Content uploaded by Raphael Neelamkavil

Author content

All content in this area was uploaded by Raphael Neelamkavil on Sep 10, 2023

Content may be subject to copyright.

1

PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL

CAUSALITY: FALLACIES FROM “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D. (Quantum Causality),

Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)

Cosmologists and quantum cosmologists seem to be almost unanimous (but happily today, a bit

decreasingly unanimous) that, at the so-called level of the Planck era / quantum era of the

original state of the big bang (of our universe, or of an infinite number of such universes existent

in an infinite-eternal multiverse – whichever the case may be), where all forces are supposed to

be unified or quasi-unified (but always stated without any solid proof), (1) either there did not

exist and will never exist causality, (2) or any kind of causality is indistinguishable from the

normal course of physical existents.

Is this sort of cosmological theorizing acceptable, where (1) the unification is supposed but

is not necessarily physical-ontologically presupposable, and (2) causality and non-causality are

taken in the mood of dilemma? This sort of theorizing is, of course, based on some facts that

most physicists and other scientists agree on without much effort to search for causes of

approval or disapproval.

But the adequacy of such reasons for this conclusion is questionable. The manner of

concluding to non-causality or indistinguishability of causality and non-causality at spots in the

universe or multiverse, where all forces are supposed to be unified or quasi-unified, is

questionable too. The main reason is the lack of physical-ontological clarity regarding the status

of causality and the status of unification of the forces.

In my opinion, this is based on the inevitable fact that whatever the mathematics

automatically prescribes for such situations can be absolute only if all the parameters,

quantities, etc. that have entered the equations are absolute. The prescribed necessity condition

has not been the case in the physics that goes into the mathematical formulation of the said

theory.

Even concerning the measurement that humanity has so far made of the speed of light is not

exact and absolute. The reason for the fantastic cosmological conclusion regarding a volatile

decision for or against causality and regarding a supposed verity of the supposition that all

forces are unified therein, does not possess an adequate mathematical reason, and of course not

a sufficiently physical.

The reason I gave is not strictly and purely mathematical, physical, or just generally

philosophical. It is strictly physical-ontological and mathematical-philosophical. Things

physical-ontological are not “meta-”physical in the sense of being beyond the physical. Instead,

they treat of the preconditions for there being physics and mathematics. They being pre-

conditions, not respecting them leads to grave theoretical problems in mathematics, science,

and philosophy.

Hence, in my opinion, fundamentally mathematical-ontological and physical-ontological

presuppositions and reasons are more rationally to be acceptable for the foundations of

mathematics and physics than all that we have as strictly mathematical and physical in the name

of foundations. I give here the obvious in order to assure clarity: I presuppose that physical

ontology consists of the necessary presuppositions of anything dealt with in physics,

astrophysics, cosmology, and other purely physical sciences, and of course of the mathematics

and logic as applied to existent physical things / processes.

The main reason being considered for the so-called non-causality and indistinguishability

between causality and non-causality at certain cosmological or physical spots seems to be that

space and time could exist only with the big bang (or whatever could be imagined to be in place

of it), whether just less than 14 billion years ago or doubly or triply so much time ago or

whatever.

2

First, my questions on this assumption are based on an antagonism that I have to

cosmologists lapping up the opinion expressed by St. Augustine centuries ago. That is, if space

and time “exist” only if and from the time when the universe exists, then the question of space

and time before the expansion of the universe is meaningless. These cosmologists presume that

the expansion of the universe was from a nullity state, and that hence it could not have existed

before the beginning of the expansion. What if it existed from eternity like a primeval stuff

without any change and then suddenly began to explode? This is the basic premise they seem

to hold, and then conclude that time, as an “existent” now, would not have existed before the

expansion! What a clarity about the concept of existence! Evidently, this is due to the gaping

absence of regard for the physical-ontological presuppositions behind physical existence.

Secondly, as is evident, some of them think that space and time are some things to exist

beyond or behind all the physical processes that exist. Thus, some identify space even with

ether. If we have so far only been able to measure physical processes, why to call them as

measures of space and time? Why not call them just as what it is, and accept that these are

termed as space and time merely for ease? After all, whatever names we give to anything does

not exist; and we have not seen space and time at all.

Thirdly, is it such a difficult thing for scientists to accept the lack of evidence of any sort of

“existence” of space and time as background entities? Einstein spoke not of the curvature of

existent spacetime, but of the mathematical calculations within a theory of the

measurementally spatiotemporal aspect of existent physical processes as showing us that

the measurementally spatiotemporal aspect of the physical processes – including existent

energy-carrier gravitational wavicles – is curving within mathematical calculations.

Now, if the curvature is of existent processes (including existent energy-carrier gravitational

wavcles), then, at the so-called primeval spot in each existent universe (even within each

member of an infinite-eternal multiverse containing an infinite number of finite-content

universes like ours) where all forces are supposed to be unified or quasi-unified, there cannot

be a suspension of causation, because nothing existent can be compressed or rarefied into

absolute nullity and continue to exist.

This demonstrates that, even at the highly condensed or rarefied states, no existent is

nothing. It continues to exist in its Extended and Changing nature. If anything is in

Extension-Change-wise existence, it is nothing but causal existence, constantly causing

finite impacts.

Why, then, are some cosmologists and theoretical physicists insisting that gravitons do not

exist, space and time are entities, gravitation is mere spacetime curvature, causality disappears

at certain spots in the cosmos (and in quantum-physical contexts), etc? Why not, then, also say

that material bodies are merely spacetime curvature and cannot exist? Is this not due to undue

trust in the science-automation powers of mathematics, which can only describe processes

in a manner conducive to its foundations, and not tell us whether there is causation or not?

I believe that only slavishly mathematically automated minds can accept such claims.

Examples of situations where causality is supposed to disappear are plenty in physics. More

than century of non-causal interpretations within Uncertainty Principle, Double Slit

Experiment, EPR Paradox, Black Hole Singularity, Vacuum Creation of Universes, etc. are clear

examples of physicists and cosmologists becoming prey to the supposed omnipotence of

mathematics and their unquestioning faith in the powers of mathematics.

It is useless, in defence of mathematics and physics, to cite here the extreme clarity and

effectiveness of mathematical applications in instruments in space-scientific, technological,

medical, and other fields. Did I ever question these precisions and achievements? But do the

clarity and effectivity of mathematics mean that mathematics is absolute? If they can admit

that it is not absolute, then let them tell us where it will be relative and less than absolute.

Otherwise, they are mere believers in a product of the human mind, as if mathematics were

given by a miraculously active almighty space and time.

3

All physicists need to recognize that all languages including mathematics are constructions

by minds, but with foundations in reality out-there. Nothing can present the physical processes

to us absolutely well. Mathematics as applied in physics (or other sciences) is an exact science

of certain conceptually generalizable frames of physical processes. This awareness might help

physicists to de-absolutize mathematical applications in physics.

Fourthly, the above has another important dimension. Physics or for that matter any other

science cannot have at its foundations concepts that belong merely to the specific science. I

shall give an example as to how some physicists think that physics needs only physical concepts

at its foundations: To the question what motion is, one may define it in terms allegedly merely

of time as “the orientation of the wave function over time”. In fact, the person has already

presupposed quantum physics here, which is clear from his mention of the wave function, which

naturally presupposes also the previous physics that have given rise to quantum physics.

This sort of presupposing the specific science itself for defining its foundational concepts is

what happens when concepts from within the specific science, and not clearly physical-

ontological notions, come into play in the foundations of the science. Space and time are

measuremental, hence cognitive and epistemic. These are not physical-ontological notions.

Hence, these cannot be at the foundations of physics or of any other science. These are

derivative notions.

It is for this reason that I have posited Extension and Change as the primary foundational

notions. As I have already shown in many of my previous papers and books, these two are the

only two exhaustive implications of the concept of the To Be of Reality-in-total as the totality

of whatever exists.