And I am very happy about that dispute, Benjamin. In my communications with physicists, I have worked really hard to accomplish that same question mark in the mind of scientists (though not saying that this dispute is all my work of course).
Let me take two positions that cannot be at the same time but that neatly fit as opposites to fill in Rubin's Vase. It may be a bit of repeat, but I need to make sure you did not miss the fine point.
- All in the universe is ultimately connected/unified
- All in the universe is ultimately not-connected/unified
Naturally, the first position is the Vase. The unimportant background is truly unimportant. With the Vase, we have either the position that there is just the Vase (background excluded), or we have the position (with the background included) that the Vase is the single main feature. Both Vase positions are almost identical.
The Two Faces show the second position of an ultimately not-connected nature for the universe, and there are two rather distinct positions.
- One is with the Two Faces themselves, each independent, not related to the other but very similar (ubiquitous is the word to use to describe their natures, but not unified).
- The other is with the center position, the background, because it is this background that declares the Two Faces as separate. Separation is then the main feature of the Two Faces.
That’s the setup with three overall positions. Let’s get to the conclusion.
Declaring the Vase, that all in the universe is unified, has its own structure that must be followed.
Declaring a central position for spacetime follows automatically the Two Faces structure. Structurally, it is not from the Vase.
One cannot adhere to spacetime and adhere to an ultimately unified universe.
That is wanting one's cake and eating it two times. No one can do this and yet many are.
The brain has to be organized real well to see this. The ‘fun’ part is that Einstein did not want others to eat his cake twice, but to some extent he ate it twice himself as well. Ask me to describe this better and I will.
—
Another example from real life is that scientists are saying that energy does not get lost and they are saying that there is no certainty about what existed prior to the arrival of matter.
Do you see, Benjamin?
One cannot declare that energy does not get lost and then demand evidence that it already existed prior to the arrival of matter. These are two positions that can each be taken in without any problem, but they cannot be combined.
When I discuss this with scientists, the common reply is that things cannot be this simple and that all these smart brains would have noticed. In other words, not the information I present is discussed but the common idea that this could not have been missed is put front and center. And then the conversation is done, never to hear from them again.
—
A similar abuse of the Vase in religion. Many religious person would have God be the creator from which our story begins, but then they leave God untouched in the creation story. They want their cake and eat it two times.
If we start out with God, then God must have used something to create creation. But there was nothing else than God in the beginning of the story, so God must have used some of God godself.
No religious person wants to go there, because that would mean that the current God is not the same as the prior God, and must be declared as less compared to God’s former self.
Naturally, I am pointing at the structural incorrectness of the position. No surprise that no one religious is willing to discuss this much.
--
What I am doing is using the information that any and all story lines of an overall nature must have a zero position in them. In other words, I declare the Vase as incorrect (but usable in many circumstances) and the Two Faces as correct for the overall level.
I even have mathematical evidence, but Gödel said the same already but differently, supporting the Two Faces as correct. One cannot start from one Face and end up declaring the truth about both Faces (i.e. his Incompleteness Theorems).
When all overall story lines contain a zero position of importance, then we automatically have a storyline about the universe in which matter is not the beginning of the universe, but rather marks a transformation.
Let me double-check if you got that. Are you now thinking all transformed in that transformation, or are you thinking that some of what existed prior transformed in that transformation, but not all?
You see, Rubin's Vase is an excellent tool to keep our minds aware that we should look at overall situations with two positions in mind.
Even when picking the Two Faces, there are still two positions to consider. The third position of the single Vase is then like a trap, very easy to fall into.
The human mind loves to unify, is set up to unify as you already wrote. The reason is simple because the benefits are greater for an individual when in a group. Not always, but in general so.
At the overall level, we must return to the true nature of the universe, ultimately not-connected and therefore not fall into the trap that it is ultimately unified. Note that one level right below the overall level, we can indeed find unification again. But not at that single layer at the very top.
—
Scientists are following matter to understand where matter came from. That is another fallacy.
If we are ten-year olds and we put on our scientific hats to investigate how babies are made, and we investigate babies and babies alone (and are not interviewing the adults), then we will end up telling funny lies, probably of a very cute kind.
The result of our material universe cannot declare how it came to be. The result is not the origin. The Lambda-CDM model of the Big Bang contains many assumptions that are not supported by evidence from the spot itself, but from evidence gathered in laboratories/Large Hadron Collider.
Investigate ten babies and the conclusion will not be about how babies are made for real.
It is with structural thinking besides the material data that scientists can figure things out. Structure trumps scientific data (and when done right is not in conflict with it).
https://fred-rick.medium.com/two-closed-systems-not-one-3d66da5b8dff
'Two Closed Systems, Not One'
Thank you, Benjamin, for replying. I hope this made more sense. There are two distinct overall positions available (always), and only one is correct but it cannot be known which one that is until all information is above water (plus we have to make sure we recognize the three overall positions).
In case of the universe, we must accept that energy does not get lost, or we must accept that we cannot know where the material universe came from. We cannot say both at the same time.
