It is easy to mistake the largest of levels as being functional.
Write your name on an envelope, your address, city, country, planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, and Universe. Then, hand it to the postal person.
The postal person will deliver the letter to the right person (in this case that is you). Yet at handover the postal person declares that of the 8 items on the letter only 7 items gave directions.
The word Universe is non-functional. It did not provide the postal person any directions.
—
Many people may find it difficult to understand that the largest level of everything there is, the Universe, is always non-functional. Applying a function to the universe, for instance, stating that “the universe expands”, is an incorrect statement. Yet even highly educated scientists would say that.
This article exposes the largest level as non-functional.
—
The difficulty with understanding that the largest level is non-functional lies inside the human brain. We use words and each word points to something. The word universe points to the whole of everything there is, and so we know with certainty that the universe is there.
There is no denying that the universe is real. Yet is it functional?
To envision the universe as expanding requires the universe to have a certain size. So, we bump into a problem then because the universe is infinite to begin with; it does not have any borders.
—
Let’s add another item to the envelope and make Multiverse the 9th item. Interestingly, the word Universe has now become functional for the postal person. Instead of wondering in which universe the postal person needs to make a delivery, now it is crystal clear that it is in OUR universe, and not in one of the others.
Yet the non-functionality got kicked down the road because the word Multiverse took over the role of not having a function attached to it for the postal person.
No matter how many layers we add in size and reality, the largest of them will be non-functional. With this context to the contents, we always have a largest setup, the context, that is non-functional by itself. This ensures that whatever the object is, the contents, will be functional.
As an example of contents and context, one can take the word Blue and think it means something specific. Yet the meaning of the word changes when the context refers either to a paint store or to someone on the couch with the shrink.
Additionally, it would be incorrect to declare that the paint store made you pick a color or that the shrink summoned you to be depressed. It’s the other way around. The specific item in question receives its grounding in the generic larger setup.
—
The quick explanation is that the materialization process (the Big Bang) happened just once. The largest reality in which we exist got established once. Yet that does not mean we exist in an all-inclusive state.
The original state that produced the resulting outcome, and it does not matter how we envision that original state, is not identical to the resulting outcome. One cannot have matter produced from a prior state and the prior state then completely the same as the subsequent state. That idea is simply not possible.
- For a result with new outcomes to exist, the prior state must have undermined itself.
No omelet without breaking the egg. Keep that in mind.
—
The difficulty about understanding the largest of levels is tied to understanding language well. Often we don’t pay much attention to how language functions as long as the other person understands what is being said. Ordinarily, we do not spend much time dissecting the structural layers of language. Yet, here we are dissecting it, using easy examples.
- Everything is a word that can be written down with 1.
- Everything and Nothing are words that can be written down with 1 + 0.
You probably agree with the used numbers. Yet did you recognize that there are two different numerical systems mentioned here?
In the first sentence, everything is an all-inclusive word, and all there is did get included in the word indeed. There is nothing else there.
In the second sentence, everything is part of a pair. The opposite of everything is declared with Nothing. Though there is no contents to nothing, the pair is structurally the same as male vs. female, or young vs. old.
- Though nothing at all, the Nothing does stand in opposite to Everything in the second sentence.
To investigate how this second sentence distinguishes itself from the first sentence, one has to find a ‘nothing’ that is found on the inside of the all-inclusive Everything of the first sentence.
Indeed, there are examples available to make this obvious.
When my wallet is empty, I am not very happy about that. I experience a real effect that can be written down on the list of Everything, even though one cannot point to something that is not there. The context of the wallet is required to show that the contents, in this case that is nothing at all, has a meaning indeed.
- Entire nations rise early in the morning to ensure their wallets do not become empty. This force, hidden in plain sight in our day-to-day financial reality, is real and must be pronounced with the all-inclusive Everything. The empty wallet does not form a pair with Everything; it is included with Everything.
So, we did find a Nothing inside the Everything of the first sentence.
—
The first Everything is non-functional.
The second Everything is functional.
Obviously, this leads to confusion, and so there is the desire to ignore this irritating distinction as quickly as possible. When the other person understands the message, we rightfully move on to other things. But… let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater and stick with the view of investigating the largest of levels.
An all-inclusive word does not have a function, other than enumerating the whole of what is then pronounced with a single word. With this non-functional word, there are no details used to declare a contradiction.
A book titled “Mankind and the 20th Century” makes it obvious right away what the book is about. Yet the title contains two different systems.
- Mankind is an all-inclusive word pointing to the human reality in which we play our own parts. It mentions all humans without making any distinctions.
- The 20th Century is a specific time period. It will detail what is going on.
Examples therefore to see what is going on are: “Mankind goes to war and invents things” and “In the 20th Century war takes in a prominent place while inventions show that more positive human outcomes occurred as well.”
The first sentence is something Tarzan would say. Mankind goes to war and invents things. There is information entailed, details even, yet on close examination the sentence is incorrect. The listing provided with Mankind as the subject matter is incomplete; it’s actually totally incomplete. In reality, we need volumes and volumes to describe what Mankind is and, even then, the descriptions will fail to declare all that Mankind is.
Meanwhile, the sentence about the 20th Century is complete. It does not describe everything there is to say because there is also no setup to declare everything there is to say.
The 20th Century was never a word that is all-inclusive because the word Mankind is the context while the 20th Century is its contents.
—
Does the universe expand?
No, it does not. And yet we understand what is being said.
The human mind is spectacularly malleable. There is no guarantee that another person will understand everything another person says, yet the brain will do nearly anything to get at least an idea about what is being said.
In detail, one can declare that matter in the universe is moving across greater amounts of space, and as such we can comprehend the word expanding in that context. Star systems and galaxies are not expanding, but nearly all galaxies are moving further and further apart from one another (some are attracted to one another and will collide given enough time to form a larger galaxy).
Yet that is not a universe expanding. The content entails matter in large collectives moving apart from one another. The universe is the context. It is non-functional because there is no single direction for matter in the universe (except for outward from a collective perspective).
—
Start with planet Earth and let’s jump to a larger level, the Solar System.
That simple jump means we changed systems.
Instead of working with a unit, planet Earth, we moved a level up and are now working with several units, the Sun being the largest of them all, located in the center.
Where Space was not all that important when considering planet Earth, one must incorporate Space as vital to understand the Solar System.
With planet Earth, the specifics declare how matter converged into one planet. Yet the Solar System is not just about convergence. We see the first parts of divergence coming into the picture as well.
The Milky Way is still a collective, yet convergence is accompanied by divergence as well. Gravitational attraction is accompanied by an outward rotational force that prevents the galaxy from becoming a single mass.
The next step up brings us to the universe. It turns out that there is no convergence left at this level. Convergence ended up being non-functional at the universal level. The only action now considered is divergence, and divergence can indeed be recognized as such, yet it does not entail a function of course.
A group that falls apart is no longer a group. It was a group. The group that was functional, has become non-functional. The prior setup of the universe broke apart.
—
With the Big Bang in mind, there are different models available. Most readers will be familiar with my writing about them, so I will not go into too many details. Yet I will mention just enough to point out the quality of (non)functionality in the following two models.
- The Lambda-CDM model starts out with a super-hot area under extreme tension, and all this moves apart until the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is reached at a distance of 380,000 years (from the mathematical center) and where the first normal outcomes for matter are established.
- The Big Whisper model is named for Penzias and Wilson who discovered the whisper of the materialization process in 1965. This model focuses on the CMBR as the moment quarks aligned into neutrons and protons.
Notice the distinction in both models in light of functionality.
The Lambda-CDM model asserts certain conditions of a general nature as the very beginning, a setup of some kind, without explaining how the setup got set up. The model makes the non-functional reality of the all-inclusive setup functional, yet it does not provide any details how to have gone from that generic overall state to the specialized, detailed outcomes of the known universe.
- The Lambda-CDM model jumped systems on us and sweeps that aspect under the rug. At first, everything contained all there was (like in the example Mankind was the generic starting point), and next Everything is placed in opposition to Nothing without even saying how that switch of systems was accomplished.
The Big Whisper model details how neutrons and protons could have come into being. There is no generic setup that transformed from one reality into a specified reality. Rather, the model starts with energy as a given. The story is therefore not one of telling how it all began. It is a story about how the prior setup broke and as a result how matter came to be.
The starting point in the Big Whisper model is therefore not the non-functional level. The model starts with immaterial energy, and as such there are already specific qualities assumed, even when it is not detailed further (like in the example 20th Century was the specific level of information). Then, the accident of collective inward pressure buildup occurred, and some energy (in Zone 2) got damaged in that setup. A quark soup was produced.
- The all-inclusive Everything is therefore not the starting point. The specific Everything is the starting point, and it established a situation in which the Nothing (of nothing holding that everything together) is shown. The universe as a whole is the context.
The Lambda-CDM model is like a creation story.
The Big Whisper model is a transformation story.
To understand the universe, we must understand ourselves, particularly in what kind of structures we think.
We can fool ourselves to think that the largest of levels can be functional. It is not. Particularly when we attribute functions to the largest of levels, we make a linguistic faux pas, and that incorrectness has far-reaching consequences. Working with a functional largest of levels as starting point leads to confusion about the resulting outcomes.
The largest of levels is always non-functional.
