SECTION HOME          ALPHABETICAL INDEX
 The Society for the Diffusion of Knowledge
P.O. Box 964,
Kaunakakai, HI 96748
 
OVERVIEW
    This is a study of ontology. Ontology is a general study of substance. Albert Einstein considered himself to be an ontologist. In general though, scientists who study chemistry and elementary physics do not consider themselves ontologists, because they have limited their studies to phenomenal substance manifesting as matter. The Greek philosophers Democritus (460-370 B.C.) and Leucippus (5th c. B.C.) were ontologists; developing a class of study called atomism. Atomism is derived from the Greek word "atomoi", which means unsplittable. Atomism is still vigorously pursued today by modern high-energy physicists.
    Other earlier philosophers who were ontologists but not atomists, were Thales (c. 640 - c. 547 B.C.) and Anaximander (c. 610 - c. 547 B.C.). Thales was known as one of the Seven Sages of Greece.  He believed that water was the origin of the world, in contrast to Anaximenes (6th c. B.C.) who maintained that air is the origin of all things. Anaximander believed that the Infinite was the origin of all things; something he called "apeiron", which translated, means unlimited. He was perhaps the first to regard the earth as spherical and draw a map of it. He was also renowned as a mathematician, statesman and astronomer. He predicted the total eclipse of the sun that occurred on May 25, 585 B.C. As you can see, ontology has a long and honorable history, though being somewhat obscure today.
    When I first started thirty years ago, I hardly considered myself to be an ontologist; not even knowing what ontology was nor even knowing the word. I was a young and fledgling student of physics.
    At the time, I had both a good religious upbringing and an avid interest in natural science. In looking back, I think that it was this combination that led to my concern about my relationship to the Cosmos; particularly my being, purpose and destiny. At this stage in my life though, I came to realize that both religious doctrine and scientific doctrine had their own share of deficiencies.
    I recall on one occasion, during my first class of college level physics, the teacher asking the class of thirty odd students, how many were there because they wanted to learn the greater knowledge of the cosmos, or otherwise simply had to take this class. I was somewhat embarrassed and clearly shocked when only one other student and myself raised our hands; the rest taking physics because it was an engineering prerequisite. As I now recall, the class provided an excellent education in thermodynamics.
    It was at this time that I realized that I alone must uncover the secrets of the Universe, since no one else had done it or was about to do it for me. I also knew that I was unqualified to go forward in this matter as either theoretician or theologian. Unbeknownst to me, in this one fortunate stroke of judgment, I became an ontologist!
    The choice though, was really an easy choice for me. Since I was hardly well qualified in any area of advanced study, I chose to limit my excursions to the most simple, the utterly simple: an ordinary garden-variety type rock; not caring if it was shale, limestone or gold. I didn't want to follow the well-worn path of inorganic chemistry and the periodic table. I didn't really want to chase electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, as well as a myriad other sub-atomic particles. I wanted to know what substance was: the underlying sub-phenomenal state of things; what J.R.R. Tolkein has referred to as the howling primal chaos waiting just beyond the door, outside every world.
    As the years passed, and without exactly realizing it at the time, I was about to embark upon a quest; a journey of immense time and proportion. I was about to cross a vast and uncharted ocean; without compass, metes or direction; and then, at the end, pass through a great tunnel, whose alterations of darkness and light, would titillate me to its end. What I would come to know, that which I was searching for, would be Ultimate and Supreme Being; though at the time, I did not call it that.
    In the early days, my means of conveyance was a slide rule; upon which I performed endless iterations. I can remember those hot summer weekends, perspiring, with beads of sweat breaking out on my forehead. I can remember wasting one whole year, and several other times, pursuing invalid and worthless directions and odd little spur trails leading nowhere but to dead ends.
    Sometime in the early seventies, I leased one of the first desk-top computers, an Olivetti P602 portable electronic calculator; the slide rule no longer suitable in the simulation of an abstract impulse, which I thought might be the analogue to gravitation. Even with this new and faster means, it took literally days for the first results to emerge, and they were wrong!
    Such is the case with this kind of journey; a journey into the microcosm of the unknown. But for you though, as you read, it will be a bit different. You will not be taking wrong turns nor traveling along spur trails leading nowhere. True, though you will not experience the alterations of darkness and light; the despair and exhilaration as I had felt, if you are like me, like any other conscious creature who is aware of the relationship of themselves to their surroundings and to others, especially an emergent creature whose brethren share uncertainty as to their place in the Universe, then the anticipation, excitement and rewards of this journey are yours as well.
    After setting sail twenty-eight years ago, six weeks ago (October 1995) I sighted landfall, the fountainhead of universal being, that thing I now call Supreme Ultimate Being.
    Academically speaking, I call it non clinical being. To be quite certain, it is not swirling gases, nor pulsating energy, nor some kind of intelligence. It makes no laws governing natural behavior, nor does it have a wisp of logic, nor rationale, nor reason. It is not at all, all powerful, but rather, inert and quiescent; yet without it, nothing else can exist, which does not mean to say, that because of it, anything can. To the ancients and even the moderns, it has remained an enigma. Very soon though, I will introduce you to it, but first, you must learn, and in a small way, participate in this quest.
    During your study, give yourself a moment on some dark and clear evening, and gaze up into the cosmos. Bring someone with you, star maps and a flashlight. Realize that what you are seeing: a vast panorama of sky filled with a myriad of stars--but stars that are not at all as close as some might think. This is but a sample of our Cosmos, our Universe, our Reality... It is our cosmic neighborhood; the closest star being a Centauri, about 1.31 PC distant, which just happens to represent the average distance between stars throughout our Milky Way galaxy. For earthlings, just getting to this nearest star, using their best and fastest means of conveyance, would take tens if not hundreds of thousands of centuries!
    For us, these distances are just an illusion, so many stars seem so visible and bright, and so close, seemingly just beyond the clouds, moon and mountains. But they are very very much further away than that. It is an illusion caused by the remarkable efficiency of the propagation of light in the near vacuum of space.
    Utilizing the most powerful telescopes, astronomers can detect light coming from sources so far away, that it originated more than ten billion years ago. So from your vantage point as you gaze into the night sky, not only are your eyes able to see great distances, they are as well able to peer into time long past--into antiquity--though it does not seem like that.
    We civilized men, with our hazy, smog filled skies and light pollution, and our interior living and our enclosed means of transportation, seldom have this experience. Perhaps, because of this, we do not share wonderment of it, as did our ancestors, who on a daily basis experienced the majesty of Nature. Thus nurture this brief moment upon some hillock on a warm and late evening: and as you gaze skywards, ask the fundamental questions concerning your own self. What am I? Why am I? What is my purpose? What is my destiny?
    Then, feel your own hand and understand this, all which you see, you are a part, as it is real and in common spirit and kindred to yourself; as it has been for a very long time.
    What is this Being we are a part?
    In this endeavor you have combined the ontology of Being with the cosmology of the Cosmos, linking them together as though of singular cause, imparting to the seemingly lesser and more humble ontology the profound implications of cosmology. This of course is no news to NASA scientists who have known all along, that the securing of pristine moon rock can provide clues to the history of our solar system, as well as ourselves.
    For myself, I really had no specific rock in mind, but was seeking rather a simple place to start; eventually subjecting it to mind experiment; which in German is notably referred to as a gedanken; meaning just that. In a way, it is the purest form of inquiry; providing the experimenter avoids biological logical intrusion. Albert Einstein performed many gedankens, lying prone as he smoked his pipe, thinking about something, which he did on occasion, in the company of other scientists, during which time they hardly spoke to one another. No doubt all of the ancient Greek philosophers, who were without machine, microscope and virtually any kind of apparatus, performed all of their studies by gedanken.
    So what is this rock, I would ask. We all know about its chemical constituents, and about its elementary particles right down to the last quark and parton, but what are they? Well they seemed to be nothing more than energetic specks and globules in space; clearly part of some greater order. But then, would not this great order depend as well upon some sort of underlying machinery supportive of its function? And what then was this machinery? And what about forces-at-a-distance? Could empty space between things support such traction; if indeed empty space itself was something? And this order, does not the implication of some sort of governing influence suggest that even greater complexity and command of logical ability is required just to make the simplest things tick? Intuitively, I felt something wrong with this direction, but what was it?
    Besides things becoming too complex, there was the overriding feeling that unless everything came from the same source, be it the big-bang, a god or a cosmic breeding ground, there could be no explanation for why distinct and individual specks and globules, would demonstrate sufficiently similar properties. Really, without some common basis, there could be no explanation for common behavior. It was that simple.
    Besides this, could the investigator really expect these presumably primal and rudimentary things to possess the higher capability of thought and logic, such as we have, or was this an anthropomorphic intrusion? And then of course, there was the idea of the field and strings in space as being the underlying fabric of the Cosmos. Nothing yet made sense, other than I seemed to be taking the right tack. I was clearly seeking ultimate simplicity, at which point, recognizing my commitment, I realized that in order to avoid traveling in a circle, I must strike out in some direction and hold it, be it right or wrong. In other words, as I traveled presumably along the Road to Truth, I surely would find myself beset by unmarked junctions and side trails. Now mind you, this is a road few have taken, as far as I could tell, and certainly one wholly new to me. As any road which travels into the Wilderness of Nature, even its most unlikely paths and little worn trails, might lead one to their destination. In any event, what seemed clear to me at this point was, I must adhere to some principle of choice, be it right or wrong. It was about this time, very early in the going, that I chose this as my principle:
Reality is shrouded in a veil of simplicity.

    Simplicity, strings in space, an underlying governing fabric, globules and specks. What does this all mean? I can remember, sitting doodling, wholly stuck regarding the matter, when I came up with this idea. What if the underlying fabric, the field so-to-speak, consists of a whole system of criss-crossing strings, and wherever they meet, a unique condition describes a speck or a globule? Where two strings meet, there might be a speck, and where three or more meet, would be globules; the more strings meeting at this junction, the more complex the globule. Though not at all a good idea, it fulfilled several requirements: a certain level of simplicity, the potential of interaction and dynamics, a universal underlying field, and of course, globules and specks as the manifest presence of real, phenomenal particles.

    As a possible model, it had several problems. What kept the strings "glued" together at these locations? What was the nature of interaction? And, did not the differential in terms of the number of lines joined together in the determination of the behavioral nature of these junctions, require counting skills, perception and the ability to think?
    It was a knotty problem with no solution, other than abandonment.
    One positive outcome was the accidental recognition of locations which might occur if three surfaces, rather than lines or strings in space, were considered. Given an imaginary three-dimensional volumetric region of space where within resided numerous surfaces, each floating at some angle to one another, there would be many places where three surfaces would coincide. The idea of course was, that at the exact location where three surfaces intersected, an anomaly might be formed, representative of some sort of particle or proto-particle. As the string model before proved meaningless, this system of surfaces proved the same. It did however lead to the notion that space is filled with surfaces, myriads of them, whose dynamics and interaction might provide support as premise to a universal field.

    This was only the beginning of a great journey.   Along the way, one thing led to the next: from the study of Dynamic Geometry and Surface Mechanics, to the recognition of an infinite and random field of surfaces, field configurations, geometric stress and the quantification of these stresses in conjunction with field configurations, to a new cosmology called the Contracting-Universe hypothesis, and to eventually the correspondence between the hypothetical model and the real.
    Over the years, I have acquired voluminous notes about this, all out of sequence, so it's a bit hard to tell where things really started. Once the formalities were over, I suppose the Water Drop gedanken of Democritus is where things began to pick up. This is of course the celebrated mind-experiment that gave impetus to the concept of atomism; eventually winding its way into the atomic age of today.
    In his view, Democritus deemed that the most extant form of matter possible could be determined by dividing water, then thought to be fundamental substance, along with air, earth and fire, into smaller and smaller drops. Eventually he thought, by doing this, a drop so small would be reached, that no further subdivision would be possible. This, he called atomoi, which means, no longer divisible.

    In looking back, I see this to be crucial. To suppose character, purpose, intent, meaning, variation, structure, parts, size or placement in time of that which one deems to be supreme in the simple terms of Being, immutably leads an endless cascade. What I mean is, if you dissect ultimate existence, which can only be ultimate if it cannot be dissected, there is nothing more you can say about Being.
    In more modern terms, if scientists feel that they can observe and measure Being, as a properly recognized procedure of scientific methodology, then they can only fail to recognize Being as a fundamental aspect of their physical reality. In short, Being is immeasurable to scientific study, and thus and unfortunately invisible to science.

SECTION HOME          ALPHABETICAL INDEX