THE COMPLETE THEORY OF NOTHING

There is nothing out there.  Oh, I know that you are out there, at least in my universe, as I am out there in your universe, but you and I are not things.  We are not a that but a that which.  We are context not content.  We are that which experiences and desires.  We are the non-physical bowl within which we experience our experience and desire our desires.  Your experience, your thoughts, feelings and perceptions, are also real but are not things. Forces including what scientists call gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong force and the weak force, are also real but are also not things.  We know forces and conjure laws describing these forces because of their consistent effects on things (or what we call things) but there is no stuff, no matter, that causes these forces.  Even if you buy into the Western idea that forces originate in particles, emanate from particles, the force, itself, regardless of its origin, is not measurable or observable.  We only know that it is there because of its effects on things, or seeming things, that we can measure.

So if there is nothing out there, what is all this stuff that I am constantly smelling and tasting and touching and observing and bunking into?  According to Western thinking, forces are caused by the interaction of particles.  Solid particles, which at first were considered to be atoms, then electrons, protons and neutrons, and now quarks and other subatomic particles, are somehow emanating forces.  The Eastern way of thinking is that forces cause the illusion of particles, which are, themselves, merely a somewhat stable interaction of forces.

How could forces by themselves create stable configurations?  Certainly if we consider forces to be gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong force and the weak force, there is nothing in these forces that would bind together to create anything stable.  But traditional Eastern thinking and spiritual thinking and pre-industrial thinking, views the world as an interplay of two forces which interact with each other.  These forces are called variously Yin and Yang, In and Yo, Father Sky and Mother Earth, Celestial and Terrestrial, Tirawa and Atira, Fana and  Baqa, Shiva and Shakti, etc.

These two forces are not to be confused with the positive and negative charges of electro-magnetism.  Positive and negative charges are, supposedly, emanating from particles; they are an attribute of particles.  To have a positive and negative attraction requires at least two particles with opposing charges.  With yin and yang there are no particles that yin or yang are emanating from.  They are not attributes of particles; there are no particles.  Yin and yang are the things themselves. 

Yin and yang do not attract each other so much as capture each other.  They form spirals, with the yin force creating the expansive outward dimensions of the spiral and the inward yang force creating the contour, the finite shape of the spiral.  Spirals can be thought of as a circle moving forward.  the circular aspect of the spiral is the yin element and the forward, linear aspect of the spiral is the yang element.  More circular spirals are more yin and more elongated spirals are more yang.  Within the spiral is a force field of bound yin and yang and outside the spiral are force fields between more yin and more yang spirals; but with all of this there is no matter, no particles; there is just the illusion of solidity caused by impermeable force fields of finite dimensions.

A recent twist of modern Western thought is string theory, or superstring theory.  According to string theorists, within the most fundamental subatomic particles,  there is a tiny vibrating string and the oscillations of this string determines the spin and mass and charge of the subatomic particle that encloses it.  This concept is represented by a loop of string bent at odd angles and curves, within the shell of a particle; the energy generated by the oscillations of the string being contained by the solid particle ball or capsule.
             
In Eastern theory there is no shell, no particle, and certainly no strings.  In Eastern theory the forces themselves interact and are capable of forming stable configurations, eliminating the need for encapsulation, particles or strings.  If there actually was a particle there, if there was a kind of container for these vibrating strings, what would that container be made out of?  Certainly not any of the known elements.  The simplest element is composed of at least one electron, one proton and one neutron.  Here we are talking about a tiny piece of a single proton, which is an infinitesimal fraction of the entire atom.  Is there any matter at all at this sub atomic level?

Superstring theory is considered to be a prime candidate for the complete theory of everything.  Yet even if it could be mathematically proven, it would provide a theory for everything that underlies particles, but not the particles themselves.  In other words it would provide a kind of energy substrate which causes all the movement of particles and things, but it would not explain the origin or even the material of things.  We would still have this duality between matter and energy.

Yin and yang combine to form the material world, or what we call the material world.  This does not mean that yin and yang attract.  It's more like they capture each other.  The yang force does not want to be captured.  It wants to merge with the nearest stronger yang force.  It wants to consolidate and increase in strength.  Yang wants to contract into itself and merge into the center of the earth, or beyond planetary pull, into the center of the sun, or beyond astral pull, into the non-physical center of the universe, where the Big Bang explosion took place, the yang center which pulls the whole material world back toward it and acts as a brake on the universal expansion. This pull of yang toward the nearest large yang center we call gravity.  The pull of yang toward the non-physical yang center of the universe, not the presence of dark or undetectable matter, is the reason that the earth is not expanding at the rate that scientists originally predicted. 

The yin force does not want to be captured either.  Yin wants to continue to infinitely expand.  It goes toward infinity but that is not really a direction.  Yin, not being a thing, moves at infinite speed, which means that it is unfathomably fast and absolutely still at the same time since it takes yin no time to traverse the universe and return to the same spot.  Yin is also a unity, since there is no 'thingness' to separate one part of yin from the other.  There is no pure yang in the material world, because the moment pure yang becomes detached from yin (as in the Cern proton collisions) yin immediately reforms around it creating yin spirals to surround the yang center and holding each other in place. .  


Spirals can appear in short time periods as a circle.  For instance, the orbit of the moon around the earth, or the earth around the sun may appear circular or elliptical, but if you follow the motion of the moon it is not only rotating around the earth, but it is following the earth in its orbit around the sun, so the path of the moon is really a spiral.  In the same way, the orbiting earth follows the path of the sun around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and is also a spiral.  We are familiar with two dimensional diagrams of energy waves, but in three dimensions the wave becomes a spiral.  Atoms are usually conceived of as a number of tiny spheres surrounded by circling electrons.  But aside from the possibility of absolute zero temperature, which no one has ever been able to achieve, the atoms are in motion.  The electron orbit in motion is a spiral and the protons and neutrons spin as they move so that any point on the surface or within the proton and neutron would be following a spirallic path, just as we, standing still on a rotating and orbiting earth are proscribing a spirallic path.

Spirals are absolutely ubiquitous in nature.  They appear all through the plant kingdom, in the arrangement of petals, branches and stems.  Galaxies are organized into spirallic arms.  Look at the curled up human fetus.  The torso of the body appears as a spiral ending in the head.  The ear is a spiral, ending in the ear canal.  The intestines ending in the stomach form a spiral.  Fingerprints and footprints are elaborate spirallic patterns. The fetal arm curled up into a fist is a spiral, as is the spinal cord ending in the brain. Nucleotide base pairs are arranged spirallically along the DNA molecule and are coiled and recoiled in a fantastically elaborate folding process of coils coiled within coils, coiled within coils, that allows ten feet of DNA to fit into the nucleus of every cell in the body. All waves are spirals and, if all particles are also waves, then all particles, at least in their wave formation, are spirals (in their particle formation they are simply more contracted spirals).  To see the endless variety and beauty of spirals in the world around us, google 'spirals in nature.'

One common form of spiral is the whirlpool or tornado or dust devil.  This common form of spiral is made of water or air or dust molecules, but these molecules are not causing the spirals.  They are being moved in spirals because of a concurrence of forces which have formed a spirallic pattern.  Anything swept up in this spiral including drowning bodies and flying cows is moved spirallically, but the whirlpool and the tornado are not 'caused' by any particles.  It's hard to imagine a whirlpool or tornado without any molecues being moved by them, but that is because we live in a macroscopic world where atoms and molecules are everywhere.  But within the submicroscopic world of the atom, there are no molecules or atoms.  A whirlpool within that world would consist of forces but not matter.  My contention is that each of these subatomic particles that so fascinate modern physicists are not particles at all.  They are tiny whirlpools of forces, each type with its own shape (either more circular or more elongated, its own spin, either centripetal or centrifugal, and its own mass.  (As I explained earlier in the post 'Particle Fever', mass is not a measure of the amount of stuff in an object.  There is no stuff.  Just as weight is the gravitational measure of the amount of pull that the largest near object [the earth for things near the surface of the earth, and the sun for things beyond a planetary influence], so mass is the measure, not of 'stuff,' but of the amount of yang force, the amount of force pulling all the interlocking spirallic forces in a particular space, toward the center of that space.  

In a space ship there is no gravity so there is no weight.  There are no heavy or light objects.  But there still is mass.  If you try to accelerate an object, push an object, across the room in a gravity free zone, it will be harder to accelerate an object with more mass than with less mass.  But just as weight is a measure of the pull of forces and not a measure of the amount of stuff, so is mass.  Mass is the measure of forces within the object that pull all the elements of that object toward its center, just like gravity is a measure of the forces at the center of the earth that pull the objects beyond its surface toward its surface.  Mass is the pull within the surface as gravity is the pull beyond the surface.

If this makes sense on a subatomic level, then, when we get to the interaction of whole atomic particles, and whole atoms, then do we get to 'stuff'?  Is that where the actual material world begins?  No!  The hundred or more elements of nature strike us as being wildly different; their colors are different, their densities are different; they are penetrable or impenetrable, liquid or solid or gas, powdery, smooth or congealing, hard or soft.  Yet we are told that the only difference between elements is the number of electrons, protons and neutrons they contain, and that electrons, protons and neutrons are identical to each other no matter what element they are found in.  Is all this amazing range and variety due simply to the numerical addition of more of the same identical components?  I think not.  These subatomic particles, which are not really particles, but are themselves tiny force fields of bound forces, bound and consistent in form because the outward yin force giving the "particle" width and height and depth is held in place by the inward yang force giving the "particle" a finite contour.  It is between these particles, which are really spirals of interlocking forces, that the differences in our experience of  atoms is created.  The area between the contracted yang nucleus of the cell and the expanded surrounding yin cloud that we refer to as the electron cloud is itself a force field with the more yang, positive, nucleus pulling in on the more yin elements trying to escape out.  The denser this force field and the ratio and amount of yin to yang forces in this field is what creates the variety of permeability, the hardness and softness, the lower and higher boiling points, the difference of colors as light waves are refracted differently by different force fields, and the strength of force connection between each atom (or each atomic force field) that creates the wide variety in our experience of elements.

So matter is not really matter.  It is bound force fields within bound force fields, non-physical but energetic spirals within spirals.  This is a true theory of everything, which is really a theory of nothing, because it does not acknowledge the separate existence of matter from forces.  There is no "shell" as in the diagrams of super strings within the quark.  The quark does not have a material shell.  No particle does.  The contour of the quark, of the proton, of any particle, subatomic, atomic, molecular, visible or not visible, is created by the balance of the outward force of yin with the inward force of yang.

And these forces, even when tiny, are extremely powerful.  Yin and yang, tightly bound within quarks, can create an enormous amount of energy if those tiny quarks are split.  There is much more energy bound within a so-called particle, then extending beyond its boundaries.  Another way of saying that is that the pull of yang within the particle, the mass, is much stronger than the pull of yang beyond the surface of the particle, the gravity.  Yang contracts.  It does not get stronger by expanding.  It gets stronger by contracting more and more.  At the center of each natural object is yang, surrounded and bound by yin formations.  What was seen at CERN in the collision of protons, was not the assumed arrival of a Higgs Boson, but the sudden exposure of the pure yang center of the proton formation which was instantly balanced by yin formations.  These yin formations which were taken as proof that a Higgs Boson had passed through in a micro-instant, like a modern day Santa Claus, distributing the gift of mass and leaving undetected, was nothing of the kind.  It was the instant regrouping of these yin formations to bind the exposed yang center which was there in the first place.  There is no need to postulate ubiquitous Higgs Fields which materialize into bosons which impart mass and instantly disappear.

I remind you that all of this is not a theory of everything, but a theory of nothing.  There is no matter here, no real 'stuff' that creates mass.  These are just the interplay of two forces, which themselves are not things.  Then what are they?  Whether you buy my argument or not about an expansive and contractive force that bind each other to create what seems to be a solid material world, whether you are sticking with the four forces of physics: gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong force and the weak force, the question remains, what are these forces?  We cannot see any of them directly, but just observe how they exert their forces on things that we can see and measure.  Forces are laws.  In fact, we call these forces laws, like Einstein's Laws, or Newton's Laws, which are just attempts to explain how these forces behave.  What is the origin of a law?  In human society laws come from ideas that people have about how to organize society, for the betterment of the lawmakers, at least, and hopefully, for the betterment of the entire society.  Human laws must include, if they are to be effective, a method of enforcement.  There have to be, written into the laws, a system of penalties, fines, incarcerations, and police or inspectors to enforce these laws and lawyers and judges to decide when to impose these penalties.  With natural law, the force is not external to the law itself.  The law is the force and the force is the law.  The entire universe is built upon the total compliance to these laws or forces.  Violation is impossible.  A violation of any one of the interlocking forces of the universe, would bring down the entire structure like a house of cards.

There is one exception to the above.  God, or the god head or the cosmic consciousness, from which natural laws came, could violate natural law, but that would destroy the entire universe.  These precise forces which underlie and support the entire universe were put in place because God wanted them in place and remain in place because God wants them to remain in place.  The universe continues to exist at each moment because God wills it to exist at each moment.

Like human laws, natural laws originate in ideas and the ideas come from nothing, or should I say Nothing, or should I say God, or the cosmic consciousness or the godhead, which is, whatever you call it, not a thing, but is the no thing that is the source of all ideas for this universe and for ourselves, ideas which our brains can receive but not generate, all love, which we can receive but not generate, and all wisdom and insight, that we can receive but not generate.  Cosmic consciousness has no brain like we do to record and organize our perceptions.  The universe itself, is God's brain.  There is no need for memory.  All the processes that formed every part of the universe including the elaborate mental structures of our own often tortured psyches, are immediately evident to God who knows all these processes, who created all these processes and knows how they interact.  Just like a good geologist sees a lot about the past of a landscape from its present condition, and a good therapist sees a lot about the psychological past history of a patient from their present behavior, so God instantly understands the entire past of any phenomena by the way it is formed and behaves in present time.

So this is a complete theory of nothing.  God, which is not a thing, created the universe by creating two forces, which are not things, whose interplay creates whole formations of forces and force fields between them which give the impression of solidity, of solid particles, all of which is actually and ultimately illusory.  Everything that is seemingly solid is really the interplay of forces which are themselves merely the manifestation of an idea and have no more actual solidity than an idea.  There is no mysterious shell that covers the energy within the quark.  There is no shell.  There is no real within or without when it comes to quarks or to anything else. There are no particles. There is no matter.  Quarks are whirlpools of interlocking forces just like the macro world is composed of whirlpools of interlocking forces.  

           Nothing will come of nothing,
           Speak again,

says King Lear in Shakespeare's great play.  But here Shakespeare is giving voice to a materialist king who does not yet recognize that the love of his daughter Cordelia, which is not a thing, means everything, not nothing.  In  The Tempest, Shakespeare gives voice to the mystic Prospero, who speaks this great truth,


            Our revels now are ended.  These our actors,
            As I foretold you, were all spirits and
            Are melted into air, into thin air:
            And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
            The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
            The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
            Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
            And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, 
            Leave not a rack behind.  We are such stuff
            As dreams are made on, and our little life 
            Is rounded with a sleep.

Shakespeare was truly remarkable, wasn't he?  And he never even read Darwin, Dawkins or Pinker, never realized that human beings and all we accomplish are merely the product of mindless molecular accidents; never understood that the self is a delusion and that love, passion, transcendent joy, even the self itself and one's own, in Shakespeare's case, incredible, soaring talent, were all only randomly evolved survival strategies.  He, along with those other deluded fools like Beethoven, Mozart and Michelangelo, were naive enough to think that their talents derived from God, that their passions and enormous abilities were gifts and that it was their divine destiny to express those gifts.  

If you wonder why modern poetry, art and music so rarely soars and there is so much anger in it, even though the artists find themselves in relative material comfort, you may look to the accepted materialist, Darwinian belief system that we have all inherited from "the experts" without ever questioning and within which the spirit, denied its very existence, languishes in this materialist cell; sometimes raging, often times bored, and always feeling at least somewhat alienated and empty; while the true glory and brilliance of this universe that surrounds us, within and without, remains unnoticed.


Please feel free to comment.