Introduction
Nasadiya Sukta, Rgvedā (10:29)
नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् |
किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ॥ १॥
In the Beginning, there was neither non-existence nor existence;
Neither the realm of space nor the sky beyond;
What stirred? Where? In whose protection?
How can anything useful come from nothing? Anything at all. From absolutely and utterly – Nothing. Some claim that this is not an important question. Scientists say their job is to explain how the world works – any questions beyond that are not for science to answer. They are correct, of course. Physicists observe the patterns around them with their instruments and theorize equations that explain them. All the fundamental equations of Physics run in both time directions – they can say what will happen next or what happened in the past. There is one hitch. When we run the modern theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics backward in time, we encounter singularities (all the matter in the universe concentrated at one point). The laws of physics break down when we look at what existed before our Universe began.
Did it all have to start with absolutely Nothing? is it necessary that there was no time, space, matter, energy, or even an empty vacuum at the beginning of the Universe? Is it possible to imagine that the Universe always existed infinitely in the past? I think not.
Perhaps you have heard of “Turtles all the way down?” The phrase alludes to a Turtle that supports the Earth on its back.
But where does the turtle rest? It rests on another turtle, which is part of a tower of turtles resting on each other. If we assume that Something cannot come from Nothing, the column continues indefinitely, creating an Infinite Causal Regress.
Nobody likes Infinite Causal Regress.
Can the Turtle support itself somehow? Did the Universe create itself? That would be a circular argument. Also, not attractive.
From Aristotle, Socrates, and Newton to the present day, most scientists consider infinite regress and circular arguments to be unpalatable. It is somewhat disappointing that the conception of God is also susceptible to the same regress. As Bertrand Russell said, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God.” Aristotle got creative and called this first cause the Prime Mover instead of God, but he did not explain what the Prime Mover was.
BEGIN SCENE: A dialogue between an Atheist and a Believer
ATHEIST
So I heard you are a religious person.
BELIEVER
Yes, I do believe in God.
ATHEIST
(with a gleam in the eye)
Interesting… So tell me, why do we all exist? Why does life exist?
BELIEVER
Look, I believe that God created Man and all life on Earth.
ATHEIST
I knew you’d say that, of course, but I’d like you to finish that sentence.
BELIEVER
What do you mean? God created Man. That’s it!
ATHEIST
So who created your God?
BELIEVER
Look, God exists; there is no need to create Him. He just exists forever. He is infinite and …
(gets interrupted)
ATHEIST
Wait, please spare me. Are you saying God always existed, infinitely in the past? Even before the Universe existed? We know the Universe is 14 Billion years old. Are you saying God was sitting around for an Infinity, and one fine day 14 billion years ago, he decided to kick start the Universe? I can’t believe you can say that with a straight face. But wait, you also think the Earth is 6000 years old.
(smirks with a superior attitude)
BELIEVER
I don’t want to be the one having to explain everything. I know about you people. You think you’re better than us believers. Why don’t you tell me your version? Why do we exist?
ATHEIST
Look, it’s straightforward. We have the laws of physics. They govern everything. They even govern the evolution of life on this planet. The Earth and the rest of the Universe were created by the forces of nature – gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. Everything was created from matter & energy – fundamental particles like electrons…
(gets interrupted)
BELIEVER
Yes, yes, I know. I’m a graduate; I’ve taken physics in college. Just tell me what happened before the Universe started. Before the big bang.
ATHEIST
(smugly) Some Scientists believe that there was an infinitely dense point, a singularity, but the laws of physics break down when this happens, so there are skeptics. Some believe that the Universe keeps expanding and contracting and beginning again in a cycle. Cyclic Cosmology – that’s what they call it. It has a nice ring to it. I prefer that version.
BELIEVER
So you don’t know, do you? You just have faith in Cyclic Cosmology. You can’t prove it exists. And more importantly, how did the cycle start?
ATHEIST
Now, look here.. that’s not fair. Scientists need time to figure these things out.
BELIEVER
So you’re telling me to wait… I should have faith in Scientists. I must trust them to be smart enough to get the correct answer. Eventually, but there are no promises. Right? I’ll just go on believing in God.
ATHEIST
Well, yes, this is the scientific method. The most brilliant people in the world agree with me. And at least I don’t believe in a ‘Big Man in the Sky.’
END SCENE
An Alternative Approach
The Atheist and the Believer have one thing in common – they apply their knowledge of the present (religion, science) to explain the past. And they both fail.
The first insight, of course, was to go in the other direction. Why not start from Nothing and figure out how stuff can come from it. The pair {Nothing, Something} looked suspiciously like a paradox to me, like the famous Liar’s Paradox:
This Sentence Is Not True
Here is why it’s a paradox: If this sentence is not true, then I can’t accept the sentence’s truth, and therefore the sentence must be false. But if it’s false, then it must be true. Thus, it is both true and false at the same time.
During my meditation sessions, I would see visions of these paradoxical loops switching between TRUE and FALSE, between Nothing and Everything. I started noticing paradoxes everywhere. When a colleague told me I had made an error in a work assignment, I jokingly admitted full responsibility, “Don’t worry, I am always wrong.” And then, I told her to look up the Liar’s Paradox!
Shiva-Shakti: The Inspiration
In the snowy mountains of Kashmir, there was once a time when sages like Kashyap roamed without fear, exploring the depths of existence. The Shaivite philosophy developed here.
According to the Shaivite philosophy, Shiva is the Nothing from which everything was created. Shiva literally means “that which is not” (Vasudeva); Shiva means “nothing”; Shiva is the nothingness from which everything has come.
Shakti is the law of nature, the causality that drives the Universe from creation to expansion to eventual disintegration. I reproduce a shloka (Contzen) because it perfectly captures the intent of my work.
Shiva is Shakti,
Shakti is Shiva,
Nothing is Everything,
And Everything is Nothing.
-Shivambika
Fun note: I found this shloka after I wrote this post, but I still saw it as a sign that I was on the right track!
Derivation
Our goal is to discuss how Something comes from Nothing. Furthermore, if we can speculate how the Universe emerged from Nothing/Something, that would be a sure bonus.
First, a note on whether we can present a hypothesis or theory. A hypothesis is usually constructed before applicable research has been done. On the other hand, a theory is supported by evidence: it’s a principle formed to explain observations. We certainly don’t have data on Nothingness or the first thing that emerged from it. There is no way for us to get such data. Therefore, a hypothesis is all we can manage to construct using the basic tools of logic. Furthermore, we can’t use existing theories of physics or any non-trivial math because those things could not exist when there was Nothing.
Notation
| Symbol | Example Usage | Interpretation |
| → implication | A → B | If A is true, B is true However, if B is true, it does not imply that A is true |
| ⟷ equivalence | A⟷B | A is true if and only if B is true If A is true, B is true If B is true, A is true |
| ~ | ~A | The negation of A |
| ∃! | ∃! (A) | There exists exactly one A |
| ∃ | ∃ (A) | There exists an A |
Part I: Recognize that Nothing is an Epistemic Paradox
~ We first assert the fundamental principle of Epistemic Logic - The Truth of X implies “Information of X”
The Existence of X implies “Information of X”
ϕ → I(ϕ) (0) // Truth of ϕ implies information about ϕ
~ Consider the sentence: “This sentence describes Nothing”.
If exists, information about it exists.
N → I(N) (1) // From (0)
Note that this is a paradox unless the information adds up to nothing
~ Definitions ~
Let: S = Something; Let N = Nothing. Nothing is defined as the opposite or negation of Something. Something is Existence. Nothing is Non-Existence.
N ↔ ~S (2) // definition
S → I(~N); (3) // from (1) and (2).
We have to show that Something comes from Nothing, so we must show that N → S, or at least N → I(S)
Part II: Derive a simple boolean algebra from Nothing
~ Claim: If ‘Nothing’ exists, the compact interval [0, 1] exists
~ Consider ~
* If Nothing exists → Information about Nothing exists
* The most basic unit of information is one bit, i.e., the compact interval [0,1]
~ Translating this to notation:
N → ∃! (The elements of one bit of information)
N → ∃! [ 0, 1 ] (4)
~ Given the compact interval and the concept of Truth, we have enough justification to define a simple boolean algebra that supports the ‘complement’ operation in a compact interval [0, 1] (1 == True, 0 == False)
I(~ϕ) = 1 - I(ϕ) // Basic identity from boolean algebra
I(~N) = 1 - I(N) (5) //Setting ϕ = N
Part III: Nothing is the same as Everything All At Once (Chaos)
~ Insight: What does “Everything all at once” mean?
* For every information x, you can imagine y that is the negation of x, so Nothing is a result
* In logical terms: Nothing is a 0-knowledge system where all paradoxes (pairs of opposites) exist.
* The most basic paradox is the pair {0, 1} ↔ {False, True} - (6)
* In mathematical terms: Nothing is a purely inconsistent system where every axiom & its opposite axiom exist.
~ Definitions & basic results ~
Let C ↔ Everything All At Once // C indicates Chaos
C ↔ N // Axiom based on the above arguments about the meaning of C
∃!{False , True} ↔ N (7)// From (6), and Axiom above
∃!{0 , 1} ↔ N (8)// Replacing (7) with opposing elements of compact interval [0, 1]
Part IV: Something From Nothing
~ Information about Something from Nothing - Derivation
Let I(N) = 1 (11) // We can choose 0 or 1 (both are in interval [0, 1])
N ⟷ [ I(N), I(~N) ] (12) // From (5) and (8)
N ⟷ [ I(C), I(S) ] (13) // From (5), (6) and (8)
~ Something from Nothing ~
N → I(S) (14) // From (13) and (1);
N → I(S) → S (15) // With (14) and a stronger equivalence ϕ ⟷ I(ϕ)
Thus proving the central theorem we stated earlier:
N → I(S) → S
Shiva-Shakti Hypothesis
Summary And Interpretation
The idea that Nothing must inevitably lead to Something is profound. One must pay careful attention to the first part of the assertion:
N → I(S)
Even though we started with the assumption that the function I(.) has values in the compact interval [0,1], these two digits have no special meaning. As long as they are negations of each other, one could imagine that any number of pairs of bits could be generated that were complements of each other. Each pair would form a compact interval and a basic boolean algebra. For instance:
[00, 11] or
[010101010010010, 101010101101101]
This extension allows for the arbitrary complexity of information encoded within I(S).
Information as the extra causal agent
What this seems to suggest is that Information is central to the hypothesis. From Nothing, the existence of ‘Information’ is first established, followed by its manifestations, such as the observable Universe. The existence of Information is what causes its implication/equivalence to come into being:
I(S) → S
Emergence of the First Free Will and Consciousness (Shakti)
To understand that this primordial information must have agency, we must contrast it with its opposite – Chaos.
- Chaos is shorthand for Everything happening All At Once.
- The opposite of Chaos, i.e., Something, can exist if and only if some ordering or curating is at play.
- Curating implies choice, and choice implies the ability to discriminate between this and that, i.e., it implies agency.
- Agency, of course, implies that free will has manifested. This is the First Free Will (FFW)
This sort of Free will is an entirely non-material form of Consciousness.
How the Universe can come from Information
While there is general agreement that information plays a role in all that happens in the cosmos, only a minority hold the view that Information is more fundamental than physics.
Nevertheless, the minority view is held by prominent supporters. Physicist Stephen Wolfram is the founder of Mathematica and the creator of a Theory of Everything (TOE) called the Wolfram Model. Wolfram refers to information as the most prominent thing of our times. In his unifying theory for physics, simple rules of mathematics underpin all reality – space, matter, energy, time, and even human perception. Max Tegmark, a professor at M.I.T, has proposed the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, MUH. This theory goes further than Wolfram. Instead of simply explaining the mathematical rules of the Universe, Tegmark’s MUH posits that all of reality is mathematics. He explains consciousness as a mathematical ‘Self Aware Substructure.’
I believe that these theories miss one or two critical points. Wolfram tries to unify the divergent theories of Physics (Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity) but doesn’t explain where all the ‘stuff’ in the Universe comes from. Tegmark posits in the MUH that the Universe is a self-contained Godel-complete mathematical structure, so there is no ‘stuff’ to explain; it’s all mathematical. However, Tegmark does not explain how this specific mathematical structure that supports life can come into being and uses the idea of the multiverse to explain the diversity of possible mathematical structures. I think that’s a reasonable approach, but the Shiva-Shakti hypothesis does not agree with this approach. If there is a First Free Will a countably infinite multiverse is not necessary, although the possibility of more than one universe exists.
God as Information
If you want to insist on translating this idea into God, I would say don’t. The word has too much baggage. Still, such comparisons will inevitably arise, and therefore, I invented a clever mnemonic for you to remember. Since it is Information that organizes chaos into organized domains (i.e., Universes), you might say:
G.O.D = Great Organizer of Domains
Citations
Contzen, Pereira. “Shiva and Nothingness.” Scientific GOD Journal, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 497.
Mendelson, Elliott. Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Fifth Edition. Taylor & Francis, 2010. Accessed 30 May 2022.
Vasudeva, J. Mystic’s Musings. Wisdom Tree, 2003. Accessed 30 May 2022.
© 2022, Chinmay Nagarkar, All Rights Reserved
