Friday, December 28, 2018
IS HUMAN LIFE MEANINGFUL?
IS HUMAN LIFE MEANINGFUL, OR JUST AN ACCIDENT IN A CHAOTIC UNIVERSE? TDVP HAS THE ANSWER.
WHY IS THERE A STABLE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
SUPPORTING CONSCIOUS LIFE?
If the universe we have today began with the explosion of a tiny super-dense knot of matter, and has been expanding ever since, how is it that we have this amazing complexity of quarks, atoms and molecules, making up stable highly-structured compounds, organic life forms, and conscious beings living on our little planet spinning and rotating around our sun, a medium-sized star, in a galaxy that is just one in billions of whirling nebulae? Nothing in the mechanics of the universe that we can directly observe, measure and analyze indicates that this should be so.
All of the laws of physics indicate that the opposite should be happening. In our expanding universe, the laws of thermodynamics predict ever-increasing entropy, i.e., less and less structure, as time goes on. We have never observed an explosion that created things more complex and structured than the thing that exploded. We would not expect a bomb set off in a pile of raw materials, however compactly pressed together, to produce an automobile, a television set, or even a single useful object. So how is it that scientists think that an explosion created all of our remarkably complex universe that has exhibited ever-increasing complexity for at least 4.5 billion years (the estimated age of planet Earth), from nothing, or nearly nothing, instead of steadily decaying into nothing as the laws of physics predict?
We’re told that the more complex atoms are cooked up in the super-hot interior of stars like our sun. But the complexity we see in our neighborhood is not made up of those complex atoms, in fact they hardly play any role at all in the structured reality we experience, it’s the simplest of atoms, the hydrogen atom, by far the most abundant element in the universe, that plays the biggest role in the creation and sustenance of life-supporting structures in our universe. And we might ask, why and how did stars manage to form in an exploding expanding universe? We’re also told that in a high-energy environment, like that which must have existed just after the big-bang, a plethora of elementary particles existed. But in our world, such particles can exist only for nanoseconds, a blink of time, decaying rapidly. Complex radio-active atoms and ephemeral quantum particles have nothing to do with life in our living rooms, kitchens and backyards. So let’s not be distracted. Let’s focus on the most stable thing in the universe, the thing that is at the heart of every stable structure supporting life, the vehicle of consciousness: the proton.
The Cause of Stability: The Answer to Why there is Something Rather than Nothing
Protons and neutrons are made of up-quarks and down-quarks, and they have almost the same mass. But protons are stable, and neutrons are not. Why? A free neutron, i.e. a neutron not bound inside an atom, decays in minutes. Protons, on the other hand, are the most stable things in the physical universe. No one has ever seen a proton decay, - ever. Particle physicists who think everything decays (radioactivity and the second law of thermodynamics), using methods that seem to work for everything else, estimate that the proton has a half-life of 1031 to 1036 years. The estimated age of the big-bang universe is a little more than 1010, to be exact, 13.8 x109 years. No wonder no one has seen one decay! If they decay at all, we’ll have to wait more than 1021 years to witness the first proton come apart.
Spinning Objects and Symmetry
A lump of clay will be pulled apart by centrifugal force, and pieces of it will fly off a potter’s wheel, if it is asymmetric. Because of Newton’s third law of motion and the expansion of the universe, elementary particles are spinning. It follows that stable elementary particles must be symmetrical, and spinning particles made of two or more of these elementary particles must also be symmetrical to be stable. Thus, the first thing we can infer about the proton, the most stable thing in the universe, is that its form must be symmetric. This also implies something about the form of up-quarks and down-quarks, and how they combine to form the proton: They must be symmetrical spinning objects, and they must be combined symmetrically to form protons.
Originally, I used Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence (TRUE) and the Calculus of Dimensional Distinctions (CoDD) to prove that the proton could not be symmetrical, and therefore, would not be stable, unless the up-quarks and down-quarks that comprise it contain very specific numbers of TRUE of a third something, that has no mass or energy, i.e., a non-physical component. We called that third something gimmel. Later, I worked out exactly what those TRUE amounts had to be, using straight-forward math. The details of those determinations can be found at:
TDVP Continues to be Misunderstood and Misinterpreted
I keep hearing and seeing statements by critics of TDVP, and even some supporters, saying: “Gimmel is speculated to be necessary for stable matter to exist.” There is nothing speculative about it. The necessity for the existence of gimmel for the stability of atomic structure is based on extremely solid empirical data from the Large Hadron Collider, sound logic, and mathematical proof. The existence of non-physical gimmel in every atom of the stable universe is the reason there is something, rather than nothing. Without it, you and I would not exist as we do to discuss it.
Folks with vested interests in materialism loathe to even look at the proof, because it refutes materialism as a basis of scientific investigation, and mainstream scientists bridle at the mention of consciousness having anything to do with physical reality. But no one has offered any viable substitute explanation of gimmel. If it is not consciousness or the active agent of consciousness, what is it?
Finally, based on the well-established empirical data of the LHC, mathematical derivations and proofs outlined above, the following conclusion is inescapable:
If there was a big-bang origin event, not one stable proton could have formed in the subsequent expanding universe without gimmel, and thus, non-physical reality, God, primary consciousness, or whatever you want to call it, had to have existed prior to the formation of the first atom of the physical universe.
This means that your life is meaningful and purposeful, not just an accident in a chaotic universe. You are part of the conscious unfolding of reality as necessary as the atoms of the periodic table.