The Universe's Rabbit Hole

Fundamental questions are often questions of scale: What is the smallest sustainable flame? What is the minimum bubble diameter? What is the minimum amount of information necessary to constitute life? What is the smallest constituent of matter? Of energy? What is the furthest extent of the universe? In mathematics and much of our everyday experience, scale seems arbitrary. One could construct a house at 1/5 scale, 1:1 scale, and 2:1 scale without much real difference between them. But once we nudge outside of our comfort zone, we find that scale is very important in our physical world.

If we were divide a one kilogram ingot of gold we could cut it down to size and divide it into tenths, hundredths, thousandths, millionths, billionths, and so on. But we cannot divide the ingot indefinitely, the smallest unit of gold we can have is one atom, and there are approximately 3.057x10^24 atoms of gold in a one kilogram ingot. From that bar we can have no more than around 3 trillion trillion pieces of gold. Divide it any further, and what you have is no longer discernibly gold. Given that the properties of matter and energy and various chemical reactions require certain scales before they can arise (even if those scales seem imperceptibly small), it seems reasonable to assume that there exists a fundamental lower limit on size. At some point we must reach a limit below which there would be no properties at all, since all properties would necessarily arise from the interactions occurring at such a scale. Viewed this way, a fractal theory of the universe seems untenable: how can universes be packed within each other when scale is so important to physical nature? However, it is still possible that beyond the scale that we can currently observe, past the fundamental building blocks of our universe, lay the outer reaches of embedded fractal universes, and these universes have analogous but dissimilar properties that operate on different magnitudes of scale.

Our Lawless Universe

Space is homogeneous: This assumption states that the equations of physics are independent of the frame of reference of the observer, they are time-space invariant. This assumption is necessarily true, a law that only holds locally is not a law but is at best a subset of a more complicated law or very likely a crude approximation of the true law. Behind the idea of a natural law is the assumption that natural phenomena can be reliably described and predicted by such laws. If on the most fundamental level there is no consistency, that is the laws of nature are variable or in flux and there is no larger pattern or law to this variation, then it is impossible to describe the universe using laws. However, that is inconsistent with experience and all logical thinking. It would take significant philosophical acrobatics if not be outright impossible to imagine a lawless universe that manages to resemble our own in our lifetimes. If a law is true, then it is necessarily applicable to the whole universe, not just our local space. However, it is very likely that a law is incomplete, or an approximation, that only agrees with observation so long as we only test within our neck of the woods. Trying to then apply this law to further reaches then breaks down, since we could not say that it is universally applicable, as we then have yet to discover the universally applicable law that applies beyond the local subset or "special case" law that we have found. Space is necessarily homogeneous, but it is entirely possible to derive physical laws that apply only to our local space. Further such subset laws may be able to account for the vast number of observable phenomena beyond our local space, but should breakdown at scales far beyond our local range. Newton's laws of motion represent a set of approximations that break down far outside of our local space, specifically at speeds approaching those of the speed of light. For a law to offer true insight and provide predictive power, it must extend beyond our local space. However, with new laws and knowledge we expand the horizon of our local space, so that we must probe further at the extremes to gain further insight.

God Is Dead

But his ghost is still kicking around. The ghost of god persists in two forms, one as religion and the other as spirituality (without religious organization). I should be more precise and state that when I say spirituality or spiritualism I mean it on a more personal level. Spirituality exists in many forms in organized religion, but it really is a much more personal aspect and can be viewed as independent of a religious institution.

Spirituality, I believe, is worse than the institution of religion. When combined with religion it is very dangerous indeed. This will upset many. After all, what harm is it to believe your own superstitions and keep them to yourself? It would seem that the real danger lies in large institutions such as the Catholic Church, which has historically carried out atrocities, or evangelical Christians with a warmongering agenda. Such institutions, however, must feed off of a spiritual populace, a populace open to faith, belief, and mystery. 

Superstitions, the belief in the supernatural, and faith are all corrosive aspects of a society that have become entangled in religious institutions and deeply wedded to them. In an early society, the religious institution serves primarily as the institution of law. At this stage, the religious institution itself could be viewed as a positive force on societal development. But as time progresses, the inflexibility of the religious institution will cause it to impede societal progress. The institution will seize upon superstition to maintain power in the face of decreasing relevance. But it would never be able to do so in a society that was unreceptive to superstition.

You Don't Get Your Morals From Your God

Religion does not, cannot, and never has provided a basis for morality. Many would contend that religion’s ability to provide morals to a society is one of its great virtues. They are wrong. If you adhere to a religious moral code, and I do mean strictly adhere, then you are a truly immoral person. On what basis do you accept this moral code? Either you accept it because it is what you were taught, you came to it through what you believe is divine revelation, or you came to it because you found it agreeable. These are all terrible reasons for selecting a moral code. The last possibility is the best of the three. If you came to adhere to the religious moral code because you found it agreeable, then you used your own moral judgement and critical thinking in assessing the moral code. But since you adhere strictly to this code, you really are a hypocrite. Why would you adhere strictly to a moral code if you came to that code based on your own judgement?  There’s no reason to abandon your judgement once you've agreed to a moral code. Your strict adherence requires you to suspend your judgement and critical thinking, something no moral individual would do.