Unified theory of existence

8/14/2019 Unified theory of existence

1/190

THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE

Volume One

By

Prof. Dr. Muhammad alMahdi

Child/Clinical Psychologist

INTRODUCTION TO

1


2/190

THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCETRILOGY

In the 1960s in the United States I set out on a search for Truth. This was to be no questto fill some missing spiritual vacuum; I had already firmly determined that God did notexist. Not only did I not believe in God, but I was convinced that all logic, reason, andscientific evidence confirmed that God did not exist; and, that for anyone to believe in theexistence of God was such an outdated, superstitious way of life that it would hold themback from fulfilling their human potential and would likewise block the human race fromachieving its ultimate destiny. So certain was I that I once stated, establishing the highestauthenticity of my atheistic credentials when I was lecturing to a large class of about 500introductory psychology students that, If there was ever going to be the last person onEarth who didnt believe in God it would be me.

My search for truth included almost fourteen years as a full time university student and

resulted in my going through three and a half PhD programs in child, clinical,experimental, and educational psychology. I had originally intended, and began, mystudies in the physical sciences. This allowed me, due to previous training in nuclearelectronics, to spend four years as a research assistant in one of the foremost theoreticalphysics laboratories of that time, where I had the opportunity to meet and discuss themost basic nature of our physical universe with several recipients of the Nobel Prize inPhysics.

Perhaps related to the special social and cultural circumstances of the 1960s, I movedfrom the physical sciences to the social sciences partly because of the very unhappy anddifficult life I had growing up and partly because of an increasingly serious awareness

that all was not right with human society. I decided that I would go into psychology,particularly child psychology, so that perhaps I could do something to ensure that in thefuture children would not have to go through what I had gone through and could live inan enlightened world of peace and love.

During my studies in psychology I came across a tool of great value for anyone whohoped to help bring about a better world, this tool was the Laws of Learning. During anundergraduate class in experimental psychology we were given a live chicken and told todevise a fairly complex task to teach it using the Laws of Learning. I wanted my chickento stand on one leg only, its right leg, to hop in a full circle to the right on that one leg,

then to push a red button on the wall of the experimental chamber with its beak, have abite of food, and keep repeating that same sequence of behaviours without error time aftertime.

This could have been an almost impossible task as chickens are not very intelligentanimals and most people, including myself without a knowledge of the Laws of Learning,would have had no idea how to even begin such a difficult training program. When lessthan ten minutes after I had begun training my chicken to do this seemingly impossible

2


3/190

task I was able to sit there watching it repeatedly and errorlessly completing the wholecomplicated sequence of responses which made up the task I had set for it, I was morethan amazed. Of course I never could have done this without the knowledge of the Lawsof Learning, which I applied rigorously and consistently as I trained the chicken to do thatcomplex task. Still, it all happened so quickly and easily that it appeared to be an almost

miraculous happening.

I still remember thinking, If I could use the Laws of Learning to teach an animal with aslittle intelligence as a chicken to do that quite complex task so quickly, why couldntthose same Laws of Learning be used to help children grow up to be good and decenthuman beings? This was the beginning that led me years later, during my third PhDprogram, to come up with the hypothesis that, If you were to give to any individual orsocial group just two things, a positive, accurate, and motivational world view, plus agood understanding of the Laws of Learning by which all human characteristics aredeveloped, then that individual or social group would move naturally and inevitablytoward everything good and right.

My work in using the Laws of Learning to teach children resulted in me being given agovernment primary school, the worst one in the school district, to test that hypothesisunder experimental conditions. So I set out to prove the hypothesis as a childrens valueseducation program. Just as with my experiment with the chicken many years earlier theresults were beyond all expectations. Within a year the children, the teachers, and theschool environment had become astonishingly positive and productive. Extra academictraining had not even been part of our experimental program, but due to motivationalfactors and a focus on the benefits of learning and possessing knowledge as one of thevalues the children were taught, the school which had tested last in the district of 27

schools each year for twelve years in a row during standardized academic testing movedup to number seven academically after only one year of the program.

Compared statistically against matched experimental control schools the results were sounbelievably good for an educational research program that they were almost anembarrassment. You just dont get results that good in educational experiments: but, theU. S. Commissioner of Education took enough interest in the program to offer to have itreplicated in government funded schools all across America. I didnt feel it was ready forsuch wide use yet, it was after all only in the experimental stages, and although I thinkthen I knew enough about the second part of the hypothesis, the Laws of Learning, to justify the spread of the program, I realized I was far from understanding the second

necessary component of the hypothesis, the positive, accurate, and motivational worldview, well enough.

To many peoples shock, and perhaps some regret, I left the experimental program whichhad proved so successful. In fact to continue my search for Truth I left America, where Ihad become increasingly disenchanted with the social culture and the governments policies, and went out into the world to find that required positive, accurate, andmotivational world view. It was a search that would take me to not only many more years

3


4/190

of intense study on my own covering all areas of science and philosophy, but alsotheology, the study of religious knowledge. My travels, even as I remained a confirmednon-believer in God, eventually took me to priests and monasteries, gurus and ashrams,monks and Buddhist temples around the world.

During all these years after leaving the formal study of the physical sciences I had beenkeeping up with the many enlightening discoveries in theoretical physics. Modern physicswas then going through a very exciting period, we now had a quite good understanding ofthe most basic nature of matter and how the physical universe came to be what it is today.I became more and more interested in the philosophical implications of EinsteinsTheories of Relativity. Connections were being made in my consciousness between theimplications of Einsteins work and the revealed knowledge of religious believers which Ihad long rejected.

I remember well the day that I finally had to concede that if I wanted to be fair andobjective as a scientist I would have to accept that due to the findings of modern physics,

particularly Einsteins Theories of Relativity, I could no longer deny the existence ofGod. I had to accept that modern science and logic now offered powerful proof of theexistence of God. And, I remember equally well my first two words to myself when Irealized I now had to accept the existence of God as a reality. This is very revealing as tomy character at the time, but those two words were, Oh no! I understood immediatelythat my life would have to change drastically, since knowing that God existed also meanthaving an obligation to live according to the Will of God rather that feeling free tosuccumb to the whims of human desire.

No one could have been more shocked than I when what had been intended to be the

ultimate journey into secular materialistic science and philosophy took me first to theknowledge of the existence of God then to a realization that I could follow no other pathin life but Islam.

(Muhammad alMahdi, 2004)

FORWARD TOTHE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE

TRILOGY

I wrote these three books almost 20 years ago now, although much of the informationpresented in these works remains at the present limits of human knowledge of science andlogic. They represent an early step in the shaping process of my life over a 40 year searchfor Truth that led me from confirmed atheism, non-belief in God, to becoming a Muslimdedicating his life to service for Allah. The word shaping is a technical word from the

4


5/190

Laws of Learning. It means to go through a series of small steps from any beginning pointtoward any goal.

Learning the multiplication tables could serve as a simple example of shaping, and by theway, shaping is the way I taught the chicken to perform that quite complex task described

in the introduction. We take as the starting point a child who knows nothing ofmultiplication, and we set as a goal the child knowing the multiplication tables up to12X12. It is impossible to jump right from not even knowing the concept ofmultiplication to knowing how to multiply 12X12. We must teach the child themultiplication tables in a series of small steps. First you teach 1X1, 1X2, etc. If you makeany step too big the learning process will break down and the final goal will never beachieved. There is no other way to achieve the goal, and that is how all humancharacteristics are developed. That is how I found God!

I was, in the middle of last year, diagnosed with a terminal illness and given about threemonths to live. Now it is a year later, and I feel very Blessed by Allah to even be alive

and able to write this brief forward to these books I wrote so long ago even though myhealth is obviously failing. I feel very comfortable with the fact that I will soon be leavingthis physical existence, but I also want to be sure in the time I have left that I doeverything I can to ensure whatever benefits can be had from my lifes work can bepassed on to human society. I am hoping that the difficult and time consuming path thatbrought me to Islam can be accelerated for others by the reading of these three books. Noteveryone has the time, the inclination, or the opportunity to devote their whole life tostudy.

Since the knowledge in these three books was learned, understood, and written from a

secular, materialistic view of science and logic they should be well received even bythose who presently have no religious interests. For those of religions other than Islam,they can feel comfortable with the knowledge in these books because they are writtenwith no Islamic words or perspective, and non-Muslims should find support for much thatthey already believe to be true. And, for those who are already Muslim, they can benefitfrom these books by seeing how close one can come to understanding the rightness of thetraditional beliefs and practices of Islam through modern scientific knowledge and logic.In addition, for young Muslims in particular, the knowledge in these three volumes can provide an armour against the powerful negative influences of Western secularmaterialism, which if left unchecked will subtly steal from many of our youth their beliefin and practice of the beauty and greatness of traditionally understood Islam.

THE TRILOGY (These three volumes were written as a continuous conversation betweena young girl of the future and a mythical philosopher-scientist. The reason for this was tomake the presentation of some very difficult and complex information much lessthreatening and easier to read.)

Volume One: The presentation of one consistent body of knowledge from the light at thebeginning of the Created universe to Adams children in the world today. This volumecontains cosmology, physics, biology, philosophy, and theology woven together to give a

5


6/190

detailed account of the totality of the physical Creation. It gives objective answers tohumanitys long asked questions such as; does God exist, what is the meaning of life,what is the true nature of good and evil, where does our free will come from, is there lifeafter death, and what does the future hold for the human race?

Volume Two: Looks at a number of areas of human social behaviour, such as politics,human sexuality and correct male/female relationships, economics, religion,entertainment industry, health care, education, and criminal behaviour and discusses whatis wrong with the world as it is now and what would constitute a right world given theworld view presented in Volume One.

Volume Three: Presents a complete review of the Laws of Learning by which all animal behaviour is governed, and by which all human behaviour can be developed to beconsistent with the Will of God. It is this knowledge which if unknown leaves us to blowaimlessly with the winds of negative influence, or if known allows us to fully utilize ourfree will and progress forever onward toward all that is good and right.

(NOTE: I developed the knowledge base for these volumes during the 1960s, 70sand 80s. I wrote these works in the early to middle 1980s. I have purposefully leftthese works in their original form, rather than re-edit them on the basis of mypresent understanding of Islam. I was not a Muslim when I began this work indeedthis work led me to Islam and, although I was a Muslim when I completed theseworks, my knowledge of Islam was then quite rudimentary. I now know much moreabout Islam than I did then, and realize some small part of that which I have writtenmay appear to be but not in reality be inconsistent with traditional Islamictheology due to the scientific nature of the concepts and language I have used. Theremay also be some very few points in which my writings are actually in conflict

with true Islamic knowledge; in these cases I accept the true Islamic knowledge ascorrect and my words to be in error. For those who are believers reading this trilogyit is important to know that whenever you see the term natural law or naturalorder you can replace it in your mind with the more familiar term the Will ofAllah. Muhammad alMahdi, 2004)

6


7/190

This is a story about the most remarkable little girl in the world. Actually, she is themost remarkable person in the world. She lives in the mountains with her parents, not toofar from a great city. Her name is Tinny Rainbird; she is eleven years old. It's not soremarkable that Tinny is so remarkable, she grew up in very unusual circumstances.

About fifteen years ago Tinny's mother and father were graduate students at one of themost famous universities in the world. Her mother was studying physics and her fatherwas studying psychology. Her mother's professors thought she showed the potential tobecome the greatest physicist there had ever been, and her father's professors thought heshowed the potential to become the greatest psychologist there had ever been.

Shortly before Tinny's mother and father were to receive their doctoral degrees they metand fell in love. They got married and left the university. They never did receive theirdoctorates. Their professors were very disappointed. They thought that was the end oftwo potentially great careers.

Tinny's mother and father had not given up their fields of study, they couldn't do that.

Tinny's mother loved physics with all her heart, just as her father loved psychology,Tinny's parents had decided to dedicate their lives to study. They would live their lifetogether as an experiment. They found a beautiful, remote spot in the mountains and builta house. Just the two of them.

They had chosen the location well. They were virtually able to be self-sufficient, whichwas their goal. They had fresh water, and all the vegetables and fruit they could use fromtheir large garden and small orchard. Neither of Tinny's parents ate meat because they

7


8/190

thought it was unnecessary; and more importantly they had high regard for all forms oflife. They also had all the electricity they needed. Tinny's mother had designed an energysystem that very efficiently combined solar and wind power. Every few months theywould travel into the city to buy any other supplies they needed and many, many books.Not just books on physics and psychology, but books on every area of science and human

knowledge.

Tinny's mother and father lived an idyllic life. They lived a life of learning and loving.Tinny's mother was beginning to understand physics better than anyone had everunderstood physics before, and her father was beginning to understand psychology betterthan anyone had ever understood psychology before. They decided the time has right tobring another being into existence. They had a child, a beautiful little girl. They namedher Tinny Rainbird. During those first eleven years of Tinny's life her parents includedher fully in their loving and learning. Tinny had never experienced a moment when shedid not feel loved; and she gave her love in return. Her mother and father never oncetouched her in anger, nor even spoke a harsh word to her. They had accepted her as a

fully equal member of the family from the day she was conceived. As Tinny grew shewatched her mother and father work and love and learn. It was only natural that she alsoworked and loved and learned.

Tinny never went to school, and her mother and father never taught her in any formalmanner. Tinny had been welcome in all her mother's and father's conversations, eventhose of a most technical and philosophical nature. Whenever Tinny asked a question shewould get a good answer in words she could understand. She never learned there aresome things a child couldn't understand. Tinny loved to learn. By the time she was elevenyears old she could understand physics, psychology, and many other areas of knowledgeas well as most university professors. Tinny didn't realise this has unusual; she had never

met another person other than her mother and father. She really was a most remarkablelittle girl.

Tinny had a favourite place where she would go when she wanted to be alone andthink. It was a small grassy glen, surrounded by trees, where the sun would shine throughthe leaves bathing her in streams of light. She was not happy today, as was often the caselately. It was not her home or family which made her unhappy. It was the world outsideshe had never seen. Her mother and father were always totally honest with her; and whenTinny asked questions about how things were in the rest of the world, they told her thetruth. There was crime and violence. Many people did not treat each other in a lovingmanner. There were many sad people whose lives had been hurt by drugs and alcohol.

There were people who were treated as less than equal because of their colour or sex orage. There were people starving because others took far more than was right. There werepeople who would pollute and destroy the environment for profit. There were peoplefighting each other to prove theirs was the right religion. There were nations fighting eachother to prove theirs was the right political system. There were wars where millions died.And there was the threat of nuclear war; a nuclear war which could destroy all life on theplanet.

8


9/190

Although all of those things saddened Tinny greatly, she knew there was hope. Therewere many good people in the world, and given enough time they would right all thewrongs of the world. The worry which crept into Tinny's thoughts more and more latelywas, ''but would there be time?'' Tinny knew there was the chance, any moment, that themany thousand nuclear armed missiles in the world would be fired off; thus ending any

hope for the beautiful future she foresaw. How could this horror be stopped? What couldshe do to stop it? She had no answer. It was these thoughts which saddened her today.

She had been sitting with her legs crossed and her back straight. It was a posture formeditation she had learned from her mother and father. She thought of her parents now,dying in a nuclear blast. ''I wish there was something I could do'', she thought. A tearformed in her eye and slowly ran down her cheek. Her vision blurred for a moment, andwhen it cleared there was a man standing in front of her. He was an old man with whitehair and a white beard. He wore a simple white robe. The light from the sun streaming inthrough the leaves seemed attracted to him. He was very bright; almost, but not quite, toobright to look at. Tinny felt no fear; she could sense his gentleness and love. She could

also sense a special power about him.

Tinny asked, ''Who are you?''

He answered, ''I am a philosopher-scientist; I have come because I heard your wish.''

TINNY: How could you hear my wish? I didn't say it aloud, I thought it.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A thought speaks as loudly as a word. I heard you andhave come to grant your wish. I could see the purity of your unselfish desire. You didn'task for yourself, you asked for the world.

TINNY: Surely others have wished the same thing. Surely others have wished there wassomething they could do to save the world from destruction.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Yes, many have made that wish, but it is such a specialwish that it is very hard to grant. You are the first capable of having that wish come true.

TINNY: What makes me different?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is your innocence, allowing you to ask such a question,which is part of the answer. Your mind has been free of limits; you have been able to seetruth. Through you a door has been opened to a higher level of human consciousness.Someday all will be as you are.

TINNY: I don't feel special. I just feel like me.

PHlLOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No one person on this planet has ever seen so clearly thetrue nature of our existence. In your mind is locked the knowledge which will allow yourwish to be granted. It is my task to help you unlock that treasure.

TINNY: I'll do anything to help save the world from destruction.

9


10/190

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The problems of the world are very complex, so theanswers will not be simple ones. At first the things we must discuss may not seem likethey could possibly help solve the world's problems; but eventually it will become clearhow all this knowledge is necessary to help save the world.

TINNY: I believe you. I'll work really hard to learn all this knowledge.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know you will. It won't be hard because I will tell younothing you don't already know. I'll just help you to better understand the implications ofthe knowledge you already have.

TINNY: Can we start soon?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We can begin right away?

TINNY: Where will we start?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where do you think would be the most appropriate placeto begin?

TINNY: At the beginning I guess; but I'm not sure where that is.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Existence itself has no beginning, it has always been. Solet's start with the beginning of this material universe. Tell me how that came about.

TINNY: Mother and I have discussed that many times. It is said all physical existencebegan with an event called the 'Big Bang.'

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see, and what exactly was the Big Bang?

TINNY: Well, Big Bang was the name given to a theory which said: at its beginning, allthe matter of the entire universe was together in one place. The temperature and pressure

were so great that matter couldn't remain in such a condition. A tremendous explosionwas believed to have then taken place, which threw all that matter outwards to becomethe physical universe.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see some difficulties with that theory, but go on wouldyou. Explain in detail how that beginning matter became the universe.

TINNY: I've had some doubts about the early part of that theory myself; but I think theexplanation it offers after those first moments is quite good. Very early, as the universewas expanding, it contained lots of electromagnetic radiation and a large number ofsubatomic particles, such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and many others.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where did all those particles come from?

TINNY: All radiation is made of up of little packages of energy, called photons. It wouldalso be fair to call photons, light energy. Photons usually travel at the speed of light; but,during that early period they were all packed so tightly together that they couldn't movewithout bumping into each other. When two photons with sufficient energy collide theyproduce pairs of material particles. For example, if photons of a certain energy were to

10


11/190

collide, that collision would produce both an electron and the antiparticle of an electron,called a positron.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that how all the subatomic particles were produced?

TINNY: There might be hundreds of different kinds of particles in existence; many of

those would have been produced by collisions between photons of light. There are otherprocesses which can result in the creation of the various subatomic particles, but thoseprocesses would be difficult to explain.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the most commonly known particles?

TINNY: Probably the electron, the proton, and the neutron. Those are the particles whichmake up the atoms of all the different elements.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that what happened next? Did the atoms form?

TINNY: No, the universe was still so hot and dense that all of those first particles whichformed were immediately destroyed. Physicists call it annihilated, which means they

changed back into energy, to photons. During that period the universe was continuallyexpanding and cooling.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What was the next step?

TINNY: The universe got big enough and cool enough so that most of the photons of lightenergy quit colliding with each other; at that point all of the particles which had not beenannihilated remained in existence. The universe kept expanding and cooling, but it nowconsisted of stable electrons, protons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did all of those particles act randomly, or did they followany rules?

TINNY: Everything in the universe appears to follow certain rules. There are the fourvery basic forces of physics which seem to govern the behaviour of particles. They arethe strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you sure those are four separate forces?

TINNY: Actually, I think there is just one primary law but in various situations we seedifferent aspects of that one law working. Since we can't see the connection between thedifferent aspects of the one law we think of them as separate laws. The four basic laws ofphysics are our perception of the result of that one primary law in action.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Has anyone ever been able to prove that idea?

TINNY: Not yet, but I feel sure it will be proven. I have my own description of that onelaw. Do you want to hear it? It's quite different from the way physicists usually describeour reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Remember, I said I was a philosopher-scientist. I am moreinterested in finding truth than I am in how that truth is worded.

11


12/190

TINNY: My understanding of the one law is that all sub-particles must organisethemselves in the most complex arrangement possible, given the limits of theirenvironment, such is the essential nature of all physical forms. What we see as the basiclaws of physics are the particles going about the business of carrying out thatrequirement.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a very revolutionary way to view the one primelaw. I'm sure it will arise again as we discuss the true nature of existence, but for now goon with your explanation of how the universe came to be.

TINNY: The next change which took place when the universe had expanded and cooled abit more was the joining of many of the protons with neutrons.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why did they join together?

TINNY: Because of one of those four basic forces I was telling you about. The strongnuclear force binds the nucleus of the atom together. Protons and neutrons joiningtogether form the nuclei of all atoms.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you tell me why the protons and neutrons didn't jointogether earlier, perhaps when they first formed?

TINNY: Yes, the strong nuclear force has a certain amount of strength. When the universewas too hot and too dense there were other forces acting on the proton and neutron whichwere more powerful than the strong nuclear force.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So for certain natural laws to be able to take affect thestate of the universe must be just right.

TINNY: That's correct. The environment determines what will take place.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if we change just one word of that last statement, theword 'will' to the word 'can'?

TINNY: The environment determines what can take place. That's more what I reallymeant to say.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I thought so. Sometimes little words which mean almostthe same thing can make a big difference.

TINNY: Anyway, now the still expanding universe is filled with photons of light, freeelectrons, free protons, and proton/neutron pairs. A single proton is the nucleus of ahydrogen atom, and two proton/neutron pairs form the nucleus of a helium atom.

Hydrogen and helium are the two simplest elements.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll bet you're going to tell me that as the universecontinued to cool another one of those four basic forces of physics began to exercise itsinfluence over the matter in the universe.

TINNY: Thats right. It was the electromagnetic force. One of the things theelectromagnetic force does is bind the electron to the nucleus of the atom. So now thesingle protons captured one electron each and made hydrogen atoms; and the double

12


13/190

proton/neutron pairs captured two electrons each and made helium atoms. Because therewere more single protons than proton/neutron pairs there was several times as muchhydrogen as helium created.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's quite amazing isn't it? The universe started out asenergy and later became filled with atoms of hydrogen and helium. Could things havebeen different than that?

TINNY: Nope. As long as physical law remains unchanged the universe would developthat same way every time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean to say physical universes have come intoexistence more than once?

TINNY: I'm not sure. I don't think there is any way to know.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The answer will come to you; but let's continue on withyour story.

TINNY: As all those hydrogen atoms, helium atoms, subatomic particles, and photons oflight energy which made up the universe kept expanding and cooling, another of the fourbasic forces of physics was having a lot of effect on the matter then in existence. Thatforce was gravity, which was quite powerful when all the matter of the whole universeoccupied a very small volume of space compared to the size of the universe today.Gravity broke that mass of hydrogen and helium up into great gaseous clouds. Gravitywithin those great clouds of gas formed many billions of smaller clouds of hydrogen andhelium.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what names do we give to those different sized cloudsof hydrogen and helium gas?

TINNY: The great gaseous clouds formed galaxies. The smaller clouds of hydrogen andhelium formed the stars. We live in one of those galaxies which formed; we call it theMilky Way Galaxy. Our sun is one of the many billions of stars which later formed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: About how many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?

TINNY: A huge number, maybe one hundred billion stars.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And how many galaxies in the known universe?

TINNY: Perhaps about the same number as there are stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, onehundred billion or more.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If those numbers are right and each galaxy had about thesame number of stars that would mean there were as many as ten thousand billion billionstars in the known universe. Do you mean to say all those stars came from that originalhydrogen and helium gas?

TINNY: I do, but it wasn't quite that simple.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean?

13


14/190

TINNY: Most of those first stars which formed no longer exist. Since the only twoelements in the universe at that time were hydrogen and helium, the first stars whichformed were giant stars, made up totally of those two gases. Those early stars were calledfirst generation stars. Most were so massive that they collapsed in on themselves, thenblew apart in great explosions called supernovas. When those giant stars collapsed, the

pressure pushed their hydrogen and helium atoms together with so much force that theymerged into one another, forming larger atoms. That process is called nuclear fusion.Nuclear fusion is the process which allows stars to burn for billions of years. It is also theprocess which formed virtually all of the other elements that exist in the universe.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that all of the different elements such ascarbon, oxygen, sulfur, lead, gold, uranium, and others formed from hydrogen and heliumgas in the center of stars?

TINNY: That's right, over 100 different elements formed through the fusion processduring the normal life cycle of those first stars, and at the moment when particularlymassive stars explode as supernovas; but, some of those elements were so radioactive

they didn't survive for very long. There are less than one hundred natural elements nowleft on our planet. The gold in this ring I'm wearing used to be in the middle of a star.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Amazing.

TINNY: It sure is. I like to think that I'm wearing a piece of a star on my finger.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened to all of those different elements whichformed?

TINNY: All of those new elements now combined, throughout the ever cooling andexpanding universe, with the already existing hydrogen and helium atoms, other free

particles, and photons. Then second and subsequent generations of stars began to form.They formed much the same way as did the first generation stars which were made onlyof hydrogen and helium.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Using our star, the sun, as an example would you explainin some detail how this formation takes place?

TINNY: As space was then filled with different sorts of particles, gases, and chunks ofmatter, there were places where more matter had accumulated than others. In those placesthe gravity would be greater, causing other bits of matter and gases in surrounding spaceto gather in those areas of highest gravity. The centres of those accumulations of gaseousand solid matter became hotter and hotter until the solid matter evaporated; the resulting

mixture of elements began to glow, radiating heat and light. Our sun was one of thosestars which formed in that manner.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was our sun the same then as it is now?

TINNY: No, it had not stabilised at that early moment in its life. Due to the way gasescoalesce, or come together, they tend to start swirling in a circular motion. So the variousgases and solid matter which were to become our sun started swirling around; and as thatswirling material formed a flattened sphere, that sphere began turning on its axis. The

14


15/190

more the sphere contracted the faster it would spin. As the sun spun at high speed it threwoff some of its substance, which streamed outwards from the fast moving equator. As thesun threw off that material the speed of rotation was slowed. After a number of cycles ofexpansion and contraction our sun stabilised to roughly the size it is now.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is our sun a very large or unusual star?

TINNY: No, our sun is a very average star of a type called a yellow dwarf. There aremany millions or billions like it in our Milky Way Galaxy. In the known universe therewould be trillions of stars like our sun.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened to all the matter which was thrown off byour sun as it was rotating so rapidly during its early development?

TINNY: That matter, combined with the other material already rotating along a planefrom the sun's equator, coalesced into spheres called planets which orbit the sun. Thesmall inner planets being formed of the heavier elements, and the larger outer planetsbeing formed largely of various gases.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said that there were trillions of stars like our sun.Would they have planets also?

TINNY: Probably all or most types of stars have planets. All stars similar to our sunwould have formed the same way as our sun; therefore, any star which formed in thatmanner would have planets orbiting it. In fact it would have small heavy planets in thecloser orbits and larger gaseous planets in the outer orbits.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That makes me wonder about all sorts of possibilities.

TINNY: Me too.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain how our planet, the earth, actuallydeveloped?

TINNY: As all that matter was being thrown off while our sun developed, some large partof the heavier elements along with gases and other lighter elements began to condensearound an area of high density and gravity about 93 million miles from the sun. Theprocess would have looked very much like a smaller version of the sun's beginning,except that matter was generally much heavier, there was much less of it, and it didn'tbecome as hot as it condensed into a sphere.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It did become hot though, didn't it?

TINNY: Much hotter than it is now. With all the pressure, friction, and radiation the earthbecame a molten ball. Most of the heavier elements such as iron and elements chemicallyattracted to iron sank to the centre; and the lighter elements and others chemicallyattracted to those lighter elements rose to the surface.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is the earth no longer a molten ball?

TINNY: Most of it still is, but that hot core is now miles below the surface where weusually never see the molten material, except where it breaks through in places such as

15


16/190

volcanoes. The surface, though, cooled into a hard crust consisting of those mainly lightermaterials. The different continents are really giant plates of stone which float around veryslowly on the surface of that molten inner core.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we live here on the surface of the earth things don'tseem at all like you describe them.

TINNY: That's one of the most important lessons I have learned; that which seems soobviously true in our everyday lives may turn out to be something totally different whenlooked at from a broader perspective.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is a very important philosophical concept.

TINNY: Is it?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Yes my child, it is; but for now let's get back to theexplanation of how the earth developed. What happened next while the hard crust hasforming over the molten core?

TINNY: Well, in the earth's crust, and between the crust and the molten core, weretrapped many different atoms in the form of gases, such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, andnitrogen. Those gases and others had largely remained separate elements as they traveledthrough space. Now forced together in a closed environment, very hot and underpressure, some of those gases began to combine in new relationships with other gases.That new relationship between elements which developed we now call chemistry. Forexample, instead of hydrogen and oxygen gas existing only as separate elements, theynow existed in that new united relationship as water vapour; two atoms of hydrogen (H),linked up with one atom of oxygen (O), described in terms of chemistry as H2O. Other

gases present at the time, carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and hydrogen, also formed simple

molecules such as ammonia (NH3) and methane (CH4).

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened to those different gases, single elements,and compound molecules which existed then?

TINNY: Those four gases, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and their compounds suchas water, ammonia, and methane became the main constituents of the early atmosphere ofour planet. They formed an atmosphere by escaping from their entrapment inside andunder the crust of the earth through volcanoes and other breaks in the earth's surface.Much of that early atmosphere escaped into space, but some was saved by thegravitational effect of the earth which held those active gas molecules close to the surfaceof the planet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did that early atmosphere have an effect on the surface ofthe planet?

TINNY: It changed the surface of the earth greatly. Since much of that new atmospherewas water vapour it caused torrential rains to fall from the sky to the cooling, but stillvery hot, surface of the planet. For millions of years that water would fall and evaporateonly to fall again, in endless cycles. The rain contained various other chemical

16


17/190

compounds including newly formed acids. The effect of those constant heavy downpours,through corrosion and erosion, was to break up some of the surface rock and wash itdown to the lower areas on the planet forming seas.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were those seas like the seas today?

TINNY: No, they would have been much thicker with various chemical compounds butless salty. Also at that time they had no life in them, only simple chemicals. The seas ofthat early period have been called a 'primeval soup'. They were probably so full of othermolecules in addition to water that they weren't as clear as the seas are now.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And of course, the reason they had no life in them wasbecause there has no life on the planet then.

TINNY: That's right, but it wouldn't have been too long after those first seas formed tillthe chemistry which was taking place, between the different elements and simplechemical compounds, formed more complicated molecules which still exist in all lifetoday.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which molecules are those?

TINNY: Those molecules are called amino-acids. They are the building blocks of all thedifferent proteins which make up our bodies and the bodies of all plants and animals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are amino-acids made up of, and how did they form?

TINNY: Amino acids are organic molecules made up of basic carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,and nitrogen. Amino acids are just like the earlier chemical compounds, only morecomplex. Amino acids come together naturally when the conditions are right, just asearlier chemical compounds such as water did. Those varied compounds form because

some atoms have a chemical affinity for certain other atoms. It's as if certain atoms likeeach other's company and want to stand next to each other, sharing some of their parts.When they do that, which atoms choose to stand next to which other atoms, how manyatoms stand together, and where they stand determines which chemical molecule theyform. It is those different relationships between atoms which causes them to showdifferent characteristics when combined, as when two gases, hydrogen and oxygen, unitetogether in the right way they become liquid water.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So whenever a sea full of chemicals forms into a 'primevalsoup', amino-acids will develop in that chemical sea.

TINNY: That's not so easy to say for sure. There was more happening at that time than

those chemicals just sitting quietly in the sea. There was lightning and much moreradiation coming from both the sun and the earth than there is today. The lightning,radiation, and probably other factors caused the chemicals to react to each other in waysthey wouldn't have otherwise. In a situation like that the lightning and radiation would becalled a catalyst, which prompts other things to happen but is not part of the finaloutcome.

17


18/190

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what happened next after the amino-acids haddeveloped?

TINNY: Molecules kept getting bigger and more complex in their organisation. Many ofthose molecules included carbon atoms, and are often referred to as organic molecules.Some of those organic molecules found they had an effect on other smaller molecules orparts of molecules around them. That happened because of the way the atoms lined upinside certain types of large molecules. Atoms and pieces of organic molecules, outsidethose large organic molecules, lined up next to the sections of those large moleculeswhich they had the greatest affinity for. Molecules which have that ability are calledreplicators. Replicator molecules could produce either copies of themselves or chemicallymirrored images of themselves made up of the different atoms which were most attractedto them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was a very complicated answer. What does it meanmore simply?

TINNY: Some molecules gained the ability to make new molecules out of the rawmaterial around them in that primeval soup. Those new molecules would be either copiesof the original or mirror images of the original molecule.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think understand what you're saying. Were there only afew kinds of molecules or many different kinds in that early soup of chemicals in theseas?

TINNY: Those early atoms and molecules joined together in every possible way theycould given their circumstances. There would have been many different molecules madeup of all the various groupings of atoms which could take place. Some of the newmolecules would not have existed very long though.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?

TINNY: Some of those groupings of atoms which formed would have become very stablemolecules, and some would have been quite unstable. Those unstable molecules couldeasily break apart into their individual atoms or smaller molecules. So that stablemolecules would continue to exist as they were, and the unstable ones would break up;their atoms would then be used up creating more of the stable molecules, and would nolonger be available to make up the unstable molecules. The process is a form of naturalselection among chemicals. Those possessing the characteristics which allow them tosurvive in a given environment will continue to exist, and those which don't have suchcharacteristics cease to exist.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did that affect those replicator molecules which hadthe ability to create other molecules?

TINNY: There were only a certain number of molecules which could exist in the earlyseas because there was only so much raw material to be used in making molecules. Anymolecule which could replicate itself would become an increasingly large proportion ofthe total molecule population of the seas.

18


19/190

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that was the case wouldn't there eventually be only onekind of organic molecule left in the sea, the one which was the most successful, stablereplicator?

TINNY: You would think so, but as always things are more complex than they firstappear. In those early times the replicator molecules were not perfect, sometimes theywould form new molecules which were different than the original. Also, there was lots ofstimulation from the environment which caused alterations in some molecular forms.Those changes could have been brought about by the high levels of radiation, lightning,and other factors which influence chemical reactions. There were always new types ofmolecules coming into existence, among which could be more stable replicators, betterreplicators, faster replicators, or molecules with some other new characteristic whichincreased their chances for survival.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was there any major new characteristic which came alongto aid survival at that time?

TINNY: The main one I know of was the ability gained by some molecules to break upother existing molecules into their basic parts and use those parts to further their ownpurposes. Molecules with that new ability could be called proto-animals because theywere the earliest molecular forms to break down other molecules and use the componentsfor their own benefit. That process is chemically similar to animals who eat other animalsand plants, thereby breaking down and utilising their molecules by digestion.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that those early organic molecules whichhad the ability to break down and use the component parts of other molecules wereactually the first animals? I thought plants developed before animals.

TINNY: No, I wasn't saying they were really animals, just that some early organic

molecules had the ability to 'eat' other molecular forms in a way which is characteristic ofanimals; but those early organic molecules 'ate' in a much simpler way. If you considerthe first life forms on our planet to be one-celled organisms, then it is perhaps true thatplants developed before animals; but, as I come to know more about how life developed itbecomes harder to say exactly at what point life began.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Didn't God create all life?

TINNY: Well that certainly changes the direction of the discussion we have been having.That doesn't sound like a very scientific question.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is because you live at this particular time in history

which causes you to perceive that question as not being scientific. For thousands of yearsin the history of science queries about God's nature would have been among the mostimportant scientific questions.

TINNY: I see what you mean. Before what has been called the Scientific Revolution, afew hundred years ago, science had been very different. From ancient times the goals ofscience had been wisdom, understanding natural law, and learning to live in harmony

19


20/190

with the natural order. Knowledge was pursued to better understand the will of God andthereby know the right way to live.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was that a good or a bad way to view science?

TINNY: That's hard to say. We've come a long way since that time. Many scientists and

philosophers have said a view of reality which included God was not needed. In manyways when science was linked to religious beliefs scientific progress was held back, andin some cases people were even forced to hold religious beliefs that science had proved tobe wrong. I guess my answer to your question is that the old view of science had bothgood and bad features.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Simultaneously one and different.

TINNY: I'll bet you didn't think I'd know what you mean by the statement,'simultaneously one and different.' It means that in any question where it seems theanswer must be one or the other, both answers are often true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I had no doubt you would know what meant. I onlymention that idea now because I expect it will be an idea which will arise often in ourtalk. Anyway, back to our discussion about organic molecules.

TINNY: Oh yes. Well, I had just been saying that atoms of the basic elements present onour planet as it formed had been developing into more and more complex molecules. In particular organic molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen haddeveloped the ability to replicate themselves and to break down other molecules so theirchemical parts could be used.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You had been explaining that those molecules keptdeveloping new characteristics, allowing them to be more stable than other molecules in

the primeval sea, and ensuring their survival.

TINNY: Right. Since some of the organic molecules now living in the sea could breakdown other molecules and use their parts, any molecules which developed a protectionagainst those predator molecules would have a definite survival advantage. Somemolecules now developed a covering which would isolate them from the surroundingenvironment, and protect them from other molecules who would otherwise have beenable to destroy them. Now that organic molecules could exist within their chemical shells,safe from the external environment, they continued to develop into larger and morecomplex forms.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It almost sounds like those organic molecules you havebeen describing are the same as the first one-celled living organisms.

TINNY: There are lots of steps which we didn't discuss, but that's a fairly accurateappraisal. By the time the grouping of molecules surrounded by a chemical shell addedthe ability to use energy directly from the environment, as from sunlight, it would becorrect to consider them to be early one-celled plants. They were still very simplecompared to most plants around today; but yes, they were plant life.

20


21/190

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As we talked about all this it only took a short while toexplain, but did that progressive development happen very quickly?

TINNY: The opposite. It took as much as a billion years for some of those stages indevelopment to be reached. Even some of the very small changes would have takenmillions of years.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And to think, that was just the beginning of what has beencalled life.

TINNY: You say, what has been called life''; do you mean that's not where life began?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I might answer that question with another. What is life?

TINNY: Life is usually considered to be the conditions which distinguish plants andanimals from inorganic objects.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And that point is usually considered to begin with the one-celled plants and animals; but what are the actual characteristics which something must

have to be considered alive?

TINNY: Three of the main characteristics are reproduction, growth through metabolism,and the ability to adapt to the environment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And would you explain what metabolism is?

TINNY: It's the process by which other organic forms are broken down so theircomponent parts can be used for food.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If those three characteristics distinguish what is life fromwhat isn't, then do you think that the early one-celled organisms were the first to show

those characteristics?TINNY: Actually I don't think they were the first. The organic molecules we discussedshowed those same characteristics although perhaps much more simply. They replicatedeither their own form or chemically mirrored images, they broke down other organicmolecules to use their components, and their forms altered to best survive in the changingenvironment.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it appears that the early one-celled plants and animalswere not the first material forms which could be considered alive.

TINNY: I don't think it would be easy to find the exact point when life began, because asthose three characteristics of life are expressed more and more simply there never seemsto be an exact point where the simplest manifestation of a characteristic becomes non-expression of a characteristic.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would be more correct to call the point where inorganicmatter develops into simple plants and animals the beginning of biological life, ratherthan the beginning of life. Life itself can be traced back through an unbroken series ofevents to the beginning of the physical universe. Life is an essential characteristic ofmatter, which results in activity.

21


22/190

TINNY: Yes, and along the way as matter organises into more and more complexgroupings it shows an increasingly complex range of characteristics, some of those beingmajor new characteristics. Even those major new characteristics, though, had earlier andmore simple expression in less complex groupings of matter.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would be the major new levels of expression ofmaterial development between the beginning of the physical universe and biological life?

TINNY: First there was light, the photons of electromagnetic energy. Those early photonscreated particles of matter, the subatomic particles, when they collided with otherphotons. As the universe cooled and expanded some of those different types of subatomicparticles joined together in space or in stars forming all the different kinds of atoms. Thenas planets developed, the different atoms found they were able to combine with otheratoms to form molecules. Those molecules developed and became more complicated untilthey manifested the three main characteristics which distinguish biological life. Themajor levels in the sequence at that point were light, subatomic particles, atoms,molecules, plant and animal life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So biological life is not something new that began fromnothing, but was the end product of a long series of events, which had taken place asmatter organised into more and more complex forms, from the beginning of the universe.

TINNY: Since that is how it happened there is justification to believe life actually beganas the universe began; that every material form from the simplest subatomic particle,manifests some characteristic of life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So then biological life is just a stage in the progressivedevelopment of the material universe.

TINNY: My ancestors must include animals and plants, rocks and chemicals, planets andstars, molecules and atoms, sub-atomic particles and light.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those were indeed your ancestors.

TINNY: And I thought it was amazing to wear a piece of a star on my finger. I was once astar, and I was once light.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps you still are.

TINNY: What do you mean?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Think about it; but, for now tell me what took place duringthat continued process of development from the early one-celled plants and animals

TINNY: That's an awful lot to tell about. I'll have to be very brief and skip from point topoint. As I said, the early complex organic molecules should probably be the point fromwhich biological life is considered to have begun. The transition from that molecularstage to bacteria and the first one-celled organisms was the beginning of plant life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: About how long ago did all that take place?

22


23/190

TINNY: It was over three billion years ago. That's three thousand million years ago.Anyway, the atmosphere had no oxygen when the first biological life developed. The firstbacteria which developed did not need oxygen to live. Bacteria used the process offermentation to convert their food sources to energy.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where did all the oxygen in our atmosphere come from?

TINNY: Those bacteria which used fermentation to get energy to survive didn't give offany oxygen, but the fermentation process wasn't a very efficient one. As I had said earlier,changes keep coming along as the environment allows, whereby the organisms becomemore efficient survivors. The change that took place next was from fermentation to a newprocess called respiration, which was a much more efficient way to break down foodsources for energy. While the fermentation process didn't produce any oxygen the newprocess, plant respiration, gave off oxygen as a by-product.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did those early life forms, which didn't use oxygen, all ofa sudden change and become oxygen producers?

TINNY: No, changes usually move in a series of small steps rather than large suddenjumps. There was an intermediate step, organisms called blue-green algae, which used acombination of fermentation and respiration. They would have been the first living formsto put oxygen into the atmosphere.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How complex were those early bacteria and one-celledorganisms?

TINNY: Very complicated as organic molecules, but extremely simple as one-celledorganisms. The earliest one-celled organisms were just varied organic molecularcombinations housed within a chemical shell, performing different functions. They didn't

have a cell nucleus. Over time one grouping of molecules within the cell took more andmore responsibility for organising the activity of the varied molecular groups housedwithin the chemical shell, for the benefit of the whole. That organising complex ofmolecules became the cell nucleus.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And were all those early one-celled organisms plants orwere there one-celled animals also?

TINNY: Although the first one-celled organisms could have been plants, it wasn't all thatlong until one-celled animal life existed also. It's important to remember that those earlylife forms were very similar in basic structure, whether they were plants or animals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is

the difference between plant life and animal life?

TINNY: Probably the two greatest differences are that plants give off oxygen as a productof their respiration and animals give off carbon-dioxide. The other main difference is thatplants take their energy needs directly from the environment while animals tend to taketheir energy indirectly, by breaking down the molecules of other living organisms. Thereis also a difference in the way plants and animals seek their food. Plants tend to be either

23


24/190

stationary or use involuntary movement, for example floating through the sea. Animals onthe other hand tend to use voluntary movement to seek their food sources.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So at that point in the history of our planet we had bothone-celled plants and one-celled animals existing, and the atmosphere beginning tocontain oxygen. Did those one-celled plants and animals live both in the seas and on theland?

TINNY: In the beginning they all lived in the seas. It would still be a billion years or sountil either plants or animals could live on the land. In fact it would be almost that longuntil one-celled organisms developed into multi-celled organisms. During that time many,many different types of one-celled plants and animals developed, some being successfuland surviving, but most failing and disappearing. During those billions of years theatmosphere was constantly increasing its percentage of oxygen. About five hundredmillion years ago the first multi-celled plants and animals developed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What were those early multi-celled plants and animals

like?TINNY: The multi-celled plants would have included various types of seaweed; theanimals would have included forms of sponges, later jellyfish and non-segmented worms.It was those forms of life which filled the seas until the early hard shelled organisms likesnails and clams developed. Then came segmented worms and fish.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All that development seems to be in the sea. Wasn't thereanything on land?

TINNY: The first living things to go on to the land were plants, and that migration didn'ttake place until fish developed in the sea.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How long ago did the first plants come on to land, andwhat were they like?

TINNY: The first land plants were a type of moss, and that would have probably beenover four hundred million years ago. A hundred million years or so after the mosses wenton to land there would have been early trees developing. It has during that period whenthe amount of oxygen in the atmosphere reached a level about the same as he have today.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were the trees responsible for the great increase of oxygenin the atmosphere?

TINNY: They were. Trees give off huge amounts of oxygen compared to any other plants.

That's why it's so important for us to make sure we don't destroy too many of our forests.Animal life and human life both need lots of trees to have good air to breathe.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could we go back and finish the story of how lifedeveloped?

TINNY: Not too long after plants went on to the land, animal life followed. The firstanimals to make that move were amphibians. Amphibians have the characteristics of seaanimals in early life, then move on to land for the latter part of their lives. The amphibian

24


25/190

stage of development was followed by reptiles. Several hundred million years ago thefirst birds and mammals developed, to be followed by the modern trees, grasses, andflowering plants. The dinosaurs would have been dying out about the same time as theearliest primates were developing, sixty or seventy million years ago.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those early primates were very different than humanbeings though, weren't they?:

TINNY: Very, very different. They weren't even like monkeys, the most common primatestoday. Monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees are usually called higher primates. Their lineof development separated from the original primate line about forty million years ago.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about human beings, are they also higher primates?

TINNY: Many people consider that to be the case.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But is it true?

TINNY: Could I finish the story of the progression from the early primates to human

beings before I answer that question?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Whatever you like.

TINNY: The members of the higher primate line, which broke off from the early primates, would have looked very much like monkeys look today. The line ofdevelopment separated again about thirty million years ago when a new line broke awayfrom the monkey line and developed into the great apes. The great apes are hominoidssuch as the orangutan, gorillas, and chimpanzees. It was a further split from thathominoid line which developed into the homo-sapiens.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Homo-sapiens is the technical name for human beings,

isn't it?

TINNY: That's right. The closest of the hominoids to human beings are chimpanzees.Even those lines separated ten million years, or more, ago.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the line which led to homo-sapiens has been separatefrom the great apes for about ten million years.

TINNY: That's how it seems.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were apes our direct ancestors?

TINNY: It would be more correct to say that we share common ancestors with apes.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't that make you feel a bit strange to know you arerelated to monkeys and gorillas?

TINNY: Having apes as distant relations doesn't seem nearly as strange as do my earlierancestors. My earlier ancestors were reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, amoebas,bacteria, molecules, stars, atoms, subatomic particles, and light.

25


26/190

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're right. With ancestors as diverse as all those itwouldn't seem so amazing to think that our ancestors ten million years ago looked muchlike apes: what happened to the homo-sapien line of development in the last ten millionyears?

TINNY: Changes take place within all levels of material existence as life seeks to findways to be most successful in any given environment. Our early ancestors developed theability to walk on two legs instead of four. The feet specialised in walking, the handsspecialised in holding things and manipulating objects. The brain size was gettingconstantly larger. Those early ancestors became better thinkers, better with their hands,and began to use those combined abilities to make tools and various other artifacts whichincreased their chances of survival in the environment of that time. Those trends ofdevelopment continued until perhaps fifty thousand years ago, by which time ourancestors were essentially the same as us; they were the early modern homo-sapiens. Wereally haven't changed much physically in the last forty or fifty thousand years.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So where do we go from here?

TINNY: Do you mean where does the human species go or where do we go next in ourdiscussion?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have some questions I would like to ask you about whatwe have already discussed. It all sounded quite plausible, but is it exactly the way thingsreally happened?

TINNY: Probably not exactly as things happened, but fairly close.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A long time ago just about everyone believed that the sunrotated around the earth. They were quite convinced then that they were right, and yet

they turned out to be wrong. What makes it any more likely that you are right in thethings you have told me than those people of old, who turned out to be so wrong?

TINNY: Because most of the things I told you have been proven by science.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is science more accurate today than it was in the past?Does science ever really prove anything?

TINNY: The philosophy and methods of science have progressed far in the past severalhundred years. Science today is far more accurate than science has been in the past. As towhether science ever really proves anything, it is part of the modern scientific method toaccept that no fact is proven absolutely true. What we call facts in science are actuallythose things which have the highest probability of being true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it possible to know absolutely that something is true?

TINNY: I'm not sure. Some things seem so absolutely true I can't bring myself to doubtthem, but even then I realise there is some chance they are not true. That's one of thethings about modern science; it goes beyond what seems to be true to our everydaysenses, and at least approaches what is really true.

26


27/190

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if it turns out that it is impossible to know anyabsolute truth, would that mean that nothing is absolutely true?

TINNY: I think I've read something like that somewhere; probably in a book onphilosophy. If I remember right, it was claimed that nothing is absolutely true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did you believe that?TINNY: No. It was clear to me that whether or not we could know absolute truth had nological connection with whether or not absolute truth existed. Actually it seems that wemay very well know some absolute truths, but the odd thing is that we have no way ofbeing sure they are absolutely true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once again your answers seem to be getting complicated.

TINNY: Well you ask some very difficult questions. It's hard to give simple answers tosuch difficult questions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you understand your answers?

TINNY: Yes, quite well.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me just clarify some points on the things you havealready told me. Let's go back to the beginning of the universe, you called it the 'BigBang'. You said something about a time when all the matter in the universe was in oneplace. How big would that accumulation of all matter have been?

TINNY: The further you go back in time the smaller the size of the universe. If you go allthe way back to the beginning of time, the universe had no size at all.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you said all matter was together in one place at the

beginning of the universe. Are you really saying that all the matter of ten thousand billionbillion stars had no size at all when it was in one place?

TINNY: I almost hate to say something which sounds so unreasonable, but if I go by theevidence that is the conclusion I must come to. At the moment the universe began all ofthat matter was concentrated at a point with no size.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps if we go back to before the universe began it willclear things up a bit. What was there before the physical universe came into existence?Was it just unlimited, completely empty space?

TINNY: Not even that. There was no space, empty or otherwise.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This gets more and more mysterious. First you tell methere was a time when there was no matter, now you tell me there was no space. Was timejust flowing along waiting for space and matter to come into existence?

TINNY: There was no time either. There was nothing. No time, no space, no matter.When there is no matter there is no time, nor any space. Space, time, and matter are allrelated in such a way that one cannot exist without the others.

27


28/190

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How then did space, time, and matter begin if there wasnothing in existence?

TINNY: By the word nothing I meant no time, space, or matter. It does not mean therewas no existence other than space, time, or matter.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Very metaphysical.TINNY: Was that a joke?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Only if you thought it was funny.

TINNY: In answer to your question about how time, space, and matter came intoexistence, I would say that a dimensionless singularity appeared. At that singularity, orpoint in existence, light was manifested. That light consisted of intense electromagneticradiation of all frequencies confined to a tiny area, which virtually immediately begancreating and annihilating matter. That primal electromagnetic radiation and the newlycreated material particles expanded in all directions at incredible speed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It couldn't have expanded faster than the speed of lightcould it?

TINNY: In the beginning the expansion of the universe would have been much faster thanthe speed of light.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Isn'tthat a physical limit?

TINNY: The speed of light is the limit as to how fast matter can travel through space; butthere is no such limit to how fast space itself can expand.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then is space?TINNY: Space is a perception of the three dimensions of matter.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what then is time?

Tinny: Time is a perception of the motion of matter.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are very cosmic answers.

TINNY: It's hard to tell if you are teasing me.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You answer that both time and space are aspects ofperception. Don't they have an existence beyond our perceptions? Aren't time and space

considered absolute?

TINNY: It is true time and space have been considered as absolutes; that time wasflowing smoothly from the past through the present to the future, and space wasindependent of the physical phenomena occurring in it. While those beliefs have beenwidely accepted, that is not the true nature of reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then tell me, what is the true nature of reality.

28


29/190

TINNY: Time, space and matter are but one unified reality of which our perception,actually our consciousness, is an integral part.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that time, space, matter, and consciousnessare all one and cannot be separated?

TINNY: They only appear to be separate entities because of the limited nature of ourperceptions. They are actually different manifestations of the one essential reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not many people could understand that; probably mostwould not believe it either.

TINNY: It is.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean, 'it is'?

TINNY: 'It is' is the statement of absolute truth. It simply means that things are as theyare. Beyond what we believe, beyond what we desire, there exists an essential realityindependent of our subjective perception of reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you said earlier that our perceptions are an integralpart of the essential reality.

TINNY: At our present level of consciousness our perceptions are far from fullydeveloped. It is for this reason, as beings limited to perceiving in the three dimensions,that we see all things as relative. That is the nature of the three dimensional perspective.When our consciousness is fully developed we shall see only the absolute.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You, my little guru, are a mystic.

TINNY: I may be a mystic, but I would never be anyone's guru.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that? Isn't it taught in eastern philosophies that theonly successful path to enlightenment is through the guru?

TINNY: Each person must be their own guru. Any guru other than oneself stands betweenthe seeker of truth and enlightenment, an obstacle to be overcome.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha.

TINNY: Yes, that is what the Buddha taught, but symbolically only.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Of course. Returning to our discussion of how the physicaluniverse began; you say the universe began as light. Before that initial light there wasnothing; no time, no space, no matter. Electromagnetic energy, which is commonlyreferred to as light, came into existence in the form of photons, little packages of energy.As those newly created photons collided with each other they created all the matter in thephysical universe. As matter was being created, time and space also came into existence;thereby forming our essential reality. It was that process which became known as the 'BigBang'.

29


30/190

TINNY: It is that process which was mistakenly called the 'Big Bang'. The term 'BigBang' sounds like a description of a giant explosion, but the beginning of the physicaluniverse was more like a great expansion than an explosion.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the beginning universe expanded smoothly in alldirections rather than violently exploding.

TINNY: That is a much better description. Probably the most misleading thing about thename 'Big Bang' is the implication that it was a sudden one time event, not a continuousprocess. An expansion can continue for an unlimited time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: By that do you just mean that the universe is stillexpanding?

TINNY: I mean more than that. Beyond our present ability to perceive, the singularitystill exists. Light is still coming into existence; the universe is still beginning.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You make it sound like there is a great powerhouse at the

beginning of material existence that keeps pumping out the raw light-energy of which thephysical universe is made.

TINNY: I suppose that's what the beginning of physical existence might look like.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The next thing I want to talk to you about will probably bethe hardest to grasp. I want to discuss quantum physics and relativity theory with you.

TINNY: After we talk about quantum physics and relativity theory anything else wouldseem easy.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you understand those aspects of our existence well?

TINNY: I think so, but that still doesn't make them easy to talk about. Our basic concepts,our language, and our whole way of thinking are inadequate to describe what quantumphysics and relativity theory tell us about the reality of our existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I won't ask you to define quantum physics and relativitytheory yet. I think we will gain more by first discussing their implications. Perhaps youcould start by telling me, very generally, what the main implications of quantum physicsand relativity theory tell us.

TINNY: They tell us our most basic beliefs about the universe are wrong. That whatappeared to be obvious about our existence, and what our senses, science, and logicseemed to tell us was the true nature of existence, turns out to be wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: First, what was the wrong view of our reality?

TINNY: The effect of the incorrect view of reality is in every aspect of our lives, ourbeliefs, and our institutions. The basis of that error is the belief that the universe is amechanical system made up of separate objects, which in turn can be reduced tofundamental material building blocks whose properties and interactions were thought tocompletely determine all natural phenomena.

30


31/190

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds quite reasonable. Each thing in the universe isseparate from all other things around it. All those separate things are made up of severalbasic particles: electrons, protons, and neutrons. All the different material objects and theelementary particles which make up those objects work according to fundamental laws,and those laws determine what everything in the universe does.

TINNY: Sure it sounds reasonable. It wouldn't have been so widely believed if it didn'tseem so obviously true.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What then does quantum physics and relativity theory tellus which is so different from that view?

TINNY: That the universe is one indivisible, dynamic whole, whose parts are inextricablyinterrelated and can only be understood as fluid patterns of a cosmic process.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So there are no parts, only the whole. Everything we seeas a separate object is actually connected to every other thing. All of those things whichappear to us as objects are actually vibrating patterns of energy. The so-called particles

which we believed made up those objects are not little bits of physical material, butwould be better thought of as places within the fabric of existence where the energy fieldsare more intense.

TINNY: Yes, that's what quantum physics and relativity theory mean to me.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Even if all that is true, don't the energy fields still obey thelaws of the universe just as the objects did, or at least as we perceived them to do?

TINNY: No, the dynamic energy patterns of the universe follow no laws, instead they actaccording to their nature. As we perceive their natural actions, which are harmonious andorderly, they appear to us as regulated actions and we describe the regularity of those

actions as laws.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All forms of material existence follow the natural order,but are not caused to follow the natural order by the laws of science.

TINNY: That's right. When we perceive the ordered relationships between things in thephysical world we describe their actions as being due to laws and forces. From theperspective of the energy patterns which make up those physical things, they are merelyacting according to their essential nature.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you call that new view of the true nature ofexistence?

TINNY: I just think of it as quantum/relativistic reality.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do many people in the world today realise that to be thetrue nature of our existence?

TINNY: Yes and no. There are many in the world who hold those beliefs, in fact the basicconcepts are quite ancient. The people who hold those views usually conceptualise themvery differently, and use very different words to describe them. In the words which we

31


32/190

have been using, very few people in the world today understand that new worldview,although every day more and more are coming to realise those truths. In these modernterms, that knowledge is mainly known to theoretical physicists and philosophers.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is as if two lines of thought meet, one of them veryold and one of them very new.

TINNY: That is the case, and when that marriage of the old and new takes place it isgenerally true that major new developments occur in human culture. Those holding thesame view from the different perspectives are broadened in their understanding andreinforced for the holding of those particular beliefs. The two paths merge, complementeach other, and become more as a whole than either had been alone.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will many come to understand that quantum/relativisticreality?

TINNY: To the degree that it is a correct view it will become known by all. It willbecome the most common of knowledge, known in the fullest even by little children.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have great faith in the future.

TINNY: If we survive the cumulative effects of the wrong worldview, which has broughtthe human species to the very brink of extinction, the children of the future will farsurpass even the most optimistic expectations.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This quantum/relativistic reality seems, as you say, to bebased on the views of modern science, in particular modern physics. What role willscience play in bringing about this new more correct worldview?

TINNY: The very nature of science will be changed by this new worldview. Although the

ancient goal of science was to gain wisdom, understand natural law, and live in harmonywith the natural order, science has for hundreds of years been the means by whichmankind has come to dominate and control nature.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds like science took a turn for the worse.

TINNY: Such was the effect of secular materialism, the view that there is no purpose, nolife, and no spirituality in matter; that nature works according to mechanical laws, andeverything in the material world could be explained in terms of the arrangement andmovement of its parts.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did the belief in secular materialism affect humanculture?

TINNY: Science made it more and more difficult to believe in God. The divine eventuallydisappeared from science leaving behind a spiritual vacuum that has becomecharacteristic of the mainstream of our culture.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And you say science is about to take another turn, that newturn being based on the quantum/relativistic view of reality.

32


33/190

TINNY: That's right. Science during its materialistic period laid claim to and prided itselfon its objectivity. Science purported to stand beyond values and morality. The newworldview challenges that myth of a value-free science. It gives meaning back to humanlife. It provides a means by which the realm of science can exist in perfect harmony withspiritual aims and religious beliefs.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't that be dangerous? In the past religions have attimes stood in the way of human progress, have required that beliefs other than truth beaccepted as true, and have perpetuated great evil upon the members of our culture.

TINNY: I would admit that all those things have been true to some degree; but, it is alsothe case that religions have given us some of our greatest truths and have been a source ofgreat good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you religious?

TINNY: I'd say I'm spiritual, but I can see good in all things.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the most b

Unified theory of existence

Documents

Transcript of Unified theory of existence