.

**What Does this Essay Offer?
**

It is not a new proposed Theory of Everything (TOE); it is a proposal to assemble and

connect various neglected parts of late 20C and 21C science to provide an empirical,

testable approach to explain large-scale perceived reality and its creation from nothing.

This may be a revelation of how much we already know about the supposed mysteries

listed below, that a new TOE might be expected to resolve. Perhaps it is a Theory of

Most (TOM).

This essay seeks to demonstrate that everything - space, energy, mass and time, is

discontinuous and quantized. Consider the “quantization” of mass:

An atom or molecule is a discrete local unit of matter separated by gaps of empty space;

atomic or sub-atomic particle numbers can only exist in whole numbers (integers) or

change by a limited number of integer amounts. The same is true of all particles- every

member of each type is indistinguishable from every other of that type and each

mass/energy state is separated by an empty gap. That gap can be, for example, a gap

between two energy levels of rotation in a molecule, or of vibration in a molecule, or of

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

2

**an electron’s distance from the nucleus in an atom. There can be no in-between values
**

and no time exists between the two levels (or, more generally, states). Change is

“instantaneous”. The quantum change is a “jump” of a fixed quantity or “quantum” of

energy.

The quotes around the word “instantaneous” are necessary because the word may

wrongly imply continuous time. Time itself is quantized according to this essay.

Capitalized NOW in this essay means the postulated universe-wide single moment of the

present.

One pervasive theme of this essay is the “sum of all paths” version of quantum

mechanics, which is generally agreed to be fundamental to operation of our universe, and

I will argue, to its formation. This, combined with the second theme, the symmetries,

especially general relativity, already can produce consistent answers to all of the truly

basic issues listed below, if properly understood. Remarkably, physics, following

contradictory philosophical/formalistic assumptions, has no widely accepted explanations

for any of the issues below, nor do philosophers:

— Einstein’s relativity supposedly implies determinism, which is in

philosophical and mathematical formalist conflict with quantum

indeterminacy, basic to quantum mechanics, the most successful theory of

all- with implied determinism, we cannot reconcile the two most basic

theories of reality

— The irreversible forward arrow of time and the uniqueness of the present

moment- we do not understand time

— The “collapse of the wave function” – we do not understand how events arise

— Causality and the “entanglement” of distant quantum states with each other,

or “spooky action at a distance”- Einstein spent much of his life on this, with

no resolution

— The imbalance of matter versus antimatter in the universe, equivalently, why

was matter not completely annihilated at the origin by the required equal

amounts of antimatter- we have no accepted explanation for the existence of

matter

— Why there is something rather than nothing, and how could our particular

spacetime background be constructed consistently with known physics

— How did our universe arise, whose most fundamental constants and

parameters appear to have been “tweaked” to be perfect for life, against

astronomical odds: The Fine-Tuning Problem

— The accepted, symmetry-based Standard Model of particle physics requires

19 unrelated constants of arbitrary magnitudes. Further, the possibility of

neutrino mass seems likely to require at least six more, in the view of most

specialists in the field: another fine-tuning problem?

— Roger Penrose’s concern about the anomalously extreme low entropy state

apparently required at the origin

— Free will and responsibility versus the jazz song lyric “I’m depraved because

I’m deprived”

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

3

**(Note that in an effort to be understandable by non-scientists, the references cited are
**

often not the original ones, but ones more easily accessible and/or comprehensible to

non-physicists.)

**Physical Science and Why this Essay Matters?
**

Logical philosophy and mathematics are pure, self-consistent symbolic abstractions.

Mathematicians, and many physicists such as Roger Penrose, will often argue the

Platonist position that mathematical concepts are purely abstract, having no necessary

causal or descriptive relevance to the actual world. However, much of mathematics is

highly relevant to real world issues. Modern physics is essentially extremely advanced

mathematics equipped with hands, ears and eyes. Yet, in many ways modern physics

promotes the abstractions of mathematics and philosophy instead of physical world

experimental results as the basis of science. This is especially true of the essay’s subject:

the dynamics of the creation, and the operation in time, of any possible universes capable

of or presently harboring intelligent beings.

A key problematic example is the assumption of a continuum in Nature, which permeates

our language. A continuum is anything that changes gradually from one condition to a

different one, with no gaps. The Universe itself has often been described as “The

Continuum”. In mathematics, “the continuum” is formally defined as the line of real

numbers, all of which can be defined by a decimal expression of indefinite length, with

no gaps between any real numbers, requiring infinite divisibility of the line. This formal

continuum concept is pervasive in modern physics. I argue, in agreement with

experiment, that our universe requires the opposite. In experimental fact, our universe is

discontinuous, or quantized. To be quantized is to be able to change only in discrete, tiny,

fixed quantities, with no intermediate values or time between these “instantaneous

quantum jumps.” Determinist philosophy and mathematical formalist prejudices have

interacted with each other over time to confuse what should otherwise be clear.

This essay agrees with the Platonists that not all of mathematics operates in the real

world. Specifically: First, the continuum concept and its implication, infinite divisibility,

have no role in absolute reality. Second, the fact that a mathematical expression

accurately calculates some quantity by a deterministic method does not imply that a

series of microscopic events is necessarily deterministic by a philosophical extension of

that formalism.

Physical mathematical equations are not reality; they describe a portion of reality. If

reality behaves differently than expectations based on a mathematical formalism, then the

formalism is being philosophically extended beyond its scope. The formalism is not

necessarily wrong; only the extended, essentially philosophical, interpretation is wrong

and unjustified.

Classical determinism is the belief that given sufficient information as to the laws and the

current state of the world one could perfectly predict all future states. There would be

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

4

only one possible future state at any time, given any past state. 19thC (Classical) physics

assumed determinism as basic. Strangely, most physicists today are still Classical

determinists at heart.

Science began by a carefully observed and practical approach to real events. It became

dedicated to testing theories based on experimental or observational, as opposed to

argumentative, linguistic “evidence”. This led to the goal of skeptical demolition of all

and every hypothesis, theory or conclusion (to the extent that is practicable) with a view

to the survival of only the fittest descriptions of reality and to the elimination of the rest.

Science has evolutionary logic, starting with evident reality as its basis, proceeding

temporarily with some concrete and usually useful experimental conclusion, then

iterating more and more exact experimentation to eliminate failed theories to reach betterfitting theories. This essay argues that, from the late 19th Century onward, existing

philosophical and mathematical formalist prejudices have had a negative influence on

clarity in physics by fostering specious arguments against new, philosophically

uncomfortable experimental evidence.

Currently, in physics there is a common view that the theory explaining gravity, general

relativity, and the theory explaining change, quantum mechanics, cannot be reconciled. It

is true that the problems listed above cannot be solved without using both sets of insights.

This essay, however, proposes that they cannot and need not be combined into a new

theory of quantum gravity. The supposed problem is that Classical determinism, (the idea

that any and every situation inevitably has only one possible future) is thought to

contradict quantum mechanical indeterminacy, preventing their combination into some

final theory of “Quantum Gravity”. But, there is zero actual experimental evidence for

such determinism in physics. At root, physical law is completely defined by symmetry

and operates via quantum mechanics. Symmetry is a constraint over possible events; it

both allows and enables different outcomes, as long as its rules are obeyed. The great

mathematician, Emmy Noether, derived the “laws of nature”- conservation laws, from the

symmetries in 1915. The (usually assumed to be deterministic) laws of nature are not

basic, being entirely derived from the truly basic symmetries. The unnoticed distinction

was that symmetries are like the rules of chess: vastly different outcomes are possible

within the rules. Since special and general relativity are both examples of these universal

symmetries, the same argument applies. There is no conflict, because neither is in fact

determinist in the Classical sense. So the future is open, subject to the symmetries, not

ineluctable fate. (Symmetries, quantum mechanics and quantum indeterminacy will be

defined and considered later). Relativity is perhaps among the most basic symmetries, but

it is no different in essence. The key concept to unraveling supposed contradictions is to

accept that symmetries provide both the rules and the particle actors themselves while

quantum mechanics is the mechanism which moves the universe from one state to the

next. Symmetries provide a three dimensional structure of the world and create the

particle actors which quantum mechanics animates in time, while quantum indeterminacy

allows “script” variations in the universal movie. This essay argues that we can simply

accept that both relativity and quantum mechanics are true, mutually interacting, entirely

separate descriptions of the relevant parts of reality. We resolve the unanswered

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

5

**questions above by using both together. We do not cripple ourselves intellectually by
**

unnecessarily insisting that it is impossible to do so.

The assumption of Classical determinism casts doubt on quantum indeterminacy, a

fundamental component of quantum mechanics, the most successful physical theory of

all, so far. However, there is no experimental “evidence” purporting to support

determinism that the symmetries cannot wholly explain. The symmetries behind special

and general relativity, and the theories behind quantum mechanics have survived every

theoretical challenge and experimental test of their predictions, no matter how apparently

bizarre their predictions may seem. Neither can be fundamentally wrong. Adding

consideration for some late 20th and 21st century physical insights refutes unwarranted

reservations as to the true reality and meaning of quantum mechanics and the symmetries.

Additionally, this essay fully accepts special and general relativity and quantum

mechanics as experimental fact and submits that they already have been successfully

combined by Roger Penrose’s decoherence by mass hypothesis, if certain recent solutions

of the Einstein equations of general relativity are also accepted.

The foregoing statements set the stage for addressing the repercussions of physical

deterministic assumptions, highlighted by the following comparison: Both quantum

mechanics and relativity theories arose at the turn of the twentieth century as a result of

experimentally driven crises in Classical Maxwellian and Newtonian theories. Now, in

their aftermath, the crisis of the twenty-first century is philosophical, not physical.

Indeed, the assumed determinism in physics via philosophy and mathematical formalism

produces assumptions corrosive to morality, politics and diplomacy. If “science shows

that” everything is ineluctable fate, who can be individually guilty, even of the worst

atrocity? Are the depraved guiltless if they were deprived? Yet, who is not deprived of

something? And how can biological evolution by random mutations be explained if the

physical world we live in is completely determined moment to moment from the Big

Bang, forever? The historic fact is that the contribution of fatalist cultures to human

advancement has been negligible versus that made by cultures emphasizing individual

freedom and responsibility. So determinism is unlikely to prove positive

sociologically/economically.

The theme here is universal rule by the symmetries, which function as constraints, but not

absolute controls, of events, in contrast to the usual deterministic assumptions as to their

derivatives, the conservation laws of nature. I propose that we already have the means to

solve all the mysterious issues in the above list, using the four basic tools of modern

physics: microscopically, the sum of all paths version of quantum mechanics, working

subject to the 248 symmetries of the E8 Lie group. These lead to, macroscopically, two

more tools. These two emergent phenomena are Chaos (Lorenz 1993) and Self-Limiting

Criticality (Bak 1996, Jensen 1998). I prefer to call the latter avalanche theory, and will

define both later. One fundamental process, quantum mechanics, one basic principle,

symmetry, and these two emergent phenomena, working subject to a basket of a half

dozen universal constants or parameters unique to our universe (Rees 2000), plus up to

26 less well-known, but vital, parameters inherent in the Standard Model of particle

physics, can explain the entire basic nature of reality. This is not to say that there are no

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

6

**unexplained phenomena, especially on the cosmological level, but we can sufficiently
**

address the list of issues in the Introduction above. All the above four fundamentals are

experimentally confirmed and theoretically sound, but philosophically unappreciated.

This is due to Classical deterministic assumptions and the overly revered formalism of

the mathematics. Indeed, most of these fundamentals have not yet permeated the

philosophy of science sufficiently to change the persistent default deterministic stance,

that of 19th Century Classical physics.

Author’s Background

I should point out that I am a chemist, not a physicist. I have an advantage in that all of

chemistry from the nuclei of the elements to the geology of the planet is entirely a

quantum phenomenon. I have to be comfortable with it. Very few of us truly understand

quantum mechanics or all of the symmetries, even fewer understand both. But that is

unnecessary. We simply have to accept the latest physical evidence as the

theoretical/experimental reality on which to base ontological or epistemological

philosophy rather than the other way around.

Quantum Mechanics

The central fact of any quantum phenomenon is the “quantum jump”. Every quantum

transition is very different from how we perceive the usual big, warm, heavy world

circumstances. If you climb a staircase, you gradually move, from one step to another,

using energy apparently continuously the whole way, more or less evenly between the

steps. The atom’s electrons are similarly at a series of levels of energy approximately

corresponding to stepwise average distances from the nucleus. Approximately, the

electron can move from one step to another one, if it is vacant. The difference is that

there is no time or space occupied by the electron between the two states. Rather, it can

“jump” instantaneously to a lower position, closer to the nucleus, by emitting a precise

frequency of light (or similar electromagnetic energy such as X-rays) as it does so. It can

jump back up, to its vacant position equally instantaneously, if exactly the same

energy/frequency is absorbed by it. So in this aspect - reality is discontinuous, all

microscopic changes occur in specific increments, instantaneously, not gradually. (We

shall explore later what is an “instant”.) This will be of supreme importance in our

transition from the comfortable, illusory Classical clockwork view to the

quantum/symmetric real world.

The facts of quantum mechanics are contradictory to ordinary, naïve observation of large

objects on a huge warm planet. They only become demonstrable at a tiny scale, at low

temperatures and in isolation from uncontrolled interaction with the world of large

objects. But if we consider them together with general relativity, we can extract the

nature of the present moment itself, and propose answers to all the conundrums listed

above. I believe that we already have theories of all issues in physics that can fix the

supposed irreconcilability of quantum mechanics and relativity, this section intends to

present only the bare bones of huge subjects in order to extract the key points.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

7

Quantum mechanics. Why use this form of words rather than quantum theory? Quantum

science has proceeded beyond mere theory. It is now an exact science, able to calculate

physical quantities accurate to a dozen decimal places, having withstood the determined

attacks of many of the greatest minds in physics for over a century. It is empirical fact,

like the thermodynamics of steam engines, no matter how “weird” it seems. So now, the

genuine weirdness is the refusal to whole-heartedly accept quantum mechanics as

experimental fact. At root, modern quantum mechanics is the sum-of-all-paths approach,

which is the means by which all events occur. This, as I discuss below, includes the most

important event, the origin of our universe, optimized for the existence and flourishing of

interplanetary technical civilizations.

Quantum mechanics (in its modern form - happily, fully compatible with special

relativity, thanks to Dirac and Feynman) is the fundamental process by which all the

particles get from one event to another. These particles altogether produce all

macroscopic events. The current, supremely successful approach to quantum mechanical

calculation is variously titled the “sum of all paths” or “path integral” or “sum of all

histories” method (Feynman 1985, Feynman, Hibbs et al. 2010). All are different names

for the approach begun by Richard Feynman with his Feynman diagrams in quantum

electrodynamics (Feynman 1985). Essentially, every particle explores all the ways to get

to the next state of reality, however bizarre, unlikely, or apparently impossible each such

path may be.

Is every tiny particle so “smart” as to be able to explore all imaginable and unimaginable

paths? No, but if the universe as a whole is a giant, massively “entangled” quantum

computer, then it is smart enough to perform the only actual task in the universe, creating

the next moment, otherwise known as Reality. “Entanglement” will be explored later.

Everything in Nature at the microscopic level proceeds by quantum mechanical

processes. They are the means by which all change occurs at the fundamental particle

level. Experimentally, such processes always end with an interaction involving some

entity of sufficient mass, generating some aspect of perceptible reality. This universal

end/interaction is the collapse of the wave function, sometimes called decoherence, which

I consider to be the most common phenomenon in Nature. Indeed, as we see later, it is the

only basic actual event in Nature. This collapse cannot be excused away if we are to

construct a testable model of reality consistent with the fundamental, universal

experience known as the present moment.

This essay does not address “interpretations” of quantum mechanics because there is

nothing to interpret. The quantum phenomena discussed here are simply experimental

and experiential facts or testable predictions. Intellectual philosophical discomfort is not

a valid reason to try to “explain away” the facts of experiments. Now we come to many

physicists’ pet hate, the “collapse of the wave function”. The Schrodinger wave equation

calculates the probabilistic evolution of particle states in time as a wave function in an

abstract deterministic mathematical form. It deals with “superpositions” between

different possible particle positions and velocities. But in the end, it can only produce

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

8

**probability amplitudes of the final position and velocity using the sum of the squares of
**

these amplitudes. Many of these amplitudes involve i, the square root of minus 1, an

imaginary number. These, by being negative when squared, cancel out some positive

squared components of the wave equation when summed, with excellent results in terms

of describing actual reality. One can barely imagine the shock and horror of most

scientists a century ago when this was first proposed, all reared on the Newtonian

clockwork universe, the Maxwell Equations of electromagnetism and the Laws of

Thermodynamics, when confronted with negative, squared probability amplitudes and

indeterminacy. Their shock prefaces the incredulity and reluctance to accept the

overwhelming experimental evidence, reluctance that persists to this day.

There are problems apparent with the approach initiated by Bohr, Schrodinger, and

Heisenberg, by which one starts with some original state, calculating some physical

change over time. The physical system proceeds through a variety of superposed “states”

at once (superimposed together on top of each other, always remembering that only one

state will be real when the stack collapses the sum into only one real state ), in different

places, with different velocities etc. These individual “superposed” quasi-events are each

calculated to proceed deterministically. Only when “measured” by interacting with some

macroscopic apparatus does this “superposition” of different likely, unlikely or

“impossible” routes and states collapse probabilistically into an actual, factual reality.

This led to huge (and absurd) issues: What is a “measurement”? Is it the motion of an

instrument needle? The “observation” of this needle movement by a conscious entity? Or

even the publication of the result in Nature magazine? This chain of “observers” is

potentially endless. The Schrodinger’s Cat diabolical thought experiment in which an

outside observer cannot measure whether the cat inside the box is dead or not was

Schrodinger’s masterpiece of sarcasm on this subject - the cat supposedly must be both

dead and alive at once if not “observed”! Schrodinger’s cat was far too large and warm to

be quantum superposed as Schrodinger intuited and as Roger Penrose’s suggestions are

about to experimentally confirmed. The error here was, because everything discussed was

an experiment, there was always an observer, but what of the real macroscopic world,

where, famously, contrary to Bishop Berkeley’s subjective idealism, the physics is

believed to be independent of the presence of observers?

Experimentally, all this measurement argument is utterly pointless. It is extraordinarily

difficult to maintain any quantum system in a superposition of states. High vacuum,

extreme cold, very low mass, and total isolation from other masses and outside influences

is required, and even then the achieved elapsed superposition time is very short. A cat is

way too hot, heavy and complicated to be in a superposition as a whole. It will be dead or

alive, in a box or not. “Measurement” has nothing to do with collapse of the wave

function - any sufficiently large object, including Schrodinger’s cat itself, in or out of a

box, will do it. Clearly, when the universe was simply dumb rocks, radiation etc., it

managed to collapse itself into reality for billions of years, by itself. Why believe it had to

have “conscious observers” to convert all those billions of years of previous

superpositions of “maybe history” into actual history? Would a dinosaur or a caveman be

enough? Or was a Ph.D. necessary?

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

9

**In regard to this matter, Roger Penrose (Karolhazy, Frenkel et al. 1986, Penrose and
**

Isham 1986) has a theory, which is testable (with difficulty and at significant expense). If

this theory survives it will revolutionize physical understanding of quantum mechanics

by explaining wave function collapse. Crucially, according to Penrose (Penrose 1996),

“…a macroscopic quantum superposition of two differing mass distributions is unstable

… and would decay after a characteristic time T, into one or another of the two states.” T

is approximately of the order of the Planck time, of which much more later.

Roger Penrose has thereby suggested a very profound solution. All superpositions

gravitationally collapse when an interaction with a sufficient mass occurs. Of equal

importance, he claims that if an isolated state has a sufficient mass, it will collapse itself

(self-decohere) into a fixed reality at a certain point in spacetime. Thus he gives us an

objective collapse theory. How? Penrose suggests that spacetime is intolerant of

superpositions of different amounts and positions of the particle’s mass since they would

warp spacetime gravitationally, according to the symmetry of general relativity, in

slightly different ways. The idea here is that there is a strict limit to the tolerable

distortion by the different mass distributions in spacetime of different superposed states

in order to avoid a problematic superposition of slightly differently curved spacetimes.

That would be like trying to jam a slightly bent and distorted part into a precision

machine. The “machine” of proceeding quantum superpositions in time would stop

proceeding and “collapse” to a fixed immobile state. This is the point where general

relativity and quantum mechanics gravitationally cooperate to collapse the superpositions

to create the precise momentary static state we measure in the present moment. One

could say that Penrose has therefore already found a form of “quantum gravity”.

In other words, quantum mechanics and general relativity are complementary, not

contradictory. They are essential to create, using Penrose’s insight, an absolutely real

moment by collapse/decoherence of the wave function. Why “absolute”? Because, as I

will argue later, the moment of the collapse is fixed and immobile in all 4 dimensions- an

absolute rest frame, as we shall see, a 3D slice of spacetime, minimal in thickness along

the time axis.

For example, a photon from a distant galaxy hits (interacts with) the Rock of Gibraltar.

The wave function, in order to continue evolving, would now require the rock/particle

combo wave function to be inexact in position. The universe, as we all know, will not

tolerate something as big as that rock + particle, being partially in two places at once,

certainly not millions of light years apart. So, the particle now has to be where the rock is,

because the rock, due to its mass, has a lot less indeterminacy of position than the

particle. (See De Broglie wavelength below). Thus, the particle/rock superposition has to

collapse into reality, there and then, changing the rock’s state slightly. How big does the

rock or whatever the photon hits have to be? Nobody knows, but until recently the

biggest objects maintained in a superposition (to my knowledge) were 60-carbon

buckminsterfullerene molecules, totaling 720 hydrogen atom masses. Interestingly,

someone (Iskhakov, Agafonov et al. 2012) has recently maintained as many as 100,000

photons in a superposition; but then, they are massless! Crucially, experiments are

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

10

**ongoing attempting to superpose larger masses to determine the upper limits to such
**

superpositions before self-decoherence occurs (Brooks, M. 2015).

Why does this matter? The current theory for the creation of the universe is by means of a

quantum fluctuation by which some very small mass very, very briefly came into

“virtual” existence. Penrose’s theory suggests that if such a “virtual” mass were large

enough it might be sufficient to collapse its own wave function into actual realitycausing the Big Bang. Now we have a Creation mechanism. Ongoing and planned

experiments will test this theory- not to attempt to create a new universe, but to see if this

self-collapse, better known as the self-decoherence mechanism, is real.

Today, Feynman’s “sum of all paths” approach is used in physics. It is indeed, as a

practical matter, indeterminate in so far as being unable to exactly predict microscopic

events, rather than making highly accurate calculation of quantities and of explanations of

macroscopic events, for example light reflection by mirrors (Feynman, R. P. (1985).

Again, this is not a contradiction. The universe contains many fixed quantities and

parameters, such as the gravitational constant, that are unchanging, everywhere affecting

events in predictable ways, but not absolutely defining all possible events. By analogy, if

your car has a chassis 11 inches above road level, you can’t drive over a rock 13 inches

high, but your choice of route and destination is only limited, not eliminated, by that

restriction. This analogy also holds for every Law of Nature derived from

invariances/symmetries, with the caveat that the “car”, the “road”, “boulder” and “driver”

are also the product of the entirety of the symmetries/invariances.

Parenthetically, any tiny amplitude component consisting of an “impossible” path

improves a quantum path integral calculation’s accuracy. The “impossible” components

include tiny amplitudes to move backward in time. This means that the final probabilistic

answer to the calculation, via the sum of the squares of all amplitudes, must contain some

contribution from this strange amplitude. Richard Feynman concludes that all particles

have an amplitude to move backward in time. This is unavoidable in the path integral

approach to quantum mechanics. Later, we will see that his concept is crucial to my timesymmetry approach.

This essay accepts as indisputable experimental fact that Penrose’s objective mechanism

for wave function collapse is real, ubiquitous, and the foundation of reality. The most

popular alternative view that has survived is the Many Worlds Hypothesis, invented to

avoid the philosophical angst many scientists and philosophers feel about wave function

collapse, and/or randomness and indeterminacy. Many Worlds disciples propose that

every interaction, or any change in the whole universe, even one change in a single tiny

neutrino’s state, no matter how minuscule or macroscopically insignificant, splits off an

entire new universe. This would produce huge numbers of them for every femtosecond.

All of these hypothesized universes are considered fully deterministic. As none of these

“universes” (including our own) is any more real than others or detectable by each other,

this notion is incapable of disproof according to its own terms. So it cannot be science,

according to Sir Karl Popper’s criterion. I regard this Many Worlds Hypothesis as the

most extreme violation of the Occam’s Razor Principle of Minimal Assumption in all

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

11

**history. It begs far more questions than it answers. As we see later, wave function
**

collapse is the only mechanism that can provide a unique moment of time and a means to

cement evolutionary changes into reality, the process that allowed us to eventually exist.

The Many Worlds Hypothesis is the opposite of an explanation. It is merely an excuse to

allow denial of wave function collapse into a single universal state, and thereby “solve”

the illusory “measurement problem”. Hopefully, it is a sign of such philosophical

desperation that it predicts an imminent philosophical capitulation: acceptance of the

reality of the wave function collapsing into the momentary unique reality, according to

Penrose gravitational decoherence of the wave function.

The Ancient Greeks, Leucippus and Democritus concluded that the act of dividing

masses could not go on forever; there was a minimum size, the atom, separated from

others by the “void”. We now know the universe is almost all vacuum (the Greek’s

“void”). If physical reality somehow failed to keep the electrons in atoms so very far

from the nucleus, our planet and everything upon it would collapse into a brightly shining

ball of neutrons less than a mile in diameter. Consider then, that until recently, few seem

to have considered spacetime itself, in the same “atomized” or quantized way as matter.

The resulting assumption that space is continuous predicts that a “singularity” should

exist at the center of a black hole, where the mass is concentrated in zero space at infinite

density. This ought to give us pause. When infinity appears in physics it means you are

wrong somewhere. Similarly, continuous spacetime implies that the Big Bang started at a

singularity, despite the fact that physics fails at singularities.

This essay, conservatively, relies on known physics being valid everywhere, at the origin

or inside black holes. That favors one official candidate for quantum gravity, Loop

Quantum Gravity Theory, (LQGT) which avoids singularities by providing a minimum

interval of spacetime. Consequently, some form of a discontinuous structure of spacetime

arguably is real, hopefully explained in detail in future by extension or development of

this theory. As we shall see later, a clearly “quantized” version of time is consistent with

the Einstein equations of spacetime, and can be integrated with LQGT to provide a

symmetry for time and a mechanism for the present moment.

In a continuous spacetime there is no lower limit to size. I suggest this is a core

philosophical error: using apparently continuous deterministic mathematical formalism

(which assumes such infinite divisibility) to describe the discontinuous universe that

LQGT proposes. Calculus assumes that the quantities integrated are extremely small at

the limit, beyond measurement, yet finite enough to still retain their characteristics such

as dimensions like mass, velocity and position. I would argue that these so-called

infinitesimal quantities must be finite to preserve any useful characteristics, because a

true infinitesimal (anything finite divided by infinity) is indistinguishable from zero

values of magnitude, dimensions and indeed, all characteristics. True infinitesimals then,

are indistinguishable from nothing, unsurprising since we arrive at infinity by dividing by

zero. Yet summing many such mathematical, calculus infinitesimals results in a

meaningful integral. Integrals are ubiquitous in mathematical physics and they work

beautifully.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

12

**The problem here is clear. We have an assumption of continuous spacetime, but we
**

calculate by what is, in a fundamental way, discontinuous mathematical logic by using a

finite but extremely tiny limit to spacetime subdivision in calculus. An interval on the

inconceivably tiny Planck scale (to be explained later) is certainly a small enough break

to be indistinguishable at our normal macroscopic level from a continuous reality.

Calculus, then, is conceptually a true representation of the world, summing real

spacetime Planck intervals, not an approximation. No wonder calculus works so well in

physics! Discontinuous spacetime has profound implications, not least in elucidating the

origin and nature of the present moment and the arrow of spacetime. The Planck scale

will be very important later.

**Symmetries, or equivalently, Invariances
**

The basic principle controlling the possible range of events is usually known as

symmetry, perhaps better understood in the alternative terms, a series of invariances,

constraints that require that some abstract physical operation be indistinguishable

between before and after states. That is, the physics is the same (indistinguishable,

invariant) before, during and after the operation. This is a very subtle notion, implying

universal and permanent rules. To say there can be no detectable change in the rules

during and after a physical operation is to say that those rules apply for all times and

places- leading to the “Laws of Nature”. These symmetries/invariances create both the

particles and the rules they obey, as properties of the vacuum (Icke 1995, Lederman and

Hill 2004). This apparently strange concept is all-powerful.

Symmetries such as general and special relativity are two of the perhaps 248 symmetries

that provide the laws and “forces” of nature and also produce the particle actors upon the

Universal stage. Ironically, Einstein’s relative fame is the only operational distinction

between his two new symmetries, special and general relativity and all the other

symmetries. This point of relative fame ironically serves as a means of introduction;

Einstein was world-renowned and won the prize, but his largely ignored, greatest female

contemporary in the field, Emmy Noether, despite massive, entrenched anti-female

prejudice in 19thC German academia, generalized all the symmetries to produce the

Conservation Laws — otherwise known as the Laws Of Nature. Her accomplishment

should have given her name similar notoriety today.

The first thing we need to consider in the misunderstanding of the symmetries is the

survival of the conceptual apparatus of Classical physics as a pervasive metaphor despite

a current physics that comprehensively denies the fundamental Classical precepts. Using

19th C assumptions has delayed full understanding of 21stC physics. Classical

determinism is Einstein’s view that with sufficient information on the laws and the

current physical state, one could perfectly predict all future states, so that events were a

solid block in time. There would be only one future outcome from any initial physical

state. It also includes David Hume’s view that causality requires coincidence in both time

and space. The first of these, Einstein’s assumption of determinism (but certainly not his

theories, his symmetries!) has been experimentally and theoretically refuted as described

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

13

**below. We will agree with Hume in a certain manner, expanding beyond the classical
**

representation of the collision and rebound of billiard balls. We will simply demonstrate

that all causes precede or are simultaneous with effects, equivalent to an outward arrow

of time from the origin.

Why are Classical physics prejudices so powerful, even today? The end of the 19th C was

felt to be the pinnacle of scientific achievement, with only a few issues remaining

unresolved. However, those issues became the main substance of 20th C science, and led

to the comprehensive demolition of the Classical worldview. We must try to imagine the

mist of ignorance and nonsense that had been dispelled by the end of the 19th C and the

turn of the next century. The planetary orbits, the operation of steam engines, electricity

and magnetism had been codified, and even biology, chemistry and medicine, perennially

full of magical notions, had been put into an initially scientific and effective form. All

were based on deterministic models, after centuries of struggle against superstitious,

superficial, or magical interpretations of reality. Deterministic triumphalism seemed

justified at last.

But, Classical physics is dead. We persist in thinking of particles and the laws of nature

although these ideas are simply 19th century classical descriptive survivals.

Macroscopically, classical deterministic ideas are a useful approximation in the limit of

large masses, big distances and ambient to high temperatures. This is of no significance

fundamentally or philosophically, because the universe operates moment to moment

entirely on a microscopic level, even to create macroscopic emergent effects. We must

not allow these ancient ideas to continue to distort our perspective. The modern view to

which I subscribe is that the macroscopic, seemingly Classical world of large warm

objects which we inhabit is emergent from an underlying quantum reality. It is this

transition upward in scale from quantum reality we will explore.

First, consider the symmetries. All experimentally known particles are both produced by,

and obey, the rules created by the Standard Model (Elert 1998-2014), which is a nonabelian gauge theory with the symmetry group U(1)×SU(2)xSU(3). This is the truly

revolutionary concept in the Standard Model in particle physics. More, as we will see

later, the whole corpus of relevant universal symmetries is likely to be both within and, I

suggest, completely fill the Lie group of E8 symmetries (Lisi 2007, Lisi 2008). As

described above, a physical symmetry, or alternatively, an invariance, constrains the

possibilities available in reality. We need to remove ourselves from the ordinary world of

visible objects where we make naïve philosophical analogies between some of them and

the fundamental elements of physics. We need to think upward from the micro-world to

understand the macro-world, not the traditional reverse.

We think of a “particle”, but it is only a manifestation of certain symmetries/constraints

in the Standard Model, as part of the E8 symmetry group, that constrain its nature and

behavior. It is a “spinning” multiply attributed, twisted knot, part of and not separable

from our very peculiar vacuum. This will be significant later. Different constraints give a

“particle” entity that behaves differently - that is all we can know. It is not a tiny billiard

ball with exotic properties, it is only and always a manifestation of universal rules of

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

14

**behavior, neither entirely a wave nor a particle. All we can know are the invariances,
**

which we persist in trying to imagine as waves/particles. The wavicle picture is a

Classically-derived hybrid idea, a metaphorical image only.

For a simpler example, consider rotational symmetry, which among other things means

that a uniform unmarked cylinder when rotated about its axis is invariant in that we

cannot distinguish its final position from its initial position after an arbitrary amount of

rotation. Noether’s Theorem showed that these symmetries create conservation laws,

which are, broadly, the laws of nature. Hence, when a spinning ice-skater brings her arms

or legs closer to her body and thereby speeds up her rotation, she is obeying the law of

conservation of angular momentum, which is Noether’s result from rotational symmetry.

“Obeying” is probably a poor choice of words, since she had no alternative to that result,

once she chose to move her arms or legs at all.

Imagine that the Ten Commandments or the rules of soccer were not mere moral

imperatives or rules of the game about which personal decisions could be made whether

to obey them or not, but absolute, unbreakable laws of nature. The particular sins or fouls

could not exist - a “force” would prevent them. These rules themselves could be derived

by deterministic logic, but vast possibilities of life choices or sports events would still be

possible within these much narrower constraints; some would argue that better soccer

games might result. The hundreds of universal symmetries enable, constrain and allow

the possibilities, but they do not absolutely determine the resulting course of events in

time. There is ZERO experimental evidence for determinism beyond this limited sense.

The symmetries supply the mechanical design and particles, allowing the quantum

changes to create the course of events in time, but like a mechanical phonograph the

choice of actual tune played is not fixed.

The experimental fact is that symmetries/invariances merely allow or disallow certain

actions, they do not completely determine when, how or whether they occur. The

invariances both constrain particle interactions and allow/create their existence. They

enable or prevent certain classes of particle behavior, not the everyday details of life.

The distinction from the ordinary Ten Commandments is that invariance “sins” are

impossible. The spinning ice-skater is free to decide whether or not or in what manner to

extend or retract her arms or legs in order to win or lose the Olympic Gold Medal, but the

invariances will keep her angular momentum constant, whether she earns a ten or a one

from the judges. This means that the Laws of Nature (really, derivative from the

symmetries by Noether’s Theorem) do not absolutely determine events, they provide the

rules and also the active entities (“particles”) by which only events compatible with

these rules may proceed. This state of affairs is not Classical determinism as usually

understood, where only one future state after a given time interval is possible from a

given starting state, because, in the same way as the Ten Commandments, vast crowds of

future possibilities may occur, equally compatible with these rules. The E8 symmetries

operate as if the Commandments, the world and the humans who were supposed to obey

them were all part and parcel of each other. Moses, like scientists, got to announce the

existence of the rules, not negotiate their terms. We need to never forget the vital

distinction between the symmetry view of constraining events within a range of

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

15

**possibilities, and at the same time enabling them by providing the particles and “forces”,
**

versus the Classical view of absolutely determining events by mysteriously provided laws

and particles.

Rockets fly through empty space, but they may as well be trains on rails in reality,

gripped tightly by gravity, curving around the planets and the sun, in orbits calculable to

inches, the consequence of a symmetry: general relativity (technically-diffeomorphism

invariance). If an astronaut chooses to do so, he can expend some fuel, boosting himself

to join another orbit, obeying similarly operating, but different, invariance rules as the

ice-skating Olympian. Why should we accept that such symmetries completely eliminate

his or her choices?

So what is the role of quantum mechanics in our picture of the universe? Invariances

constrain reality - only certain kinds of “particles” can exist and invariances both create

them and limit their range of behaviors both microscopically and macroscopically (the

“Laws of Nature”). The theatre for this universal movie is the volume in one time

dimension and three space dimensions, plus mass-energy in which all this may happen,

but not must happen. If the characters, the “particles,” are to act on this universal stage,

by what means are they to strut about, as Shakespeare might put it? They will find

themselves in certain states of position, velocity, spin, quantum excitation etc. and their

next state will be found by a quantum mechanical summation of all paths to any next

state of the particles. It will be strongly related to, but not be precisely determined by, the

input state(s).

Last, the exact magnitude of certain observed but inexplicably sized constants and free

parameters determine whether technologically advanced life is or is not possible in a

universe in terms of the four other components of reality above. The macroscopic,

emerging deterministic but unpredictable mechanisms chaos theory and self-limiting

criticality amplify quantum indeterminacy to produce an open future for reality as a

whole. How the extremely narrow and precise magnitudes of these constants and

parameters were “chosen” from a hypothetically huge range of life-hostile variants,

against huge odds, to make us, the observers, possible, is called the Fine-Tuning Problem

(Leslie 1989).

**Spacetime and the Present Moment
**

Next, consider space, time and mass-energy. Einstein showed us that none of these exists

individually. There is no time without space, only space-time, no mass separate from

energy, but as alternate forms of mass-energy, and in fact no space-time without massenergy and vice versa. So we need to think of space-time-mass-energy or STME for

short. If mass appears, so does spacetime. So there can be no mere arrow of time. All

mass-energy spreads outward in space and time in four dimensions from the origin. We

know that space is expanding (increasing in three dimensions). But there is no space

without time, so time must also increase, outward from the origin, in its dimension. All

STME expands outward from the origin. We ride upon this arrow of space-time-mass-

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

16

energy. I believe we steer this arrow into the future, partially and locally, via free-ish

will, as we shall see below.

Einstein was clear that STME is a unity, but was surprised when it was discovered that

the universe is expanding in space, even though his equations in their original form

predicted that. His view was that spacetime was a solid four-dimensional block, with no

distinction as to past, present or future, totally determined forever along the axis of time.

This picture is fine for all moments at least one tiny Planck time (see later) before NOW.

The suggested difference in this essay, and I argue, in reality, from Einstein’s view is the

utter non-existence of the past or future; existence is only the present, the results of the

past. While there is only one past history, consistent with Einstein’s image, this does not

imply there can be only one future. Simply, all futures must be consistent with that past,

and the past and future must be consistent with the symmetries. Every moment is the seed

of the next; the quantum processes, amplified by chaos and self-limiting criticality allow

a range of possibilities as to how that seed shapes the future.

What if we accept the experimental evidence of the intertwining of the symmetries and

quantum mechanics at every level? Then there must be a deeper explanation for any

significant asymmetries in Nature. Physicists are right; time must somehow be

symmetric. But we can’t deny facts, such as the glaringly obvious forward arrow of time,

and the unique present moment, in any such explanation.

This was the basis of Einstein’s great misunderstanding. He assumed determinism, and he

assumed that there was no absolute rest frame or special present moment. These were

untrue; but both were useful conceptually, and mathematically simplifying for his

discoveries. The fact is, Lorentz Invariance (Special Relativity) and Diffeomorphism

Invariance (General Relativity) were two new invariances. They are constraints, not

controls, just like all other invariances in physics. There appear to be no reasons to

especially elevate them as incompatible with quantum mechanical indeterminacy. Since

symmetries are universal, either all invariances are in conflict with quantum mechanics,

or none of them are.

The great confusion here is to believe that symmetries, deterministic in mathematical

formalism, thereby compel reality to be so. To calculate this skeleton from which reality

is built is far from determining the fate of the body of reality as a whole. Symmetry

allows or disallows limited aspects of events that Classical physicists and philosophers

believed, wrongly, were completely determined. Total, Classical determinism was and is

impossible as a practical matter, as we shall see below. It is not a paradox to be able to

use deterministic, logical mathematics to correctly calculate quantities in a

microscopically indeterminate universe. It is the genius of great physicists like Dirac and

Feynman to be able to do so. The logical error is to assume that a deterministic

mathematical process correctly calculating an isolated quantity is tantamount to proving

that the sequence of events (i.e. reality) to which the quantity relates is also deterministic.

A quantity for this discussion, is defined as any measurable magnitude which can be

expressed in a mathematical formula.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

17

**Gravitation has so far resisted traditional methods of quantization because Einstein was
**

right; it is purely a result of one of the symmetries. It does not need the “graviton”, the

theoretical quantum gravitational force-associated particle, to do its job. Einstein’s

curving of spacetime by mass is entirely sufficient. Interestingly, even if the graviton, an

entirely theoretical massless spin-2 boson, behaved as believed, there is no feasible way

to detect it experimentally, or to disprove its existence. This failure by Sir Karl Popper’s

criterion - the requirement in science of the possibility of disproof - would consign the

graviton to fantasy, not science. Absent a graviton, and with general relativity working

entirely satisfactorily, why do we need the elusive quantum gravity theory as it is usually

considered?

In answer to that question, I say we do not need a new theory of quantum gravity, if we

consider spacetime itself as quantized. In that light, gravity does not need to be quantized.

Gravity is simply the result of Diffeomorphism Invariance, the constancy (invariance) of

physical law even when spacetime geometry is curved by the presence of mass-energy.

There is no need for a theory of quantum gravity, only a quixotic desire to fix a nonexistent philosophical determinism problem. The genuine question, to me, is whether

spacetime itself is continuous or discontinuous, i.e. quantized, being composed of distinct

minimal quanta of spacetime intervals. This will be explored later.

**Toward a Consistent 21st Century Physics Free of 19th Century
**

Philosophical Prejudice

Let’s explore the two emergent phenomena on the macroscopic scale: Chaos and SelfLimiting Criticality. Please keep in mind that, for this essay, “determined” means strictly

Classical, absolute inevitable fate, Einstein’s opinion.

First, Chaos is a consequence of sensitive dependence on initial conditions. All Chaotic

systems “deterministically” amplify tiny differences to create large, unpredictable effects.

So we get mathematically deterministic, but actually unpredictable phenomena.

(Remember that determinism works fine as an approximation, for most large, warm,

unintelligent objects rumbling around in the world.) The famous example is a single

butterfly’s wing-flapping effects changing the weather. The Chaos effect is in fact

immensely more powerful than that. Consider the tiniest imaginable disturbance to our

planet: removing one electron’s mass from some mass at the visible edge of the universe,

13 thousand million light years away. It has been calculated (Ruelle 1991) that on arrival

here, this unimaginably weak gravitational effect on our atmosphere would measurably

alter the weather in two weeks, though the actual nature and magnitude of the effect

could not be predicted! Chaos is a phenomenon where however tiny and precisely known

the input of a change to a state of the world, the eventual resulting larger-scale changes

cannot be precisely calculated. Chaos Theory means that many important macroscopic

systems are both deterministic in mathematical formalism and unpredictable no matter

how accurately we know the initial conditions or the input change and how exact are our

attempted calculations of the result. The effect is to massively amplify tiny effects of

quantum indeterminacy, to a greater and greater extent over time, to defeat deterministic

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

18

**projections of past events and to create significant differences in alternative possible
**

futures.

The second, Self-Limiting Criticality is clumsily named. For short and for better

illustration I prefer “avalanche theory”. It is as ubiquitous as Chaos Theory and similarly

deterministic mathematically. If grains of sand, slightly different as they inevitably are in

size, shape, density, etc., are added to a pile at a certain rate, at some point the pile will

collapse in an avalanche. It is impossible to calculate or predict exactly when, or in what

size, such an avalanche will occur. Instead, avalanches follow a logarithmic scale, one ten

times as big as avalanche X occurs ten times less often than X-sized ones. Such power

laws, not necessarily integer-valued, apply for stock market declines, earthquakes and

many other large and small-scale phenomena. “Criticality” is the point at which collapse

is imminent, when any tiny addition will start the avalanche or a last added stress can

cause the earthquake fault to slip. It is mathematically distinct from Chaos, but each can

work together. In contrast with Chaos, it is the result of macroscopic amplification of

some relatively variable size, but small sequential addition to a state causing an

incalculable, vastly larger change. A fine example is the effect of a loud sound starting a

massive snow slide by just one or a few snowflakes being dislodged and falling

downslope, quickly snowballing into an avalanche, with possibly huge practical

consequences.

Avalanche theory is another unpredictable and extraordinarily sensitive (but

deterministic in its mathematical formalism) emergent large-scale phenomenon. Like

Chaos, it amplifies any tiny quantum indeterminacy, driving a massive proliferation of

alternative paths for quantum mechanics to eventually collapse into one unique reality at

the present moment.

So Einstein must be wrong for prediction. But determinists would argue that everything is

still absolutely inevitable despite the impossibility of prediction. Their problem is

Heisenberg Quantum Indeterminacy, not Heisenberg Uncertainty - an outmoded

terminology. It is not that we have an uncertain measurement; the actual reality is inexact

and to some degree indeterminate. The smaller the object the greater is the indeterminacy

as a percentage of the energy and time, or of position and velocity. This much is

experimental fact. So David Hume’s billiard balls, even if impossibly perfectly spherical

and built of impossibly identical numbers of identical atoms in identical relative

positions, would still have extremely tiny inexactitudes in initial and continuing position

and velocity, and after bouncing and re-colliding many times would deviate from

Newtonian paths according to Chaos Theory plus de Broglie/Heisenberg Indeterminacy.

The significant increase in indeterminacy for small objects is seen via the de Broglie

wavelength, lambda, which can be thought of as the combined indeterminacy of position

and velocity.

λ = h/mv

Here h, is Planck’s constant of action, the momentum is the mass, m times the velocity, v.

Planck’s constant is extremely tiny (about 7x10-34 Joule-seconds, (energy multiplied by

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

19

**time, or action to a physicist). It is divided by the momentum, by comparison a very large
**

number for heavy objects such as billiard balls. However, for liquid molecules, and small

particulate solids like tiny sperm cells, their momentum is small enough to lead to

significant indeterminacy of position and velocity, especially over increasing time.

The single, unique sperm cell that fertilized your mother’s egg, like that of every one of

the billions of our ancestors, was buffeted along the way by quadrillions of moving liquid

molecules, (Brownian motion, earlier explained in this way by Einstein!), and each

collision was significantly de Broglie indeterminate in the amount of its path-disturbing

effects. So did the best men or women win? Each of the billions of fertilization events

making our ancestors was like a horserace through a swamp, in a whirlwind, with a few

hundred million participants of differing abilities starting at slightly different places and

times. Would Einstein wager deterministically on who wins that race to conception?

Calculated this way, how likely were you to exist, a priori? On the level of a miracle, I

would suggest. Avalanche theory therefore makes things even worse when attempting to

calculate particle paths forever, now multiplied by chaos and minuscule quantum

indeterminacy. Although at the macroscopic level for short time periods, indeterminacy is

exceedingly small, it is not zero. As we saw above, Chaos and Avalanche Theory causes

huge amplification of any however tiny, quantum inexactitude over time.

The problem is that, the Laws of Nature do not change; they are the same now as at the

origin, in the macro and micro world. So, if we were following Classical determinism, we

must be able to reverse a completely deterministic history, if only we knew exactly all

details of today’s particle positions and motion. That is, if Einstein were right about this,

he would be equally right about any point in the past, so that if one were to create, say,

his life, or indeed any known series of events after the origin, then every particle at the

Big Bang would have had to be in a position fixed to less than a quintillion quintillion

quintillionth etc. of their tiny diameter to determine everything up to his birth and

beyond. Why, because the universe had to expand, massively amplifying any particle

positional errors at the origin, and every moment since. Additionally, Chaos and

avalanche theory multiply any original and continuing indeterminacy. So determinism

requires absolutely exact identification, selection and positioning of every particle at the

origin to produce our world as we see it.

To the contrary, we know that such a feat of precise selection at or near the origin, or

anywhere else, to determine Einstein’s or your existence is impossible according to

quantum mechanical indeterminacy at the origin and in every moment since. It is even

more ludicrous when we actually contemplate “organizing” the swirling, turbulent mass

of identical quarks and gluons at billions of degrees in temperature near the origin of

spacetime. How could a Maxwell Demon-type God select, segregate and herd the

necessarily separate, individual (but indistinguishable) quarks into exactly correct

positions to determine the entire future path toward Einstein’s existence and precise life

history thirteen thousand million years later? Seriously?

There is no physics for that type of outcome, and I confidently predict that there never

will be. Einstein was neither an accident nor an inevitability, he was just one of a vast

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

20

**number of possibilities at the origin. So are we all. Darwinian evolution is the only
**

credible means of arriving at an Einstein, you or me, from a bunch of small molecules on

Earth three and a half thousand million years ago, or from the extreme temperature soup

of quarks and gluons at the origin. That means social, economic, artistic, political, and

technical evolution, all in a modified–by-human-activity, quasi-Darwinian sense, not just

the usual biological sense. This requires a multiplicity of possible paths to the future to be

available at the origin, and every moment since, in order to multiply the effects of

improvements, over time. Even God, if He obeys His own rules of physics, could not

manipulate the quark/gluon soup in so precisely the right way to make Einstein or you,

the reader, inevitably exist 13 thousand million years after the origin. All of us were

absurdly unlikely, and are miracles in that sense, and so were all our ancestors.

Determinism must argue that we were inevitable, essentially predestined. Nothing here

denies that there is now only one single historical path from the origin to now, for every

particle in the universe. Nor does it imply Liebniz’s or the fictional Candide’s idea of a

best-of-all possible worlds. It is simply that vastly varied other events were inherently

possible, but did not happen. This is necessary to allow Evolution in the broadest sense.

Determinism = total predestination from the Big Bang to now = impossibility

**Digression: A Philosophical Application of 21st Century Physics
**

Many believe that the brain is a giant avalanche system constantly in criticality at

some very high fraction of its constituent neurons (De Arcangelis, PerroneCapano et al. 2006). Because each of these billions of neurons on average is

connected to thousands of others, we must consider an arrangement of

“sandpiles”. Many sandpiles are connected to thousands of others, like hugely

multidimensional dominoes. Every domino’s topple can topple many others. So

each criticality incident at an individual neuron will propagate widely, tipping

many other connected neurons up to or beyond criticality. Further, all of the

billions of neurons are awash in a multitude of signal molecules and chemical

stimulants or depressants. These chemicals and their cellular receptors are subject

to quantum indeterminacy and quantum tunneling which affect the chemical

reactions, and hence the timing and scope, of every neuronal critical incident.

(Quantum tunneling is a quantum effect whereby a reaction can occur more easily

or often despite a high energy barrier otherwise hindering that reaction. It is a

form of especially gross chemical indeterminacy). Consciousness is likely to be

closely related to all these phenomena in a brain structure that in this way cannot

be deterministic in the Classical sense.

If physics drove philosophy, we could define free-ish will, as incompletely

deterministic decision-making, which is inclusive of, but not fully determined by,

outside operative inputs. This could tend to improved outcomes from the

perspective of the individual or group. Free-ish will has obvious survival value in

encouraging social and cultural evolution. For evidence of the evolutionary utility

of free-ish will, just look at the historical under-performance of societies,

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

21

**religions, or politico-economic systems that attempt to force people to think alike
**

or not at all.

The vital issue here is to accept the massive contribution of genetic, cultural, and

personal history in a decision, but to always be aware of the final role of the

individual consciousness. If one were trying to design a biological machine for a

“ghost” to inhabit, the human brain could not be beaten. No matter how

ephemeral the “hands” on the steering wheel of consciousness, or how truly weak

the will may be in proportion to brain inputs, the brain is the ideally sensitive

vehicle to “drive” due to quantum indeterminacy and avalanche theory. Doesn’t

the “massive contribution of genetic, cultural, and personal history” above simply

define the individual? Why would it absolutely restrict his/her free(-ish)dom to

decide, given the biophysics above?

We have to consider that consciousness is an integrative phenomenon that

requires a finite and variable time to input, process and summarize sensory and

intentional data. This would make a “psychological present”. For example, one

could process hearing the sound of one’s bare toe painfully tripping over a bell in

about 2 milliseconds. Seeing the bell, in the sense of integrating and interpreting

the visible stimulus as a bell in a dangerous position would take about 200

milliseconds. The pain or touch signals would arrive via the nerves more slowly.

The reflexive motor reaction, too late to avoid kicking the bell, but trying to avoid

falling over, might start before the pain signal arrived and was processed at the

brain. One would experience this entire sequence as simultaneous, and would then

perhaps decide to tidy up the area more effectively in future. Our effective

moment of the present is in fact quite wide and varies from about 500

milliseconds to 3 seconds as measured in different experiments. Benjamin Libet’s

measurement that the brain begins to form the motor signal for an action before

the conscious intent is aware in consciousness does not deny free-ish will,

because this readiness potential was present regardless of the decision

(Ananthaswamy, A 2013). It can also be argued that the 200 or so millisecond gap

is well within the brain’s length of subjective simultaneity. Neither can be said to

be first. (Spinney, L. (2015)

Goodbye then, for Classical determinism versus Chance and Evolution. What about

Hume and causality? When two quantum entities are produced in some interaction, they

are entangled. They do not have their own separate quantum states; they are interrelated,

sharing at least two quantum states between them, only provided that neither of their

wave functions has collapsed yet. Essentially, they share a combined wave function. The

basic example is two entangled, physically separated photons and their opposite spin

states. If one entangled photon has one of its only two possible quantum spin states when

measured at laboratory A, the other at laboratory B will instantaneously have the other

available spin state no matter how large the distance between labs A and B. Nobody had

any prior knowledge of which spin state A’s photon would turn out to have when

measured - it would be absolutely random, as expected according to quantum mechanics.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

22

Yet lab B’s photon would, then always, instantly, have the other spin direction. All this

has been confirmed repeatedly over great distances and is not in dispute. Scientists have

been unnecessarily struggling with this “spooky quantum action at a distance” as Einstein

put it, for most of a century. Why that struggle was unnecessary is the subject of the next

section.

**21st Century Physics and the Present Moment
**

So what is causality? It must be extended so that it is not limited by Hume’s proximity in

space criterion, but only for entangled quantum objects. The two entangled photons

coincided in time, not necessarily in space. Because their constraint to have different spin

quantum numbers was instantaneous, there was no difference in time. Once one of the

pair was fixed in one spin orientation by its interaction with some mass, the other was

immediately forced into the opposite spin, no matter how distant from the other. The

cause did not precede the effect, but was simultaneous. So a cause can precede or be

simultaneous with an effect, but it cannot be later. This will be of great significance

below when considering the universal versus the subjective present moment.

This profound quantum-based alteration in how we define the real basis of causality is

key to reconciling all sorts of apparent contradictions. How? By explaining the present

moment and the arrow of spacetime. Einstein once attempted to console the widow of his

friend Besso (Fölsing 1997) by saying she should not grieve because her husband was

alive in the past! This past was supposedly as real as the present she felt trapped in. This

is bizarre. We might consider the past to seem similar to such a fixed four-dimensional

solid. Still, it is nothing like the present moment; Besso’s widow cannot revisit her past

and touch her formerly living husband. In fact, Einstein’s equations allow a very different

solution, called a “foliation” of 4D spacetime (Marsden and Tipler 1980, Lockwood, M,

2005) to produce a unique, universe-wide present moment. This means that the past

appears as a stack of 3D slices along the time dimension of 4D spacetime. It looks like

Einstein’s block time, unless looked at very closely. It is made of very thin sequential 3D

slices, about the thickness across of the extremely tiny Planck time in the time dimension,

with gaps of a similar width between them. This clarifies “spooky quantum action at a

distance” as happening at a defined moment of time, one Planck time wide, regardless of

distance, across the foliation, orthogonal to time’s arrow. There is no time across the

foliation, it is a frozen instant. So entangled quantum states are not quite “instantaneous”

in the old sense, they occur within a minute slice of time. Then time increases by one

more slice, and so on. More on this and Planck units later. It is a paradox that physicists

still think in terms of continuous Nature on the one hand, yet have accepted the

“infinitesimal” Planck units as minimal sizes of mass, length and time on the other.

We need also to consider that this foliation extends beyond the visible edge of the

universe from our position. Obviously, a physicist beyond our horizon might believe that

different physics pertains in our area, or vice-versa we may believe the same. All would

be wrong. No matter how big the universe may be, there is the same physics and the same

moment of time, because the foliation is everything real, everywhere and the entangled

particles link every part of it together across the foliation. In a very real sense, two

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

23

**entangled particles are a joint particle, bridging any distance across foliations until one
**

decoheres with the other. There will be more on foliated time and the Planck time later.

Another of Einstein’s assumptions was that there was no absolute rest frame in space, so

we could only consider relative motion between bodies. Einstein did not live to see that

he was wrong. According to J.S. Bell, (Bell 1987) Einstein's theory assumes, but does not

require, that the laws of physics will look the same to all observers in uniform motion,

with no fixed rest frame. This permitted a very concise and elegant form of the theory.

H.A. Lorentz preferred the view that there is indeed a state of "real" rest, defined by the

“aether”. On this subject, Bell said, "the facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one

philosophy rather than the other". The facts of physics as known today include the cosmic

microwave background radiation (CMBR), unknown to both Lorentz and Einstein, and it

is indeed a suitable universal rest frame corresponding to the mythical aether.

The universe is permeated everywhere by electromagnetic radiation left over from the

Big Bang. Cosmic microwave background radiation is Big Bang electromagnetic

radiation made longer and longer in wavelength as the universe expanded and stretched

it. It is now microwave radiation, called 3 degree Kelvin radiation because it matches the

radiation characteristics of bodies at that temperature, about 3 degrees above absolute

zero. This radiation is stationary in the sense that it has no differential motion relative to

itself or the point of origin. It radiated equally outward everywhere, from everywhere in

the universe, as soon as the relatively tiny universe became transparent to

electromagnetic radiation (about 350,000 years ABB - after the Big Bang). It turns out

that all we have to do is measure the frequency of this radiation in all directions in order

to calculate our absolute velocity in space. The radiation is “bluer” (higher frequency) if

we are heading more in one direction, “redder” (lower frequency) if we are moving away.

The bluest reading gives our absolute direction, and the amount of this Doppler shift to

the blue (higher frequency) gives our absolute speed. This is true for everywhere and

everywhen. Our solar system’s absolute speed and direction have been determined in this

way.

**Digression: Philosophical Misapplications of 20th Century Physics
**

There is an interesting parallel here to the moral damage done by determinism.

The popular conclusion from Einstein’s relativity was that “everything is

relative”. This leads to the kind of nihilism realized in the mid-20th Century PostStructuralist view wherein moral value distinctions between, say, a gangster and a

saint are disdained. Einstein lived at a time when the “aether wind” hypothesis

had recently been disproved, and the only imaginable way to measure velocity

was relative to some other object. So there seemed a rootless and drifting aspect

to the new conception of motion. This unfortunate name has led to

misunderstandings, especially since relativity became a worldwide sensation

when it was proved by astronomical observations. A tendency to moral relativism

ensued. Relativity itself could not be more specific in physical meaning or less

relevant to moral meaning. Ironically, the assumption that there was no other

means of measuring velocity is wrong, as we see below. As with determinism, the

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

24

**physics works, but the assumption was wrong, so these attitude changes were
**

doubly baseless. The idea of quantum “uncertainty” also contributed to

postmodernist radical antinomian nihilism where truth itself is shrugged off as

optional, derivative and unknowable.

No red or blue shift in any direction, (absent a significant gravitational field or any

acceleration) means an absolute universal rest frame has been reached. So we have a

defined absolute space rest frame. If the present could be defined in that frame, we would

have an absolute time. If we have both, we have an absolute spacetime, or the present

moment. This is where the foliation solution to the Einstein equations of general relativity

(Marsden and Tipler 1980, Lockwood 2005) comes in again. To foliate spacetime, we cut

it into very thin sequential slices- like foliage or leaves. Here, we ask how thin are the

slices. Einstein, I imagine, would prefer they were infinitely thin, but that would not be

any different from his continuous, four dimensional block spacetime. They are not.

Here we need to look back to the controversy over “quantum jumps” when quantum

effects were first explored. All quantum changes have no intermediate state or states that

a quantum entity “passes through” on the way from one state to another. Worse for

Classical prejudices, this jump happens instantly. This was a major issue in the early 20th

century. “Quantum jumps” did not fit Classical continuous time or motion, but they

happened anyway. They were the very basis of Planck’s original answer to the problem

of the anomalous (in Classical terms) spectrum of light emission from hot bodies. He

gave us the famous Planck relation:

E=hν

E, the light energy, equals a constant multiplied by v, the frequency of the light. The

constant h, above, is Planck’s constant of action. As shown above, its dimensions are

energy multiplied by time. As Planck’s constant is extremely small in magnitude relative

to everyday objects, quantum phenomena are noticeable on only the tiniest of scalesatomic and molecular scales. Planck said light was emitted according to this equation in

discreet lumps of energy, quanta, which was later described as fueled by instant “jumps”

from one electron’s energy level in an atom to a lower one, without traversing the

“energy gap” between them. The Sun heats up atoms by nuclear fusion. Counterintuitively, it is when they cool down at the surface that the light of the Sun is sent to us

as the electrons fall inward closer to the nuclei, losing light energy in the process.

If we propose to quantize everything, what is the detailed mechanism by which the

universe gets from one Planck time’s state of the universe to the next? This is as hard to

imagine as the symmetries. It is the earlier referenced “sum of all paths”. It is as if a

particle tries out all the ways of getting from state A to state B, no matter how complex,

exotic or outright impossible they may be in macroscopic terms. The more different crazy

routes are added, the more precise our calculation becomes. Everything adds, subtracts

and cancels out to give us “an” answer, not “the” answer. By similar means we can

calculate physical quantities to extraordinary accuracy. Some quantities can be calculated

with such precision that a sniper with similar accuracy could hit a bull’s-eye on the moon,

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

25

**given enough power in the ammunition. So the universe sniffs around a vast horde of
**

maybes, maybe-nots, and no-ways-in-Hell to give us NOW. Effectively there are indeed

many worlds branching off from every changing particle and moment, but they inhabit

the narrow undecided cracks between sequential Planck-scale STME quantum jumps to

the next real moment, and are never entirely real. The next moment of reality partakes to

some extent in all of them, emerging as a unique summation.

The summation of the wave functions of all the momentarily relevant particles in the

entire universe collapses into reality, instant by separate instant. (It should be noted that

only about one particle in the universe per ten billion is interacting, i.e. relevant, at any

moment. All the particles in your chair are constantly interacting with each other, which

is why it is solidly, constantly real.) Then the next moment arises from the newly existing

reality plus those previously superposed particles that are now relevant due to potential

interaction with components of immediately past reality. This creates the next moment

and so on, forever. The universe-wide present moment is NOW - the collapse of the

quantum state of the whole universe into the only momentary reality there has ever been,

from the first moment to this, expanding in four dimensions outward from the origin in

tiny (Planck interval) quantum jumps of spacetime.

Maybe it should long ago have been obvious that the instantaneous quantum jumps

appear because there is no time, and therefore no possible real events, between the prior

state and the present one, just a tiny interval for the universe to calculate what happens

next by summing the relevant superpositions/virtual particle paths. So, I suggest, the

separation and thickness of each proposed foliation of spacetime should be on the order

of the Planck time, extremely thin, 10-44 seconds, the thinnest time interval possible with

quantum physics. This means that time is quantized, it moves forward in tiny “quantum

jumps” with no time and therefore no real events in that inconceivably brief interval

between one real moment and the next. So this would be the Planck interval, the no-time

gap across which quanta jump in order to participate in a moment. This idea makes

complete sense of quantum jumps and gives us an interval, call it a “placetime”, for all

the not-yet-real but relevant paths to be summed and give us the next foliation. The next

foliation is the next moment of reality. So it is better to think of a Planck interval as the

minimum “placetime” between events. An event (4D) is a sum over placetime of the

related parts of effectively 3D, states (foliations) of the whole universe in this model. Add

the Planck intervals sequentially and you get the ”flow” of time, but the flow is a

quantum movie. Reality is always and only a single 3D momentary slice, one frame of a

3D movie at about 1044 frames per second (the number of Planck times per second) and

very high definition, over 10100 potential Planck volumes per cubic inch. (A Planck

volume is defined as having length, width and height of one Planck length, about 1.6x1035

meters cubed.).

Analogously to a movie film, a frame of reality would stop to be “illuminated” in the

projector gate for one Planck time, then “quantum sprockets”- decoherence - move the

next frame/moment into place during the Planck interval. The general opinion in physics

is that the Planck time and space scale is the point where quantum gravity supposedly

enters the picture. But we can see here, that the whole universe’s quantum path integral

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

26

**gives us the next moment of reality. So who needs a new theory of quantum gravity since
**

we already have one, right there at the Planck scale? The actual phenomenon within the

Planck interval is simply Penrose self-decoherence, due to the mass of various parts of

the universe collapsing local parts of the universal wave function, resulting in the unique

nature of the 3D foliated present moment and the exponentially open future that expands

beyond it, Planck interval by Planck interval.

Clearly, we should use the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation as the reference

frame for this foliation. If we slice four dimensional spacetime this way, we get a frozen,

motionless, effectively 3D space relative to the CMBR with only one moment of time

across the whole universe. Then the universal movie advances one frame by Penrose selfdecoherence of relevant superpositions, and so on forever. There is a total coincidence in

time anywhere across the universal foliation, so all then-current quantum correlations,

like the measurement of one of the two experimental entangled photons above, being

instantaneous, are causal by the new definition, regardless of separation distance. There

is no “spookiness” in instantaneous action at a distance, therefore, because the zero

distance in time, during the Planck interval, by multiplication, means zero distance in

spacetime. Such action must be “instantaneous” i.e. occurs during a Planck interval, since

it is a quantum entanglement ended where one of the particles has interacted with the rest

of the universe (by being measured in the above case). Time is the sequence of moments

in which the whole universe collapses forward to create the expanding 3D front of

Reality.

One might ask what is the rate of time? Newton would have said, one second per second,

flowing majestically, unchanging, everywhere, forever. Einstein showed that as measured

from one Earth-based twin’s rest frame (Alice’s), the flow of time as measured by some

reliably steady internal flow of events, such as a clock, would be somewhat slower in

another (Bob’s) moving at very high speed relative to Alice. So Bob would be younger

than Alice on returning from his journey. The rate of time is fastest in the rest frame of

the CMBR (assuming no significant gravitational field), relative to any object moving

relative to it, which is every object. So, there, in the absolute rest frame of the CMBR, is

the absolute rate of time. Time exists only as the present moment, about one Planck time

separated from the next. Any motion of a particle appears as a quantum jump into the

next slice of spacetime. History is the physical addition over time of the quantum

changes by which all events proceed, one Planck interval at a time. The sum of all prior

Planck intervals is the image of the past, forever gone, Einstein’s friend Besso and all.

The only time, in the sense of a place in time where events occur, that ever has existed

was and is no more than approximately a Planck time wide: the expanding edge of time

in space, the outermost 3D slice of a 4D sphere.

The speed of light is the maximum distance a massless particle such as a photon can

travel from its emission point in vacuum to its absorption point in vacuum in a given sum

of Planck times. This Planck time is one of the natural units called Planck units; it is the

time required for a photon to travel a Planck length, about 5.4x10-44 seconds. The Planck

length is about 1.6x10-35 meters. These Planck units are calculated from basic quantities

such as the gravitational constant, Planck’s constant of action, h, and the speed of light.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

27

**These three are parameters typical of this universe, but we have no clue why they should
**

be precisely (or even vaguely approximately) the size they are relative to our standard

measures of time, space etc.- that is, relative to the scale of our world. This is the FineTuning Problem, because if they were even slightly different, life could not have evolved.

Consider that a quantum computer is expected to be able to do enormous calculations,

and then give a result when it collapses into a real state. The scope and rapidity of

computation is a rapidly escalating function of the number of superposed particle states

(qubits) usable in the computation. The usual estimate is that every massive real particle

is outnumbered by about 1010 in superpositions at any time, mostly photons and

neutrinos. A computer with so many potential qubits per real particle could, I submit,

easily calculate the fate of those that were previously real, but are momentarily part of the

universal superposition plus a relative few that will be newly real. It could then selfdecohere to give an answer, the next moment, with everything fixed as a 3D slice of 4D

spacetime, waiting for the next quantum jump to the next moment.

Why are the laws, parameters, and constants the same everywhere? These undecided

superposed “particles”, like non-superposed, presently real particles, are simply

individual embodiments of the totality of our universe’s basic physics. They are nonlocalized to varying extents. Real particles, part of NOW, are local. Because some were

entangled with others everywhere, in many cases even beyond the visible horizon of the

universe, they “transmitted” the same physics non-locally throughout spacetime with

them, during each Planck interval in which they decohered.

Why would anyone question the direction of the arrow of time, when we know space is

expanding outward from a minuscule origin point in both time and space, and we know

from Einstein there is no separate time, only space and time inextricably together? So

obviously the expansion must be that of space and time together, outward from the

origin? The answer is that no matter how obvious the direction of time is, we have a

problem of symmetry. Everything arises from symmetries. The laws and equations work

perfectly well in either direction in time, they are time-symmetric, but our world is not.

Most physicists think that it is perfectly feasible to consider reversing events in time

because they are committed to determinism and symmetry and assume continuous time.

As a chemist, I am aware of the absurdity of this as a practical matter; aware of the

lawful mechanisms where identical atoms of each element interact to produce life, but

unable to imagine a lawful mechanism whereby a plant leaf beams exactly the same

photons with zero losses back to exactly the same point on the Sun where they came

from, to somehow reverse the fusion of hydrogen to helium nuclei there while turning

itself back into a seed! The philosophical error is that time reversal invariance in physics

relates only to the mathematical equations of motion (+t or –t are algebraically

equivalent), not to actual motion, which is dependent on initial conditions. Time reversal

of events would require starting from different conditions than the original motion

(Sachs 1987). It seems clear that there would also have to be a mysterious addition of

mv2 of energy to reverse a particle in time, and therefore direction in space. To reverse a

vector like velocity requires an identical, but opposite vector of twice the energy. What

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

28

**God-like entity could do that to every particle everywhere, and with what source of
**

energy? Time is irreversible.

**Entropy and Time’s Arrow
**

A question included on the mysteries listed above involves entropy. Why did I not

include thermodynamics, including entropy, as fundamental along with the other four?

Because, if we have a theory of spacetime’s arrow, the set of universal symmetries, and

quantum mechanics, then none of thermodynamics is fundamental. Spacetime is

expanding, filled with different particle species, each of whose members is

indistinguishable from one another, and with energy, which distributes itself through all

degrees of freedom. One can think of entropy in thermal terms, or statistical terms. First,

thermally: the First Law of Thermodynamics, is a consequence of the symmetry which

creates the conservation of mass-energy. It states that the mass-energy of an isolated

system does not change, i.e. is conserved or invariant. The Second Law states that

everything that happens increases entropy overall, and conversely, nothing can happen

spontaneously that decreases it, overall. Living entities can add energy to decrease local

entropy to their advantage, but only by increasing total entropy when all the results of

their intervention are included. Entropy is the only macroscopic abstract quantity in

physics that requires, as opposed to works fine with, an arrow of time. Heat will flow

from a hotter to a cooler body spontaneously. It will not do so in reverse, as you discover

if you unplug a refrigerator from its energy source. Similarly, if you dump salt in a barrel

of water it will spontaneously dissolve, diffuse, and eventually become uniform in

concentration throughout the barrel. Taking that salt out again to return the water to its

prior state requires entirely different, humanly directed, not spontaneous, activities and

the expenditure of a great deal of energy. If a process emits light, that light can travel

until it is absorbed, never coming back. If an explosion produces sound, that sound will

spread until it makes some air molecules a little faster (warmer). Warmer air will not send

back the sound. These are the familiar rules. So entropy is, no more and no less, simply

the philosophically scary arrow of time that has been dignified with the useful quantity,

S, entropy, to measure change and direct it in time. Spontaneity simply means that time’s

arrow will do the job of spreading mass-energy through spacetime, unassisted by

intention. This essay asserts that intention is the evolutionary purpose of consciousness,

using volition to expand and utilize favorable possibilities. Biophysics/biochemistry are

the tools to find the mechanisms of intention and volition.

Next, the statistical version: is Penrose justified in his worry about justifying entropy

being very, very low at the origin? Statistically, entropy is a function of the potential

availability of near-time mass-energy states to future occupation. So, to say that entropy

is minimal at the origin is a tautology- clearly in an enormously hot, tiny ball stuffed with

quarks and gluons there are far fewer state-places to be than later, in a huge, cold, mostly

empty universe. Entropy simply increases as time increases; energy and matter becoming

more and more diffuse, potentially occupying more quantum states of energy, space, and

time as spacetime expands from the origin. Entropy tends to maximize as the universe

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

29

**eventually becomes vast, nearly absolutely cold and nearly empty, the Heat Death of the
**

Universe, the opposite of the Big Bang. Entropy, seen as a consequence of the expansion

arrow, is minimal when elapsed time in the universe is minimal. So Boltzmann’s version

of entropy will increase, according to his equation, inscribed upon his tomb in Vienna.

This is really the core meaning of entropy: the eternal, spontaneous net spreading out and

cooling of everything, unless prevented by even more expenditure of un-randomness in

the form of locally accumulated energy for life, plus by intention, in the case of

intelligence. Mass is concentrated by gravity, after which the heat and light resulting

from nuclear fusion or gravitational energy will then spread out everywhere from stars.

So net entropy is positive, even though matter has been concentrated into a star. In the

same way, plant life spreads heat energy, being a quantum middleman increasing local

order by indirectly turning locally captured energy-rich starlight into unusable, diffused

away waste heat.

The philosophical problem here is in saying that increases in entropy drive the universe

forward in time, yet refusing to credit the role of time’s arrow. Why believe that at the

origin there was some kind of strange empty bank of entropy into which one can deposit

entropy, the balance increasing forever to drive the universe, despite that bank perhaps

being dubious according to Penrose? Why not believe the utterly obvious experimental

evidence instead:

spacetime expansion ! time’s arrow ! entropy increase

**Conclusions about Reality
**

There is no past. Einstein’s friend Besso is dead; subsequent to his death he is beyond the

reach of his widow. All we have left are the physical traces of the past that survive into

the present moment. There is no 4D block of the past. The future is always undefined to a

finite extent, even as little as a Planck time ahead of now. There can be no time travel.

There is no absolutely fixed future. Most macroscopic events proceed deterministically,

including the apparent stability of your chair, or the Rock of Gibraltar, although there will

be innumerable tiny quantum changes within each. A microscopic event at the quantum

level may provide an opportunity for a shift in the later consequences of emergent

phenomena like chaos and avalanche processes on the weather, your consciousness or

elsewhere. Opportunities exist, say for a biological mutation, or by a process still

unknown in detail, for an original thought to arise in a human. That thought can then be

acted upon, if considered worthwhile, and the universe will be forever changed.

Since the vast majority of particles in the universe are in a superposition of states at any

time, actual collapsed reality is a minuscule fraction of the entire universal wave

function. Physicists isolate tiny areas of spacetime to make calculations, but the present,

Planck time thick slice of the universe is one complete quantum system of all that is

currently real plus a very few of the great majority (10 billion to one) of “undecided”

particles together having created the next moment. To emphasize, this is what the much-

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

30

**anticipated quantum computer is supposed to do - use superpositions of “maybe” states to
**

finally collapse into one “right answer” state.

So what we see is just the tiny currently realized fraction of the universe’s contents. Our

cars and chairs and cats are massive and warm enough to be persistently real, and time

appears to be continuous, because the Planck interval is so inconceivably short. Does

space indeed only seem to be continuous because the Planck length is also very short? I

would be willing to wager very heavily that it is discontinuous, and, thus, there are no

singularities (where particle density is infinite). Spacetime is necessarily quantized at

close to the Planck scale, because the foliation means that time is quantized. If I am right,

STME is quantized at the Planck scale. I do not suppose that infinitely tiny singularities

of infinite mass density have ever existed or can exist, whether at the center of black

holes or anywhere else, because such singularities make a nonsense of physics, like all

infinities. So space is quantized, too, and has a minimal Planck interval of space, close to

the Planck length. There is no way to make sense of the present moment and its

completely obvious uniqueness without some scheme practically indistinguishable from

the one detailed above. The real mystery, if you disagree with the above scheme, is what

else could possibly explain the present moment within known, testable, physics?

The interesting point here is that spaces smaller than these Planck units are expected by

physicists to be minima for current physics to apply, and below these limits a quantum

gravity theory will be needed. But this is exactly the idea I have been advocating, that

within the time minimum, the Planck interval, a quantum process, Penrose selfdecoherence, occurs to create the next moment of spacetime/mass energy. I suggest this

is exactly the same mechanism as ordinary quantum mechanics because I deny that there

is any space or event below the Planck scale, as opposed to quantum changes within it.

So I suggest that Penrose has solved the “problem” of quantum gravity by removing the

necessity to invent it. He has shown that, if one also accepts the foliation solutions to the

Einstein equations, they cooperate with quantum mechanics to create reality by

gravitational decoherence of the wave function, moment by moment.

So, it seems clear that quantizing time is a big help to answering the big remaining

questions listed in the Introduction. Yet we still need to quantize space and time together.

My favorite candidate for this task of quantizing spacetime is Loop Quantum Gravity

Theory. We will consider LQGT below, when we look for symmetry in Time’s Arrow by

postulating a second universe on the other side of the Big Bang, which seems to be

calculable from this theory. Briefly, space is pictured as discontinuous, knitted as a

network from tiny loops of the Planck length in size. This quantization of space is more

important for me than any quixotic attempt to use this concept to quantize gravity. Again,

we leave the mathematics to the geniuses and search for the meaning of the physics.

**Time’s Double-headed Arrow
**

Spacetime must be quantized. The foregoing statement has been obvious to me since

1998, when I first saw the references about foliating spacetime to create a universe-wide

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

31

**present moment in non-contradiction to the Einstein equations. Equally obvious was that
**

it would eventually be possible to find an approach to a theory that supports quantized

spacetime. I now think this will arise via a Loop Quantum Gravity Theory approach,

partly because of its predictions about the “time before” the Big Bang. Of course there is

no “time before” the Big Bang in the traditional sense- without mass, energy and

expanding space, there are no events and no time to order them in. But nothing in physics

prevents a universe running in either direction in time. I contend that we live in one half

of a dual universe, and each half moves in opposite time directions away from the origin.

This means that “before” and “after” the Beginning are meaningless terms in this context.

They are as arbitrary as having the past, or negatives in general, being on the left of all

graphs.

So, I concluded in 1998 (Pitts 1998) on pure symmetry grounds, that there was another

universe on the other side of the Big Bang in time, and that it was expanding, but

backwards in time. Thus the Big Bang is in the center of time; the universe expands in

time in both directions from the origin, symmetrically, with space expanding in all three

available dimensions outward from the origin point. The physics is identical in both semiuniverses. And, sure enough, everything works exactly the same as here. Babies come out

of the womb and grow up, not are somehow “sucked” back in. Everybody there thinks

they are moving outward in time from the Big Bang. They are. So are we.

Yet our universe is full of matter, although equal amounts of matter and antimatter are

always created from energy. So where is the antimatter? It fills the other side of the Big

Bang in time (Pitts 1998). Further development of Loop Quantum Gravity Theory may

now support this hypothesis. So we have an answer for what exists “before” the Big

Bang- an “antimatter” version of ours, using Feynman’s point that ordinary matter

reversed, (i.e. moving backward in time) is indistinguishable, that is invariant, from

antimatter. So perhaps there is something called Feynman Invariance, or Time Symmetry.

This would state that: “physics is invariant in positive or negative time, provided that the

zero point of both positive and negative time is at the origin of the universe”. This also

removes the apparent issue of antimatter versus matter asymmetry. If the universe is in

fact bifurcated across the origin as above, there should be equal amounts of antimatter

and matter in the universe as a whole. An actual symmetry theory is a better explanation

of time symmetry than pretending that macroscopic events can be reversed in time.

Therefore we can say that this dual universe operates effectively as two independent,

giant quantum computers expanding on opposite sides of the Big Bang, Each “calculates”

their universal present moment as one of the right answers to the only truly cosmic

question- what happens next? There were vastly many other possible but unrealized right

answers over time, all consistent with the symmetries. To some extent, every wave

function collapse “prunes” the probability of available wave functions of future states that

would be inconsistent with the newly established reality, so only to that extent is it

determining and limiting the future.

One of the distinguished practitioners of LQGT is Martin Bojowald (Bojowald 2008). In

2007 he published a Big Bounce theory derived from LQGT. There is a long aesthetic

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

32

**tradition in cosmology of hoping to find some bouncing mechanism to allow an eternity
**

of expansions and contractions of the universe in order to avoid/postpone the need of

thinking of a way to create a universe from nothing. There has never been any sign of

such a bounce mechanism in our universe, indeed the latest evidence is the reverse,

expansion is accelerating. Roger Penrose has pointed out that if something like our

universe did contract back to near zero spacetime it would be totally unlike the prior

expansion. It would be full of black holes, neutron stars, dead stars, abandoned

spaceships and worn out garbage in general: an ugly, messy unsymmetrical prospect.

Bojowald’s idea was that the universe in the past before the Big Bang was collapsing in

terms of our “positive” time, and had created our universe in a “bounce” by crashing

down to the Planck scale and bouncing off this minimal volume. I reject this

interpretation, preferring to see an expansion “backwards in time” rather than a collapse

“forwards in time”. Thankfully, Bojowald has provided a useful LQGT mechanism for

existence on both sides of the Big Bang in time.

A 4D expansion “backwards” and “forwards” in time on each side of the Big Bang is a

far more elegant and symmetric explanation of the meaning of Bojowald’s results than

his version, that opinion being merely of a collapse in our time direction. (In 1998 I did

not realize that it was unnecessary to argue that antimatter in our semi-universe moves

backward in time to make this point and no longer make that argument.) My proposed

anti-twins are symmetric - both semi-universes go from hot quark/gluon soup to possible

intelligent life via evolutionary processes, both have a time’s arrow (in opposite

directions as required by time-symmetry). Equal amounts of antimatter and matter are

expected to exist in the dual universe; so that terrible asymmetry problem is solved. Of

course, all the old bounce idea ever does is postpone the big question of how, why and

when the first universe formed.

Both of the semi-universes are foliated; both have expanded for the same 13 thousand

million years from the origin. Very near the origin, within overlapping quantum

uncertainty in space and time for the two semi-universe’s contents, interesting exchanges

could have occurred. Perhaps these allowed quantum spacetime indeterminacy to

distribute between, and then segregate, matter and antimatter between the anti-twin

universes as time expanded, away in spacetime too far for indeterminacy to reverse the

separation (Pitts 1998). However, regardless of what the mechanism was that gave a very

slight preponderance of one sign of matter over the other in each separate semi-universe,

(about one part in 10 billion - the rest is radiation) so long as it works symmetrically on

both sides of the Big Bang in time, the overall matter/antimatter symmetry is preserved.

Consequently, each would be dark matter to each other. We ought to be able to detect

them by gravitation since by hypothesis they may occupy the same space, but in time

foliations an equal 13 thousand million years, from the origin, or 26 thousand million

years apart. Since no mutual mass concentrations can exist except at the present space

points of these two time foliations, I would expect them to interact gravitationally at any

such points due to the coincidence in spatial position mutually warping the spacetime

background, but in no other way, since the necessary time coincidence for quantum

interactions (say, electromagnetic, such as light) or indeed, mutual annihilation of both

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

33

**halves of the dual universe, would be 26 thousand million years apart. This is a
**

consequence of Einstein’s view that gravitation is purely of non-quantum, symmetric

origin. Therefore it is not necessarily time-coincidence dependent like quantum

interactions such as light emission or antimatter-matter annihilation. The two moments,

anti-presents of each other, are the only real mass concentrations anywhere in 4D space,

in this description of time symmetry. So they might interact gravitationally, but otherwise

be mutually invisible, dark matter. Space is so empty that there would be few direct

collisions between the gravitational fields of ghostly anti-objects in the anti-twin, dual

universes. However, the tidal effects of such collisions would be very disruptive on

galactic or, very occasionally, stellar scales. So this hypothesis is testable. We should

look for galaxies being disturbed by an invisible collider, and gravitational effects of

mysterious concentrations of invisible mass.

**How to Build Our Twin Universes From Nothing
**

Before we describe how the universe came to be so perfect a place to evolve to our

present state of civilization (or perhaps vastly beyond our civilization state elsewhere in

the cosmos), we need to explain how and why the basic geometry arose to give us our

spacetime background. Those of my readers who have become sufficiently quantized in

their ontological views will not be surprised that the most fascinating approach is

analogous to the sum of all paths in the rest of the quantum approach to reality. It is the

sum of all possible geometries. We may hypothesize that this process occurred within the

original Planck interval during which appeared the first spacetime-mass-energy quantum

fluctuation of adequate size to collapse itself into ongoing reality. We have only one

theoretical quantum mechanism to create our universe’s type of STME from nothing

using a sum of all possible geometries, specifically provided that these geometries meet

certain constraints. These constraints happen to be consistent with the arguments in this

essay. That theory is Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT).

If the work of Renata Loll and collaborators (Loll 2008, Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz et al. 2009)

using Causal Dynamical Triangulations is true, then spacetime arises through a quantum

traverse through all available geometries. This method has a unique feature of huge

importance to philosophy - it requires an arrow of time, which is the source of the word

“causal” in the theory title. You can only build our familiar 4D spacetime “from scratch”

using this type of theory if causes precede or are simultaneous with effects. This is truly

remarkable; spacetime’s geometric properties from the Planck length to intergalactic

scales plus spacetime’s arrow can be derived from basic quantum principles.

Loll’s approach avoids any preferred geometric background at the outset, and uses the

“sum over histories” approach, also known as the “gravitational path integral”. According

to the authors it uses equilateral four-dimensional analogues of triangles, “equilateral 4simplices”, conceived as building blocks glued together to make geometrically distinct

constructs to be included in the path integral over all geometries in an abstract space of

all spacetimes directly, with no need for specific coordinate systems. It turns out that the

only way to arrive at anything resembling our existing spacetime is to restrict the

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

34

**triangulated histories, and hence the gluing rules allowed in the sum to be only those in
**

which causality (as a future-directed arrow of time) is present. Numerical iterative

computer experiments on this restricted form of the gravitational path integral have

derived the structure of such a synthetic quantum universe on large scales, that is, stable,

smooth, expanding, extended and four dimensional, like ours. Very significantly, this

approach only works with a global proper time foliation. This foliation -“NOW”- is a

Planck-scale slice of time through 4D spacetime to give a universe-wide 3D instant as

described earlier.

Quoting Loll and collaborators (emphasis added):

“The four-dimensional CDT model of quantum gravity is extremely simple.

It is the path integral over the class of causal geometries with a global time

foliation. In order to perform the summation explicitly, we introduce a grid

of piecewise linear geometries, much in the same way as when defining the

path integral in quantum mechanics.“

The importance of this approach to cosmology, if it survives challenge, is immense. It

explicitly requires global foliation of spacetime to give a single universal now, if we are

to construct anything resembling our spacetime from scratch. Most of all, there is a

forward arrow of time according to this approach. Modern physics is founded on

symmetries, including assumed time reversal invariance. Time symmetry must be

fundamental; but time clearly cannot be reversed, which is why the concept of two

balanced expanding universes on each “side” of the origin of time is so useful.

**A Description of Universe-building
**

Now we enter a more speculative area. Many years ago, at a cocktail party in Berkeley,

California, I asked a physicist the question, why does everything in the universe rotate?

His immediate answer was that energy distributes itself to some degree through any and

all degrees of freedom, and rotation is one of them. This profound concept has haunted

me ever since. One can see that the sum of all paths approach, in exploring all the

possibilities is an extension of the concept. What if the same is true of the symmetries? Is

it conceivable that our universe fills all available symmetries?

As mentioned above, all known particles, even the newly discovered Higgs Boson, are

part of the Standard Model. This symmetry group, U(1)×SU(2)xSU(3) was slowly

established, explaining all the conservation laws observed in sub-atomic particle

experiments. These symmetries are Lie Groups, discovered by Sophus Lie in the 1890s.

The conservation laws are derived from symmetries according to Noether’s Theorem.

Symmetries are therefore fundamental and constrain all phenomena. Note the word

“constrain”, not “control”. Remember the ice skater, constrained by the conservation of

angular momentum, (and very many other symmetries) but performing innumerable

variations of twirling and arm movements as she wills. The constraints allow and enable

the beauty of her art, as Nietzsche’s concept of beauty in art would agree.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

35

**A.G. Lisi published “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” in 2007 (Lisi
**

2007, Lisi 2008). The theory uses our 4D spacetime as a base upon which the enormously

complex E8 symmetry group operates to enforce 248 symmetries, including all the known

ones and predicting a few others. This theory fits our emerging general picture of the

universe. Energy spreads through all available degrees of freedom (e.g. vibration,

rotation, motion, massive or massless “particle” species etc.). E9, the next larger Lie

group, is infinite, therefore in my estimation meaningless for physics. Think of this - if

there are an infinite number of constraints on the action under E9, then no change is

possible. Forget Lie group E9 (and any above). It can’t happen; or rather nothing much

can happen consistent with it.

If this theory of E8 is true, and my opinion of E9, etc. is correct, then E8 is the most

inclusive and largest possible finite law structure upon which to build a universe.

Accordingly our universe might have the most complete, finite, self-consistent set of

possible rules, utilizing the available stock of laws completely, as mass-energy spreads

through all degrees of freedom. This is truly suspicious; this makes the 6 mystery

constants and parameters that make life possible (the Fine-Tuning Problem) look like no

big deal. We get the widest possible set of laws to play with? Remember, these are not

like human laws and regulations, most of which simply limit possibilities - these

symmetries do that while also giving us more particles and more interactions, more

possible futures. In fact more of something I call intricacy, with a specific meaning.

Let’s define initial intricacy as a measure of the sum of all potential particle paths in all

conceivable futures of a single possible, very specifically defined, universe immediately

prior to the moment of its self-collapse into reality, if that were to happen. (More on

intricacy later.) Suffice it to note for now that I think maximal intricacy universes will

preferentially self-create. Intricacy as a measure of the sum of all conceivable futures of

all particles also applies to the future of all spacetime moments, including this one. It can

potentially serve as a moral index today, as we shall see later.

Why is this E8 idea so compelling? The old ad hoc picture of discrete conservation laws

had no unifying driving principle, which E8 provides. Classically, massive objects move

in fixed predictable trajectories determined by initial conditions. In the accepted sum-ofall-paths/path integral approach in quantum mechanics, a particle deterministically

explores all imaginable paths between consecutive measurements, each at some level of

probability amplitude. These potential paths when superposed add to or subtract from the

probability amplitude, giving the position and velocity of the particle at the next

measurement, subject to a minimum joint indeterminacy in these measurements. Between

measurements the particle has no defined straight-line path, even if that is the final result

- it is part of the multiplicity of superposed, not-yet-real particles. So, analogous to E8 and

available laws, particles “spread” through all available paths to some degree. Similarly,

Heisenberg (Heisenberg 1958) felt that the wave function represented “tendencies” or

Aristotle’s “potentia”, not some predetermined outcome. Many particle physicists were

disappointed that the Higgs boson fit so well into the Standard Model prediction of its

characteristics - they wanted new physics! I say, let’s fill in any missing entities into the

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

36

**E8 symmetry group and be happy! Unfortunately, we may search forever for any particles
**

beyond that, trying to prove a negative.

Now we come to perhaps the greatest mysteries. First, why is there something rather than

nothing? Here again we are looking at the macroscopic world to interpret the microscopic

world. We should always do the reverse, instead. In the visible world, everything is here,

or not. Rocks or elephants neither appear from nothing nor disappear into nothing. Not so

the micro-world. So-called, ephemeral “virtual particles” appear from and disappear into

the quantum vacuum constantly. This is experimentally detectable by the Casimir effect,

for example, which can be explained by a relatively low abundance of virtual particles

appearing between extremely closely spaced parallel plates, allowing the more common

outside virtual particles on each side to push the plates together. Virtual particles, or

quantum fluctuations, are momentary pop-ups from the vacuum, basic to quantum

indeterminacy, occurring constantly, quickly disappearing back into the vacuum. Let us

assume the usual quantum processes were relevant at the origin. If a quantum fluctuation

is large enough, according to Penrose, it will become real by collapsing its own wave

function, alternately called self-decoherence (Castagnino and Lombardi 2004).

How could reality arise from a quantum fluctuation? Equivalently, why is there

something rather than nothing? Each quantum fluctuation is a superposition of future

paths of particles. Imagine, at the Big Bang, the empty set of possible universes, no

space, no time, no matter, no energy. It makes zero squared, that is, zero contribution to

the sum of the quantum amplitudes in the quantum fluctuation that created reality. So the

probability of no universes is zero. Therefore the probability of at least one universe is

one, or certainty. If we think Classically, “nothing” is a reasonable notion, a vacuum is

emptiness. If we think symmetry/quantum mechanically, the vacuum is a seething boil of

virtual particles, and everything real, momentarily or long term, is entirely a set of

complex local and nonlocal characteristics of the vacuum. Clearly, in a bifurcated

quantized and symmetric universe expanding in spacetime on each side of the Big Bang,

there has literally never been nothing. There is no emptiness in our universe, it is merely

a useful philosophical, mathematical (zero) and linguistic concept for which we have no

direct physical evidence. So there is no reason to pretend that nothing is a valid way to

describe whatever gave rise to reality as we can know it. My skepticism regarding

infinity’s physical relevance is partly based on how we arrive at it by dividing any

number by a non-existent phenomenon, nothingness.

So it is no surprise that there must be something popping into reality, but what? In order

to turn out to be real at the point of origin, that superposition, by analogy with current

ones, should meet the same criterion of maximal probability amplitude of conceivable

particle fates. Quantum mechanics involves virtual particles popping into existence and

then disappearing. Larger masses are far less likely to appear. Any such mass that pops

into existence must be sufficiently large to continue to exist via this type of quantum

fluctuation and decoherence by the gravity of its own mass. Mass is inseparable from,

and must be part of an entire set of parameters and symmetries, if our present universe is

any guide. It would not be simply mass, but mass-energy-space-time. In other words, if a

mass self-creates it means a whole universe self-creates/self-collapses/self-decoheres into

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

37

**one specific set of possible future histories. The inflation theory is believed to take over
**

at that point and “blow up” spacetime faster than light and fill it with mass-energy. That

theory is beyond the scope of this essay. I include it to show that a universe deriving from

a small mass popping into existence once, is conceptually different from vast numbers of

entire huge universes, billions of years in apparent age, full of uncounted copies of us,

popping into existence constantly according to Many Worlds.

Therefore universes with more particles of more types with more possible future

interactions or fates and, as we shall see, the most optimal selection of constants and

parameters would maximize that original quantum amplitude. Since symmetries are the

skeletons of reality, no potential universe that is not maximally symmetric can be

optimal. Such a sub-optimal potential universe would not have sufficiently complex

available particle paths to preferentially self-collapse versus the more symmetric ones.

Note that applying this essay’s description of time symmetry, there is no time or space

“before” the Big Bang because Creation occurs in the Planck interval separating the antitwin universes “+” (ours?) and “– “ (theirs?), at the point in which time and anti-time

begin. The anti-twin universes will literally have existed for all time, both negative and

positive, from the origin. So, then, given that there must be twin universes, if ever there

is a quantum fluctuation of some tiny mass (perhaps a few thousand hydrogen atom

masses, somewhat more than the 720 hydrogen masses of Buckminsterfullerene), what

type of actual twin universes has highest quantum amplitude as here considered? From

the earlier arguments, the E8 Lie group seems to give the biggest usable list of cosmic

ingredients in the form of symmetries, giving maximal degrees of freedom for massenergy to fill. The Causal Dynamical Triangulations approach to the gravitational path

integral cancels out all except causal, foliated, expanding universes, so we are most of the

way to the winning recipe for current reality, at least conceptually, despite some missing

detail. What remains is Fine-Tuning.

Fine-Tuning

Fine-Tuning is a term that references a great many parameters or other fixed

characteristics of our universe that have very precise values deemed necessary for the

emergence of intelligent life, and particularly the kind of technical civilization wherein

these beings can ponder their own unlikelihood. The range of possible values for these

characteristics, relative to the exceedingly narrow “window” allowing us to exist is such

that, a priori, one would conclude that our existence is so unlikely as to be essentially

impossible. Yet here we are. Moreover, life started incredibly early in Earth’s history,

basically as early as geologically possible. So the universe must have been hugely

optimized in favor of life? I am proposing an extreme form of what has been referred to

as the Strong Anthropic Principle, meaning that the universe was by some process

optimized for minds like ours to question Fine-Tuning. (The Weak Anthropic Principle

merely notes that only universes so optimized will contain such minds, relying on the

obvious argument from hypothesized infinitely many universes.)

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

38

**Far greater minds than mine have explored the Fine-Tuning Problem in detail (Barrow
**

and Tipler 1988). Again I trust their conclusions and seek the meaning. Our cosmic home

has been referred to as the Goldilocks Universe; but this is not a choice among three

bowls of food, but from 1 followed by 10123 zeros bowls for one characteristic alone,

multiplied by at least 5 other huge improbabilities. We have hit a cosmic jackpot. The

apparent a priori odds against our universe’s exact parameters and characteristics being

“chosen” at random are so large that we have to imagine that trillions of slot machine on

every inhabited planet from the date of foundation of Las Vegas to the Heat Death of the

Universe would have to unfailingly hit the jackpot, every nanosecond, to match a tiny

fraction of these odds. Again, would Pascal have wagered on that? The easy way out is

by the hand of a Creator of theistic type, but I propose a quantum alternative explanation

that may generate a quantized version of God ex nihilo as a bonus.

One can argue that if there are infinite numbers of universes, then not only are we

possible, but there are uncountable numbers of universes that only differ by such details

as the color choice of one woman’s nail polish on a planet, or even by the path of one

inconceivably tiny neutrino. I regard infinity as a mathematical artifact with no relevance

to physical reality. Inserting infinity into an argument makes absolutely anything not

merely possible, but infinitely repeated - this is absurd as an argument. I suggest that the

concept of a lack of a predetermined limitation of a quantity is far from the same concept

as infinity, but this is outside the scope of this discussion.

If the quantum summation of all particle paths of all possible universes is not infinite, but

vast in size, what type of universe contributes the greatest variety and number of possible

particle path amplitudes to that summation and therefore, I claim, starts to exist at the

first Planck time? I answer the question with an argument for a twin universe, one half on

each side of the Big Bang. Each, identically, almost unimaginably perfectly physically

optimized even to the finest, most obscure details for the eventual opportunity for the

evolution of not merely life, but intelligent life, and not merely intelligent life, but living

technical civilizations. These can potentially expand to an apparently unlimited extent in

spacetime and with the largest capacity for possible events. These optimizations are

needed for a complete explanation of our existence. By Causal Dynamical Triangulations

the summation yields universes with three space and one time dimension, causal, foliated

in time and with an arrow of time. According to Ehrenfest, only three space and one time

dimensional universes can have stable planetary orbits and other vital characteristics, so

other types of universes are inimical to life anyway. (see Barrow,
J.
D.
and
F.
J.
Tipler

(1988)
p.260) “Causal and with an arrow of time” are simply aspects of the same thing

and are obviously necessary for Darwinian and quasi-Darwinian civilization evolution in

its widest, worldwide or even galactic sense. Time must be foliated because that is the

only means by which quantum mechanics can provide both open futures to allow

evolution, and a fixation by means of the “collapse” to solidify into reality any positive or

negative evolutionary change at some point in time for future generations to build upon

or eliminate.

How the exact values of the half-dozen fundamental universal constants fell within

extremely narrow limits, which happen to make our universe ideal for life to evolve

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

39

**needs further explanation since these constants appear to be independent of the
**

laws/symmetries. All the discussions I have read on this issue seem to ignore that the

Standard Model needs between 19 and 26 (25 or 26 if neutrinos have mass) additional

independent parameters of arbitrary values unrelated to the universal constants in order to

work. To avoid this “embarrassment” supersymmetric particles have been hypothesized

corresponding to known particles, but of much greater mass. None have been found. One

of the best discussions I have found says the usual list of 6 generally accepted universal

constants should be expanded to 19 by including such things as Boltzmann’s Constant

(Artigas, Mario, 2004 - a recommended web-available review presentation). I therefore

prefer to generalize the discussion to at least 45 arbitrary parameters, so far, and thus shift

the probabilities far further toward impossibility. Paradoxically, using a concept I call

Quantum Quasi-Teleology we thereby, with more such parameters, we get more scope

for what might be called Extreme Fine Tuning. So, quantum quasi-teleology if it existed

at the origin would have unlimited scope in fineness of tuning of all these parametric

“dials”. This is important because the theoretical biochemical requirements for de novo

production of life from non-life are massively increasing in improbability as more is

known.

**Optimizing our Bi-Universe by Quantum Quasi-Teleology
**

To summarize, this essay has agreed that it is plausible that our universe originated in a

quantum process involving a sum over all those geometries consistent with a foliated,

causal, arrowed time to produce our bifurcated space-time/anti-time. Call these

Feynman/Loll Universes. A different type of total, the largest finite symmetry group (E8),

determines and assembles the inhabitants of the subatomic particle “zoo” and also sets

the natural laws that define their permissible interactions. Call Feynman dual universes

operating in both Loll and Lie Group terms Feynman-Loll-Lie Universes. This is a truly

beautiful solution as to how the universe arose and took its basic form. The universal

wave function/state vector filled all the finite symmetries at the origin in a similar way

that energy fills all the available degrees of freedom in the present universe. Nobody

needs to “put in by hand” as physicists say, these key features of the universe, they flow

automatically from the model.

I suggest that a subset of such Feynman-Loll-Lie Universes had a maximal sum over all

potential particle paths for all potential events (maximal intricacy, defined as maximal

future historical options). In these universes these constants have to be infinitesimally

close to the ideal “Goldilocks” levels for not merely life, but technically advanced,

ubiquitous civilized life. Such a “selection” of potential values of the universal

constants/parameters might statistically bias the origin process. This is because the

quantity of potential particle paths in a universe containing conscious life is vast orders of

magnitude higher than those of lifeless ones. Imagine a hunter-gatherer catching a fish

from a coral reef and then sailing an outrigger canoe, far away to a new island. He has

captured and transported countless particles in his life. Having metabolized them, he will

finally deposit the remaining ones in Hawaii. Then imagine an astronaut on vacation who

captures a fish in the same place, eats it, and takes some of its particles to Mars. Now

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

40

imagine a dead world where all that the same particles can do is erode from rocks and roll

with a river to the ocean and sink to the bottom as sediment. The motion and metabolism

of the fish and all their respective ancestors and future predators have provided far more

particle fates than the dead river/dead world scenario. Obviously the astronaut has far

more options for particle fates than the Polynesian fisherman, hence the bias toward

technical civilizations in maximizing the intricacy sum.

Just imagine all the unnatural particle paths it took to build your car and drive the last

10,000 miles. Imagine if you had bought a different model built in a different country or

had driven different routes. Every displaced air molecule as you drive or iron atom in the

car “adds” to (in fact was always included in) the giant superposition at the origin needed

for you to exist and live the life you chose. Lifeless universes, as contributors to the sum

of all possibilities at the origin, are negligible by comparison. As mentioned above, Roger

Penrose proposes that a sufficiently large entity can collapse itself out of superposition

into reality by the spacetime distortion caused by its mass, in an objective wave function

collapse or self-decoherence. If we adapt this to the case of the original quantum

fluctuation that created our double universe, and accept the summation ideas above, we

have ex-nihilo creation of a very comfortable universe for life with no need for a prior

“screenplay” by God. Such a sum of all paths will give a universe extremely close to the

optimum for us and others like us to exist.

Imagine a huge proliferation of different potential, not actual universes, some that would

collapse back to nothing in little time, some would be filled with black holes, not stars,

some would be close to ours but empty of possibility for life, each with a certain sum of

potential particle paths. Imagine this as a giant dice table in imaginary space in which

possible futures can be pictured. If we are to choose at random, let’s throw about 60

different multidimensional, heavily loaded dice with trillions of minutely different face

values at this expanded probability landscape. Surely we will produce one of a sheaf of

only minutely different initial universes completely dominating this landscape of

probability amplitudes, those which are eventually to be filled with long-lived,

widespread technical civilizations. No matter how absurdly unlikely any combination of

the approximately sixty minutely precise “choices” of parameters may appear to us as an

outcome, that was not true at the Origin. When the “dice” were thrown the relative

quantum amplitudes of the most intricate futures were decisive, and remember, ALL

improbabilities are explored, squared and summed, no matter how “impossible” we might

say, if we were asked for our opinion. I call this idea Quantum Quasi-Teleology at the

origin. Because there is no time at the point at which this phenomenon is hypothesized, it

is not ordinary teleology where, contrary to causality, future events supposedly affect the

past, because past and future do not yet exist. It is, instead a weighting mechanism to bias

the Creation mechanism overwhelmingly into one extremely narrow class of futures.

Contrary to ordinary logic, the more fine-tuned parameters available to be “tuned”, the

more effective the process of optimization, and the more likely a result favorable to

advanced life to eventually appear.

I predict that the commonly known “Goldilocks” fundamental physical constants like the

strength of gravity or the electron/proton mass ratio will be succeeded by more and more

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

41

**discoveries of “improbable” coincidences and acceptance of more of the less well-known
**

tunable parameters that make civilization and technological progress more likely. For

example, the coefficient of thermal expansion of iron and concrete are very close. So,

iron-reinforced concrete can tolerate temperate change from greater than +45o C to -45o C

without cracking. It is made from some of the commonest elements synthesized in stars,

especially on rocky planets with life where two of the ingredients, limestone and coal,

will be very common. The others, iron, sand and gravel should be ubiquitous, their

constituent elements being synthesized in stars in relative abundance, making ironreinforced concrete an extremely cheap and convenient material to build large-scale

structures on a wet, rocky planet. There will be vastly many other “coincidences”,

especially in biophysical chemistry related to the origin of life. There must be a truly

massive and detailed series of them, on this hypothesis, since the origin of life appears to

be so extraordinarily improbable biologically, even given the right available chemicals on

suitable planets and suitable symmetries. This argument does not imply that this is the

best of all possible worlds, simply that it is one of the ones that, at the origin, offered the

best potential of allowing eventual, cosmically widespread technical civilizations.

A more subtle prediction of this proposed quantum quasi-teleological theory is that we

should no longer regard the 19 or 26 arbitrary parameters needed to make the Standard

Model work as an embarrassment, rather a benefit. Therefore there is no need to

hypothesize the existence of supersymmetric particles. This quantum quasi-teleological

theory predicts supersymmetric particles will never be found however much effort is

spent looking. It therefore meets Sir Karl Popper’s criterion: a testable theory.

**Quantizing Religion and Ethics?
**

Does this mean there is no God? Is it valid to ask who or what threw the quasiteleological dice? What if we admit that the “dice” themselves threw the 60 or so

Creation quantum dice, each with their vast, unimaginable number of multidimensional

faces as part of the heavily biased process. Then we may no longer have the need for this

God assumption to explain Creation, but could God exist? Let’s look again at how we

have described the universe. Let us define a god as something that is “aware of” (really

part of) our every thought and action, that pervades and rules everything, will control the

physics yet provide us free-ish will, and produce a fundamentally benign Creation. Then

the Universe I described above meets a reasonable definition of a god, but in the form of

a universal quantum computer. We are always one with it at every moment, since we and

it exist only as an integral part of the wave function of everything everywhere creating

the next absolute moment. Is such a god real? Obviously, yes. Is it conscious? Eventually,

yes. We and all the other intelligent species in both universes on each side of the Big

Bang are the intelligence of God. I find the thought that I am an integral part of such an

overwhelming, beautiful, fascinating and perfectly physically optimized universe/god

very comforting. Of course, there should be only one, capital G God, the Universal,

unique, quantum hacker of everything, on each side of the Big Bang.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

42

**When did such bifurcated quantum Gods, arise, as defined above? I assume a God has to
**

be self-aware. Clearly, as the two halves of the complete universe separate in time,

intelligence has arisen. So such a quantum God will at last be able to gaze, via creatures

like ourselves, upon His creation with an increasing level of understanding in each semiuniverse. It seems clear, though, that the original quantum, quasi-teleological Creation

was the result of the massive potential intricacy of both halves added together. The two

demi-Gods are the eventual creators of all of the intricacy (since the universal quantum

computers create everything, eventually). But monotheism is preserved in each half of

our dual reality.

Can we construct an ethics on this basis? What is this God’s “will”? If the universe was

created by maximal future opportunity for intricacy, that is, the most open particle future

paths attainable, then expansion of responsible freedom is Godly. Truthful, efficient and

effective education is Godly. Space travel and extra-planetary colonization is a moral

imperative, in order to spread and preserve intelligent civilization. It is un-Godly to

enslave anyone or to dominate women and keep them ignorant. Wrong to kill one another

except, for example, in self-defense or for the preservation of a culture more dedicated to

intricacy maximization (basically, freedom and self actualization for the maximum

proportion of a population) against another less so or violently opposed to the very idea.

It is wrong to unnecessarily simplify ecosystems or societies.

As we consider this ethical model conceptually, it can be expanded to an entire

Humanistic (actually Universalistic, including aliens) moral philosophy, in which

Humanity’s/civilized intelligence’s caring development would be paramount. I would

suggest it is most consistent with this God’s “will” to continue with the principle which

built his Creation, as a moral imperative, whether God was there at the Beginning in selfaware form or not. This tentative Humanistic Intricacy Maximization Ethics, on that

basis, is written in the universal constants, the symmetries, and the geometry of our

beautiful, enormous Universal home, which popped out of nothing, for free. This ethic is

simply the preservation of the most open, unrestrained, civil future for conscious entities,

for as long as possible. Perhaps it is best summarized as maximizing the opportunities for

everyone to ascend Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I myself find it spiritually uplifting,

knowing myself to be part of the mind and hands of God, helping the most powerful of

physically imaginable Gods to create the next moment of reality. I can choose to follow

God’s own creative imperative, future intricacy maximization, as best I can judge, to

decide my next course of action. So can everyone, but I am not suggesting that everyone,

or every society, will conform to this ethic or try to. I suggest that societies that do so are

likely to become powerful and dominant, as history has shown so far.

Acknowledgements

This essay would not have been possible without the encouragement and patient guidance

of Melvyn Melrose, James Benford, and Michael Lockwood. Any remaining errors are of

my own creation.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

43

References

Ambjorn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., Loll, R. (2009) Quantum gravity as sum over

spacetimes, arxiv.org/abs/0906.3947v2.

Ananthaswamy, A (2013) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brainmight-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html#.VM2DinYdS0Y

Artigas, M, (2004) Lecture,The anthropic principle, science, philosophy or

quesswork? http://www.unav.es/cryf/veneciama.html#title21

Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality. New

York, NY, USA, Copernicus.

Barrow, J. D. and F. J. Tipler (1988). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press.

Bell, J. S. (1987). Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics : collected

papers on quantum philosophy. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University

Press.

Bojowald, M. (2008) Follow the bouncing universe, Scientific American

libserver.wlsh.tyc.edu.tw/sa/pdf.file/en/e081/e081p036.pdf.

Brooks, M. (2015) The secret life of reality, New Scientist, 225 (302) P.26.

Castagnino, M. and O. Lombardi (2004). Self-Induced Decoherence and the

Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics, http://philsciarchive.pitt.edu/1883/pittphilsci:1883.

De Arcangelis, L., et al. (2006) Self-Organized Criticality model for Brain

Plasticity. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.028107

Elert, G. (1998-2014). The Standard Model. The Physics Hypertextbook. www.

http://physics.info/standard/

Feynman, R. P. (1985). QED: the strange theory of light and matter. Princeton,

N.J., Princeton University Press.

Feynman, R. P., et al. (2010). Quantum mechanics and path integrals. Mineola,

N.Y., Dover Publications.

Fölsing, A. (1997). Albert Einstein: a biography. New York, N.Y., U.S.A., Viking.

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

44

**Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy; the revolution in modern
**

science. New York, Harper.

Icke, V. (1995). The force of symmetry. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge

University Press.

Iskhakov, T., et al. (2012). "Polarization-Entangled Light Pulses of 10exp5

Photons." Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (15).

Jensen, H. J. (1998 ). Self-Organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behavior in

Physical and Biological Systems. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Karolhazy, F., et al. (1986). On the possible role of gravity in quantum state

reduction. Quantum concepts in space and time. R. Penrose and C. J. Isham.

Oxford, New York, Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press: x, 358 p.

Lederman, L. M. and C. T. Hill (2004). Symmetry and the beautiful universe.

Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books.

Leslie, J. (1989). Universes. London, New York, Routledge.

Lisi, A. G. (2007). An Exceptionally Simple Theory of

Everything. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770

Lisi, A. G. (2008). TED talks: Garrett Lisi's Theory of everything.

http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything?language=en

Lockwood, M. (2005). The labyrinth of time: introducing the universe. New York,

Oxford University Press.

Loll, R. (2008) The Emergence of Spacetime, or, Quantum Gravity on Your

Desktop, arxiv.org/abs/0711.0273v2.

Lorenz, E. N. (1993). The essence of chaos. Seattle, University of Washington

Press.

Marsden, J. E. and F. J. Tipler (1980). " Maximal hypersurfaces and foliations of

constant mean curvature in general relativity." Physics Reports 66: 109-139.

Penrose, R. (1996). "On Gravity's Role in Quantum State Reduction " General

Relativity and Gravitation 28(5).

Penrose, R. and C. J. Isham (1986). Quantum concepts in space and time. In

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

45

**Quantum concepts in space and time. Oxford, New York ;, Clarendon Press ;
**

Oxford University Press: x, 358 p.

Pitts, T. (1998) Dark matter, antimatter and time symmetry,

arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021.

Rees, M. J. (2000). Just six numbers : the deep forces that shape the universe.

New York, Basic Books.

Ruelle, D. (1991). Chance and chaos. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University

Press.

Sachs, R. G. (1987). The physics of time reversal. Chicago, University of

Chicago Press.

Spinney, L. (2015). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530030.500-thetime-illusion-how-your-brain-creates-now.html?full=true#.VM2HB3YdS0Y

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015

46

- SAT TESTUploaded byBreggae
- NOUI_Loop Quantum GravityUploaded byAnonymous PsEz5kGVae
- Consciousness, Causality, Quantum PhysicsUploaded byHaris_Isa
- Article One: The Einstein Visualization FormulaUploaded byplausiblehealth4
- Quantum Nature of the Big Bang InUploaded byesitgen
- Per Capita Trends for the Ultra High Net Worth (UHNW) Residents in US CitiesUploaded byVJLaxmanan
- Hadamar quantum computingUploaded byranadip das
- Buddhism and Physics Interdependence From Classical Causality to Quantum Entanglement Michel BitbolUploaded bysaironwe
- On the Free-will Postulate in Quantum Mechanics (WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM)Uploaded byFausto Intilla
- Introduction to Stochastic ElectrodynamicsUploaded byEdvaart
- Concepcion a Genetic SupermarketUploaded bymonacofederico
- SAT Booklet 08-09Uploaded byErik Klass
- Quantum Logical Causality, Category Theory, And the Metaphysics OfUploaded byWendy Baldwin
- TuranUploaded byJaime Feliciano Hernández
- 1212.0135Uploaded bycdcrossroader
- Sean A. Hayward- Black holes and traversible wormholes: a synthesisUploaded byRtpom
- Ted Black HoleUploaded bymufidah
- What Do i Do After My First YearUploaded byBharat Raghunathan
- Working Hypotheses in ScienceUploaded byDinda Naiya Azhari
- One d ProblemsUploaded bykikoy20
- Max Born - The Mechanics of the AtomUploaded bySubhas Chandra Ganguly
- Schuster 2007 Circuit Quantum ElectrodynamicsUploaded byGe Yang
- MSc SyllabusUploaded byRico Mahrezi
- script abbyUploaded byapi-275489438
- Case for General SovereigntyUploaded bybrandondahm
- Watsaru-1August2012Uploaded byudayrote5646
- Visualization and interpretation of Rydberg statesUploaded bylad.kocb
- Probabilistic Design - The Future of Rock EngineeringUploaded byBrian Conner
- ATempUploaded byGiorgos Papageorgiou
- Alexandria Journal ReviewUploaded byAlamandha Madhan Kumar

- Clase de Lógica DialécticaUploaded byEdgar Gutiérrez
- Experiencia Sistematizacion - Proyecto Dic 05 FinalUploaded byjose
- Publicación Temas 6Uploaded byBeatriz Garrido
- Sociología General Presentacion Clase 01Uploaded byJorgeAlejandroZelaya
- 19.docxUploaded byzanjiel
- TeorÃ-a del Capital HumanoUploaded byMasko Galván Palomeque
- Principales enfoques teóricos de la formación y desarrollo del pensamiento lógicoUploaded byJosue Garayar Lopez
- El Enfoque SistémicoUploaded byHumbertoJiménezOlea
- Kohn, Eternal Life in Taoist MysticismUploaded byKeren Mice
- HegelUploaded byReyes Uriel
- AmilcarUploaded bysteven
- LET - Philosophical Foundation7.pptUploaded byJon Claude Lopez
- Tropicalismo - A Ambivalência de um Movimento ArtísticoUploaded bydomliteris
- Tipos de InvestigacionUploaded byIV0703
- Teoría General de Los SistemasUploaded byAnonymous upuMyfRBG
- Practical for ASUploaded bymuzaah
- Demostración Dek Teorema de Bernoulli (Autoguardado)Uploaded bysussex
- Relationship Between Employee Satisfication and Abnormal Equity ReturnsUploaded byPrithviraj Kumar
- Final Revision, Research MethodologyUploaded bySahar Al-Jobury
- Normas APA - Proyecto-InvestigacionUploaded byClever Garcia
- RESUMEN POLITICA Y COMUNICACIÓN tefi.docxUploaded bytefhermida
- Erik Haagensen Gontijo - Natureza, Sociedade e Atividade Sensível Na Formação Do Pensamento Marxiano (Dissertação de Mestrado)Uploaded byGuilherme Oliveira
- BUCK-MORSS-Mundo Soñado y Catastrofe.pdfUploaded byPablo Walter
- Tema5_Dife_Inteligencia.pdfUploaded byAdib Chekrouni El Younsi
- -Nuñez Jover (1999).La ciencia y la tecnología como procesos sociales..pdfUploaded byLorena Cardenas
- En Torno a Las Críticas de Gabriel AndradeUploaded bydhmolina73
- Personality Theory and Research 13th Edition Test BankUploaded byStephanie.Henry1
- Katya Kozicki et al.Uploaded byReginaMenezes
- TEORIA-FUNDADAUploaded bySamuel Andrés Arias
- tesis.pdfUploaded byq234234234