In Search of a Cyclops
the proof of nothing — a theory of everything ©
Chapter One
Theorizing about it all
Since the dawn of human kind people have talked and argued, wondered, thought, and philosophized about life, about their surrounding world. In this respect we are not that different from our ancestors, though we tend to phrase our modern questions and quests in larger and often more detailed frameworks. The most important question of them appears to be how everything fits together. Yet have you ever wondered why we want to understand everything? Even after learning the facts what our universe is all about, there is probably not a thing you can do extra in your life. There is most likely no measurable benefit at all for most people. Then why do we have this drive to get to the bottom of it all and get a clear picture? The scientific community has spent millions and millions of dollars, euros, and yens on the best of brains and the best of equipment. We know so much already. So, will it make us happier if we know everything? It is a fact: we spend this much, simply because we love to know. Knowing is a thrill. To paraphrase sir Edmund Hillary: we want to understand everything because it is there. It is human nature to wonder at one point in life what this world is about, and how we fit in ourselves. Climbing this monumental mountain may be the most difficult task of all. Getting to the top isn't just about gathering all available information and then getting a wonderful view. How to fit more and more breathtaking information in this largest of views is the daring challenge, one that can easily leave us stuck in place, no longer desiring to take another single step towards the top. We may feel exhausted, oxigen-depleted, and find ourselves only longing for a comfy chair, a fire place, and a cup of cocoa. To fully grasp the view, can we change our ideas when previous ones take up too much of our space and oxygen? Accepting a new idea is difficult — for instance, a new idea on how the Big Bang took place without discarding any of the already gathered information — when that new view is partly based on a scientific place for a panoramic nothing.
We are not the first to be this curious. Others must have posed similar questions, similar ideas in the past. How do we know about older quests to understand everything? We can find artifacts, manuscripts, and stories that survived over the years, but they do not contain a specific formula for everything. Nevertheless, it is very well possible that others before us had a good understanding of the whole, but did not leave us the specific information. What if others had indeed found a reasonable and very satisfying answer? The scientific community would then be delivering us nothing but a scientific question that was answered in a different form already. Are we, today, able to recognize the language of stories and artifacts through which others deliver us their visions?
Question, questions, questions. Let's first begin with trying to understand what it is that we are looking for. It can be helpful to slowly warm up with some gymnastics of the brain, because everything is quite a large concept. It is often hard to determine what everything is. It appears to be a natural and well defined word. Yet your family can be your everything, or your partner. For some people their house means everything, and for others it is their car. What these examples all have in common is that not until someone is totally absorbed by their closest relatives, lover, or some object, that they actually use the word everything to describe them. The term everything is a special word that gets used nevertheless in a very loose way as if it is part of our daily circumstance. We do it all the time: "That means everything to me," "Everything I've got," or "Everything you always wanted to know."
For our quest, it becomes important to look at the concepts behind words, because single words can have a wide variety of meanings — confusing if left without discussion. A word with a wide variety of meanings is we, a word we use daily. Its use describes ourselves, for instance, as in "my friend and I" or "my partner and I" or "my family and I." We can refer to a group of as few as two persons or it can be used for larger groups, as long as I, myself, is an active part of we. We can stand for the people in a street, in a factory, a family, a religious community, or an entire country. We can be viewed as the description of everyone on this globe. Still, that is not the largest group we can span. We can be seen as every living being on this planet, or in the universe. One can even take it further and make we stand for everything that is. It is a stretch, but ultimately we can be viewed as everything.
The concept of we is not easily defined; it appears to have no strict boundaries, and we may therefore not look for actual limitations that exist in this concept. There are boundaries, however, that do not appear on the outside of this concept — they exist on the inside. Deriving from the idea of we, a single being or thing cannot be everything by itself. Everything cannot be singular. If we would place everything in a concept of just one being, we can only come to the conclusion that this one being must be god. Nothing and nobody else could be one and everything at the same time — unless we get into the narcissus field of improbable self-inflation. If it already exists, the singular everything is a tremendously charged concept, but under normal circumstances, as soon as one person takes place on a platform with at least one other person, this person can quite easily be viewed as being everything — by the other. Perception is an important factor when we use the word everything or the word we.
We is used in various situations. Interestingly, we can even become the opposite of another we. To which group, for instance, does a child of an Israeli mother and a Palestinian father belong? We can be the Israelis, we can be the Palestinians, or we can refer to this particular family all by itself. The word we can be used in many different situations that do not have to add up all of the time. Small time versions of we — apparently in conflict with one and another a lot of times — exist throughout in our every day life, and seemingly without any problems we can build a greater we out of smaller and sometimes conflicting we's. While listening to someone's use of words people tend to figure out what the concept is that words refer to.
Naturally, in our search for the theory of everything we are not looking for the everyday use of everything, we are looking for the one all-inclusive everything there is. For this book, small time versions of everything are better forgotten quickly. Only the largest of concepts apply in which of course these small time versions still can take place. Scientists have been looking for a theory of everything quite some time now. With the tremendous amount of information that has been gathered over the last couple of centuries in hand, the feeling exists that we should be able to come to such a theory. And the highest prize of all would be to find the missing link that connects everything to one origin.
| Tip: If you think the text is too small to read, go to View on the pull down menu bar and choose a larger Text size. |
It is important to discuss one more often used word here: theory. Scientists use this word so often that we need to get a good understanding of it. It is a word that is well-defined even when theories only try to describe something that is actually not proven. Theories are thoughts about how collective information may fit together, and as such they are sets of thoughts through which a phenomenon can be explained. Theories try to give explanations for the realities of life. When a theory is proven it ceases to be a theory; it becomes a fact. Theories appear to have an unfinished character and may therefore invite us to investigate. They can cause us to wonder about life. Though theories are not actual facts (though they may certainly contain a good number of facts) theories may play very important roles, because people can act on the information that theories suggest — whether their interpretation of the theory is correct or not. At the beginning of World War I, people in Europe were happy to go to war, because at first going to war was thought to be the natural thing to do. When war was declared people cheered in the streets of London. They were celebrating the arrival of war. At that time one of Darwin's theories — in which some plant life, animals, and humans may survive and reproduce in a particular environment better than others — stood in high regard all over Europe. The survival of the fit (formerly known as the survival of the fittest) was interpreted as being applicable to modern-day humans as well. War, it was thought, would show who "fits" in best in the twentieth century. No one was happy with war for long. As soon as war brought home casualties, with no solution or victory in sight, the celebrations ended. In this case, it is fortunate that interpretation is subject to change. It is imperative to understand that theories may be used subjectively and as such they may impact behavior.
Theories try to explain parts of reality. Whether a theory is about electricity, magnetism, or your washing detergent, it does not matter — theories give explanations for phenomena. Using theories, we try to better understand the things we know for certain. Building upon theories that explained parts, theories were created that tried to explain the whole. First of all, a question that needs to be answered is whether it is possible to create a theory of everything. The avalanche of information that has been gathered seems to indicate just that. A theory of everything, however, necessarily includes everything from the beginning of existence up to the present. It would therefore include even parts that oppose each other, just like the word we could actually be in opposition to another use of we. Only the all-inclusive everything is applicable to this quest. Do we have the mental capacity to comprehend an overall framework in which even the smallest parts have their own logical place? Without feeling bold, it is possible to say: Yes, we do. It was Einstein who mentioned that once the theory of everything is discovered a three years old would be able to grasp it, indicating that once the facts are known, there is nothing to it. And when you are finished reading this book, you too will agree that indeed there is nothing to it! Yet first, some monumental climbing needs to be done.
Let's dwell for a second on another interesting question: has such a theory ever existed previously? Though the latest pieces of information were not available to our ancestors, they may have had no difficulties acquiring the framework we are looking for. To investigate the question if we can know for certain that our ancestors didn't have that capacity, ask yourself what you really know about your four great-grandfathers and your four great-grandmothers. For example, what were they thinking? What was known about life in their days? What knowledge did they have? Can you truly answer every thinkable question? You see, it is difficult to look back in time, especially since information tends to diminish as time passes.
Writing was not invented until after humans began to cease their nomadic existence some ten to fifteen thousand years ago, making it more difficult for us to go further back in time and witness the use of words. Imagine what and how people were thinking when they were nomadic — moving around in their environment — twenty thousand years ago. It may help to get a better understanding of the circumstances and the way our ancestors were thinking by asking some basic questions. How did these people, for instance, position themselves in their ever changing environment? How did they communicate with each other about directions? Did the sun play an important role as one of the few certainties on their trek? In fact, in the life of the nomad the sky could have been the only concrete reoccurring circumstance. Some modern people possess an uncanny ability to intuit direction without conscious deliberation or using frames of reference — an ability that would be highly functional in a nomadic society. This ability could enable a person to investigate areas he or she hadn't been in before without getting lost, and could make communication easier about relative positions to others within the group. Individuals could make plans according to this ability. "Let's go separately in that direction perpendicular to the sun's track (i.e. north or south), and we will meet again before the sun sets, and maybe we will find fruits to eat and shelter for protection." Handy. Nomads must have a shared notion of their environment otherwise they will lose one another. Specifically, their shared goals must be met for the survival of the group. In a nomadic existence, skills to intuit direction help the members of society to position themselves and to communicate with one another. The more skilled you are at communicating, the better the chances are for survival and therefore for the continuation of a group's existence.
Certain structures of thought evolve with environmental and societal changes. When a society is no longer nomadic and has settled in a particular area, the ability to intuit direction ceases to be as important. When a group becomes stationary, it is more appropriate to know that a mountain is a mountain and who has the rights to make use of it. "That mountain is mine and I herd my sheep on it." Especially when the use of land was determined in a violent decision, it becomes probably a necessity to learn a mountain is a mountain rather than to learn that North is North; and the ability to intuit direction can fall into oblivion. A changing framework of thoughts and expressions took place for nomadic societies when they were becoming stationary societies. Possessing a piece of land requires different ways of thinking than traveling through an area and taking what is needed. From archeological research, we know that around this time the central religious figure of many groups changed from female to male. The theory is that with the need to use violence for staving off attacks or attacking another group yourself a male god fits much better. The framework of thoughts may be connected to the daily use and the necessities of the environment. Would different frameworks of thought give humans different ways to think about how everything fits together? When trekking around everyday, the idea of everything may be based on an always recurring sky and an ever changing landscape. Yet as a settler the idea of everything may be based on an always similar environment with an ever changing sky. Did the nomads have a theory of everything? Did the early settlers? For us, it is hard to tell. There isn't much evidence. But can we be certain that they weren't trying to figure out everything? To answer this question more precisely, let's also go back to the time when humans and apes were more closely related — to a point closer to that of a common ancestor.
Take a giant step back in time when human ancestors were not exactly humans yet, some seven million years ago. Fossils of our ancient ancestors show that these hominids share many characteristics of modern humans but also of apes of today. Communication skills on which the survival of the group relied were paramount. Shared ideas and constructs helped the group to live and to survive. For example, modern research shows that some monkeys like the vervet are capable of making different sounds to communicate different kinds of danger. Seeing a bird of prey is expressed with a different sound than seeing a snake. This ability gives all members of the monkey group an instant indication as to where to look for danger and what to do. The impact is tremendous, because each member of the group survives longer, improving each individuals chance to reproduce and the group's chance to withstand demise. This fieldwork implies that our ancestors could have had at least such a skilled level of communication. Now, the question appears again: were these ancestors thinking about a theory of everything seven million years ago? The answer is: probably not. Why not? Because implicit within the question itself, the base of ideas requires communication skills that go beyond the capacity of these ancestors. The question is too complex to have arisen from them. With their small brains, these ancestors were far too occupied with survival. With a set of perhaps just forty sounds as a complete vocabulary, it would most probably be impossible to explain everything. It is doubtful that early humans even had an expression for the concept of everything. Therefore the question is bound to the restrictions of its context and to the people who are capable of using this linguistic context. The question is so specific that a more extensive vocabulary is needed to answer it. Only somewhere later in time a vocabulary developed that enabled the question. However, the idea that these human ancestors were thinking more intuitively about a concept of everything cannot be excluded. It cannot be proven that there was no notion at all about everything. Nor can it be proven that the idea of everything is unique to humans. The question should perhaps be posed whether it is essential that every living entity searches for an intuitive concept of everything. If that is the case it would help explain why we are so eager to understand everything.
Over time, human groups started to possess an increasing number of ideas, notions, expressions, and other communication skills. Seven million years ago the need to survive demanded an intense focus on survival. One tangible difference between the present and the past is that humans have developed a larger brain capacity. Through evolution, larger brains developed that are capable of entertaining complex structures like language. Over time humans increased their vocabulary, be it either slowly or in evolutionary spurts.
Contemporary humans continue to increase their own linguistic framework with words like computer, internet, infrared, in vitro fertilization, space travel, and French fries. These words did not exist 20, 50, or 200 years ago. The future will invariably bring the opportunity for even more ideas and new words, making the people of the past seem to have a comparatively smaller linguistic framework. Thus, the further back in time we look, the smaller is the idiom of the group. If fewer ideas exist, those sounds that do exist may take on an enormous importance, especially if the survival of the group is dependent on understanding each and every aspect. What meanings do words such as day, shelter, and freedom have? View these words in the following questions. How long does a day last so we know how much longer we can forage? How far away are the trees so we can run for shelter? How much freedom can a group give to the individual members before the group itself is jeopardized? Words can carry extremely important concepts that can change depending on the framework of other words. In a sentence, for instance, we are able to deliver actual and precise meanings with words. However, words remain nothing but artificial vehicles that without a certain amount of agreement by the members of a group would mean nothing.
Communication about information is important, because it helps ensure the group's survival. Take the position of the sun, which provides critical information. Stonehenge is just one example of the willingness of human beings to work indefatigably on a model that predicts the position of the sun on any day of the year. The project had such importance that it was built with monoliths that have withstood time. If the sun is in a certain position, it could perhaps mean that the rainy season is coming. For a different group elsewhere on the earth, that same solar position may mean the dry season. Both sets of information require different actions. The meaning given to the position of the sun therefore contains vital information.
Try to answer how human ancestral communities living near the equator in Africa one million years ago experienced the shifting positions of the sun. People living North of the equator may have seen the sun shift North in the summer to a position, say, not further than just above their heads, but midday in winter the sun would from their perspective remain at an angle in the Southern sky. How would they communicate with other nomads who have a different experience, for instance, while living South of the equator? Both groups of people may answer correctly — with their face toward the equator — that the sun rises on different sides of their bodies. The people who live in the North will say that the sun rises on their left side, the people who live in the South will say that the sun rises on their right side. It is easy to understand that putting both correct ideas in one new concept called sun could pose a problem. Will a disagreement about the track of the sun drive groups apart? That depends of course on how important the concept was for them. What we do have are the stories of various ancient people describing some kind of perfect Babel that was a turning point in their communication abilities with other groups. Did these ancient people try to reflect on the correct position of the sun amongst themselves and end up in disagreement? Was the construction of the tower of Babel a real construction to get to the sun or really a construct of thought about the sun's position? Without finding the appropriate answer a lot of confusion may have been the result. Seemingly small issues can have major impacts on societies when they are considered essential.
If your existence is based on shared thoughts within the context of a community, you may feel threatened by completely opposite ideas. History is full of examples of people who didn't want to hear the opposite of what they themselves believed to be true. The outcome of opposing thoughts could be considered to lead to extremely dangerous possibilities. For example, it could be feared that the group may be led to a place where extinction would be certain. So a person expressing provocative or controversial ideas might be killed. If an entire group expresses opposing ideas, they may be moved away or they may move away themselves. Survival depends on shared ideas and common thoughts. However, to come to a theory of everything, one must include the thoughts, ideas, and experiences of everyone. A complete picture cannot be created when the facts that other groups discovered are marginalized. Isolated groups in limited surroundings may not be capable of collecting all information for viewing the whole picture. If ancient humans living near the equator with limited communication skills and different experiences come together and try to create a common image of the position of the sun, they would have a difficult time fitting all information together into a compatible image. Was there enough time to sit down, relax and think it over? Or was the track of the sun such a hot issue that it was driving groups apart?
Modern research by a number of linguists supports the idea that all humans originate from one group of ancestors. It is called monogenesis, the theory that all modern languages have evolved from a single earlier language. Independent support for this linguistic theory has been found in collected human genetic material. Dividing modern humans in connected linguistic groups, human geneticists found significant genetic correlations for exactly the same lineage; both the genetic information, and the linguistic theory show similar tree branches. Some linguists found one particular word spoken among many people of different tongues on all of the inhabited continents. It is the word milk. Besides Antarctica, words close to the sound of milk, such as malik or moulka, were found on all continents. The meanings of these words are: to suckle, breast, woman, and female. All of these words with a sound close to milk are used in a very specific setting, thus providing a logical basis for reaching the conclusion that once the same language was spoken. Most likely this was a language with very few words, but a word sounding similar to milk was one of them, a word that must indeed have been very important. You may find it interestingly coincidental that by repeating the word milk very slowly the movement of your mouth will closely mimic the movements of suckling. Test this by putting a finger in your mouth and place your lips tightly around it. Make a sound and it will resemble the sound of an M. Try to make a sound while you have a pen loosely on your tongue, while your tongue is trying to move it backwards. It comes pretty close to being an L. This is the movement the tongue makes to move the milk backwards. The K at the back of the mouth is the sound closest to sealing the mouth off when swallowing the substance. Is it really only coincidental that the M, L, and K can represent the distinctive parts of suckling?
How did words come about? How do we use grammar? Our daily words and grammar are often taken for granted as if their meanings and uses are obvious. Yet they are not, and for our quest the following concept is most important. When we say that 'life is beautiful' do we really think that life is singular? We do not say 'life are beautiful.' So the answer should be: "Yes, we think life is singular." But would there really be a single person in the world who will even go as far as to admit that life is a singular thing? When we say that my support group is sending out e-mails to their friends to spread the ideas of this book as a favor for reading the first chapter for free online, we talk about this singular entity only in an abstract sense; in reality multiple supporters are helping out with no singular entity controlling anyone; these wonderful people don't even know each other — they just do it because they are friendly people, know others who are curious and intelligent like themselves, and understand the importance of helping spread ideas.
Words appear to be at the center of our quest to understand everything. Their meanings direct us, but their concepts can sometimes escape us. Would you, for instance, be able to immediately formulate the difference between a theory and a belief? As we saw earlier, a theory can basically be anything as long as it is in accordance with the known facts. How does that work with belief? Would it be a horrible thing to say — given the sometimes tense relationship between scientists and religious groups — that a belief is similar to a theory? A belief too, is based on a certain idea that something is this or the other, and a belief too — just like theories — cannot be fully proven. If something has been proven it ceases to be a belief. The belief in god for instance cannot be proven. The facts of life can be used as indicators, but as such they are not conclusive. Believing in god is a state of mind that is self-evident. If you believe something that cannot otherwise be proven, it is nevertheless still obvious. On the other hand, if you do nót believe something, it will be impossible to gather the information that will convince you that there is no other way around it. Despite ingrained ideas about religious stubbornness, facts can and do have major impacts on beliefs — if not instantly then over time. The idea of the earth revolving around the sun, and not the other way around, was heretical at first, but was accepted as the truth later when it was understood that it did not change the relationship humans have with god — it only changed the perception of our place. A quick way to see the difference between a theory and a belief is found when viewing both as a house; in science, the house has a picture perfect fundament, yet when you look more closely the building is not really finished. With religion, the house is just peachy dandy without any blemishes on the outside at all; but don't ask to see the basement — you may not live to regret it. In some ways beliefs are very similar to theories, but theories start out from gathered facts to then get to a comprehensive overall picture, and beliefs start out with the comprehensive picture and then gather facts to fit it.
A supposition close to certainty is that animals do not know the idea of god. It is a human idea, which generally contains something outside humans, and it is not necessarily connected to the surrounding world. Like milk having similar sounding words with the same general meaning in other languages, there is a unique closeness of the Dutch word gat to the — both English and Dutch — word god. Both words god and gat can be mentioned in context with the unknown. It often helps the audience for a story to have an ending, even a mystery ending, and both gat and god can provide such help. Both can be interpreted as the missing piece. At a certain point stories are finished, but not everything is explained — just as in real life. At such a moment gat or god fits in perfectly. In English, the proper translation for the Dutch word gat is hole, which is closely connected in sound to the word whole. Is this coincidental? God can be mentioned for parts of our lives that cannot fully be explained. God is also used to develop a completed view of our world. So, with the belief in god, a hole, an unknown part, can be the last piece of a story, and with god we can also come to a whole and thus create a finished story. A different place in which the roots of these two words god and whole seem to take further shape is found with the similar sounding English words to get and to haul. With the first verb, we leave our current location empty-handed with the intention to come back to that same spot and deliver whatever it is we want to bring back. With the second verb, we are in a location together with what we like to bring and from here we actively bring our desired belongings to the other location where the stuff currently is not. Both concepts, get and haul, describe an unfinished situation with more or less the same action in mind, yet the first shows a picture of still being empty-handed ánd nothing brought over yet, while the second shows a picture of already having your hands full, but not yet in its desired place. Another fitting word can be found to deliver one last piece into this linguistic picture: when first empty-handed, desiring to not be empty-handed, and then later receiving what has been deeply felt to be missing, one might describe such a situation as holy.
It is good to keep in mind that the existence of god is not the essential question here. The linguistic relationships of the definitions of the words god, gat, get, hole, haul, whole, and holy are being examined along with the question of what humans were thinking at the time these words originated. Language has an "origin" that goes back further than most religions. Words of importance can be traced etymologically — very far back in oral and written histories. The possible connection of the word god with the words hole and whole can be seen as an indication that on some level thoughts about everything did exist already.
In this first chapter overall structures were addressed. While sometimes overall structures appear to be structures of a single platform — god, we — when investigating them closer, cracks can become visible in that singular platform.
©
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In Search of a Cyclops" contains scientific information to back up the claim that nothing plays a role in each and every structure that tries to deliver a completed view. While the idea of nothing can be a simple concept in itself, the fact that it is present whenever we try to create a structure about everything makes it imperative that we need to understand the role of nothing before we can understand everything.