At the Cusp of Forever: Where Everything Is Not

"Horror vacui."

(Nature abhors a vacuum.)

-- Aristotle (384-322 BC), philosopher 

As you stand at the edge on the Cusp of Forever, staring into the blackness which is the void, have you ever considered the complete nothing of it? The void, for all the mystery we endow it with, is simply a completely empty space, a total vacuum bereft of everything, where everything is not. It is a total vacuum. A total vacuum? The statement is like saying a woman is very pregnant; you’re either pregnant or you’re not. If a vacuum is not total then it also is not a vacuum. But, then, a total vacuum is a concept for which we have no reference, right? After all, what we refer to as a vacuum still has quantum particles moving through it which we can't measure and, therefore cannot allow for with any accuracy if we include a necessary "vacuum" in any equation. The best we can do is a "partial" vacuum which, again, is like saying a woman is “sort of” pregnant. It really isn't a vacuum but is simply the best we can create. The cosmic web is said to consist of the glue which binds everything to reality. But, what exists in the blackness, the void throughout the web, where everything is not?  Is it a total vacuum?  Is it possible to remove God from somewhere?  If we can't remove the ever-present God, is it still a vacuum?  Do we simply write God out of the equation or do we create another variable to deal with the deity effect, the "ghost in the machine" so to speak? 

Perfect vacuum is an ideal state of no particles at all. It cannot be achieved in a laboratory, although there may be small volumes which, for a brief moment, happen to have no particles of matter in them. Even if all particles of matter were removed, there would still be photons and gravitons, as well as dark energy, virtual particles, and other aspects of the quantum vacuum.

-- Wikipedia, "Vacuum"

I love statements like the description of a "perfect vacuum," given above.  "Even if all particles of matter were removed, there would still be photons and gravitons, as well as dark energy, virtual particles, and other aspects of the quantum vacuum."  This is an example of why I have trouble in college, arguing with my professors about minutia.  But, then, I'd be the first to admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.  The best I can hope for is to inflict a bit of blunt trauma to their thought process.

This description of a perfect vacuum, however, doesn't refer to dark energy as dark matter, though it is, and dark matter, theoretically, makes up 85% of the universe.  The description was probably not changed because whoever wrote it either didn't understand what they were writing or wanted to baffle us with bullshit.  I read that those "photons and gravitons, as well as dark energy, virtual particles, and other aspects of the quantum vacuum," are all particles of matter which we cannot, as yet, remove from a "perfect" vacuum.  So, it would seem, according to this description, the best we can hope for is a "quantum" vacuum.  But, having stated this, the description goes on, if I read it right, to prove itself false by the statement, "even if all particles of matter were removed" which is admitted in the description as impossible because the quantum matter would still be there.

"But", some say, "there will always be a difference between 0.9999... and 1." Well, sort of. Yes, at any given stop, at any given stage of the expansion, for any given finite number of 9s, there will be a difference between 0.999...9 and 1. That is, if you do the subtraction, 1 – 0.999...9 will not equal zero. But the point of the "dot, dot, dot" is that there is no end; 0.9999... is infinite. There is no "last" digit. So the "there's always a difference" argument betrays a lack of understanding of the infinite.

-- purplemath.com, "How Can .999... = 1?"

Point nine, multiplied by infinity, equals one.  I think the argument purplemath.com puts forth, above, to those who would say "there's always a difference," also betrays the same lack of understanding of the infinite.  My answer to the author?  Well, the condescending attitude notwithstanding, I don't think you can present a valid argument based on faulty logic simply by stating the faulty logic makes it true.  How very professorial of you.  Point nine times infinity will never equal one unless you can account for the point one infinity that you've conveniently ignored.  By the way, the point of the "dot, dot, dot" was to remind everyone that if you're tied to a chair and forced to listen to an inane argument, while I incessantly tap on your forehead with the eraser end of a pencil, you'll be forced to agree with me before I wear the eraser down to the metal fitting and begin to draw blood.  Personally, I think it would be more proper to put the infinity symbol after .999 if you want to impart infinity to everyone, but that's just me.  Dot, dot, dot?  Really?

I have witnessed some educators arguing, ad nauseam, that what they teach must be correct simply because it was what they were taught.  This perpetuates the theory of "crap in, crap out."  Some educators would also excuse the crap they teach by saying the information is valid simply because, as of the moment they teach it, the information is the best we have to go on even if the information we have, by our very description of said information, is wrong.  I have heard arguments which state that the obviously wrong is right, and I have heard them use a mathematical equation to "prove" what they say is right, even though it is so obviously not correct to the point that what they say makes them sound like idiots, in my view. 

Obviously questionable statements made by educators and scientists, make my head hurt.  It makes me weep for the state of, what we refer to as, "higher education."  It also makes me not want to be anywhere close to something scientists create, using this kind of faulty logic, for fear it will destroy any matter close to it, including me.  It also makes me hope what they create won't destroy all matter.  Remember that those symbols used in equations, like x and y, are called "variables" for a reason.  Beware anything created from an equation which includes too many variables lest we witness, for a split second, the destroyer of worlds.  I think we should be very afraid that scientists, in their zeal to do anything, will press a button, loudly fart, and make us where everything is not.

Even where everything is not, however, there would seem to be a theoretical something.  There is a void because everything that was there was drawn out by forces which curve the geometry of spacetime creating what we refer to as gravity,  But, even these forces of gravity, at work within the void, are due to the interaction of "virtual" gravitons, hypothetical particles, in the void.  Why are they hypothetical?  Because we don't know.  These particles, truth be told, are the x and y of what we think we know.

One thing is for certain, x and y are variables of a theory, and theories should not exist where everything is not... theoretically.  And, what of God?

Editor's Note

(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider an alternate viewpoint. 

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful and constructive discussion, in an arena of mutual respect, concerning those opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.

Pastor Tony spent 22 years with United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with the premier, world renowned, Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects involved in pharmaceutical research. Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, and wages his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteers as lead Chaplain and Chaplain Program Liaison, at the regional medical center.