Life, the Universe and Everything.

(A different perspective, in which I attempt to present a unified theory as to what it's all about. It's based upon my current personal thinking, subject to change without notice.)

Reading from A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking:

A well‑known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At he end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "what is the tortoise standing on?" "you're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady, "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Life, the Universe and Everything.

First, let me say that all that I present here this morning didn’t spring full blown from my own mind. I borrow heavily from many ideas of others that I have absorbed throughout my life. What I present here is the digestion of those ideas within my own thinking and summarization of them within a normal Sunday sermon length talk.

I originally gave this talk before the First Unitarian Society of Rockland County (New York) on Sunday, June 20, 1993. I gave the part II sequel on January 30, 1994. This morning you are going to get the pertinent portions of the sequal as well.

So here goes:

Most people would find the picture of our universe as an infinite tower of tortoises rather ridiculous, but why do we think we know better? What do we know about the universe, and how do we know it? Where did the universe come from, and where is it going? Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what happened before then? What is the nature of time? Will it ever come to an end? Recent breakthroughs in physics, made possible in part by fantastic new technologies, suggest answers to some of these long standing questions. Someday these answers may seem as obvious to us as the earth orbiting the sun‑‑ or perhaps as ridiculous as a tower of tortoises. Only time (whatever that may be) will tell.

They say we have entered a new age, especially in the"developed" countries‑ The Information Age. Well we certainly have formalized a different way of looking at things, but I don't think it is all that new.

Information, data, articulated knowledge‑ we have become better at exchanging it. We can store it more easily. We can search for specific information more easily. Above all we have learned to utilize it in new and powerful ways.

What is information? Broken down to its essentials, information is pattern. It is arraignment. If information is expressed in language‑we can readily see that it is the pattern of the words, the arraignment of noun, verb, adjective, adverb which conveys the information.

A painting is a non‑verbal pattern. The arraignment of the paint on the canvass conveys to the beholder many different things depending upon the nature of the painting. The gestalt of a scene, the image of a person, a mood, a memory, a contrast of many things.

But we have also discovered that we are not the soul possessors or utilizers of information, of patterns. Somehow the Universe is very adept at gathering, transmitting, storing and utilizing information with little help from us.

I postulate that all of existence is composed of just information and quite possibly nothing else. I will attempt to clarify that postulate and offer some logical "proofs" for you to accept or refute at your convenience.

First I'm going to talk a little about computers. I hope those of you who are either technophobes or whom computers either confuse or frighten, and those of you who are just plain bored by them will stay with me for just a few minutes. I need to talk about computers because some of the basic concepts about computers that I want to cover can help greatly in thinking about the bigger picture.

One reason for this is that in designing and building computers, we may have found a way to simplify and control a paradigm simulating the actual universe. For the present time I am going to speak only of digital computers.

A computer can only exist and function because of pattern. The very heart of the computer is composed of millions of switches‑decision points where something‑‑ we don't really care what‑‑ can go either left or right, or be on or off. There are just two choices. But if you string those two choices together enough times, you can generate millions‑billions of choices.

People‑ men and women‑ discovered how to make things which contain millions or billions of switches and put them into very small places and how to turn those switches on and off‑or left and right‑ and most importantly how to determine what choice actually was made.They discovered how to cause those choices to be made depending upon what other choices had been made.

Now what can you do with something like that? The first thing you can observe is that those millions of lefts or rights‑ ons or offs‑ can be formed into patterns. Information! And the first patterns that were created were patterns of instructions for making other patterns.

It was a lot of fun for those pioneers. They really got a charge with playing with esoteric arithmetic. They got to play with lots of things which really turned them on. They got to play with stuff that really bores the average person stiff. They figured out how to make their ons and offs and lefts and rights store the patterns of numbers and letters and words.

But people soon realized that it wasn't necessary for everybody to know about ons and offs and lefts and rights. Once the patterns were set up, other people could start using numbers and words. Of course the first numbers and words were very simple and had to be used in very rigid and precise ways. But if used properly, they could start storing and using pictures and music and books and great thoughts.

Other people found that they could control things by using the numbers and words. And other people found that by using the precise numbers and words they could create patterns which could be used for manipulating less precise numbers and words and pictures and concepts.

Soon people who knew nothing about switches and ons and offs and lefts and rights, who knew nothing about using precise numbers and words (we call those things low‑level programs) were using computers to write their letters and term papers and books. They were drawing pretty pictures, they were communicating information all over the world. They were sending ships out into space. The ships were sending back pictures and lots of information.

And of the thousands‑ millions of people who were using computers in new and unique ways, no one really cares or knows about ons and offs and lefts and rights.

Only a few people who still like to play in their laboratories know about such things. And even for them, making those ultra-small conglomerations of switches became too time‑consuming and the complexity of the conglomerations became so great that even they began to use computers to design the new systems. Perhaps in the next generation, no‑one will be left who knows how to build a computer without using a computer.

See how pattern built upon pattern built on pattern results in something very different from the fundamental patterns upon which everything rests.

There are many gaps between those who designed the little switches and those who use the systems in all those intricate ways. And some of those gaps are not filled by people who deliberately designed the patterns. Many patterns self‑generate because that is the logical way to go between point "a" and point "z". And where is the designer?

One can still find the designers of the original stuff. But those same designers do not necessarily know how to use the end product to write or draw pictures or design bridges or space craft. They know how to design switches with ons and offs and lefts and rights. In similar ways someday men and women will find out how to use the layers of design built upon those same switches to design decision making things which may well have the ability of self‑determination.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But if so‑ then who is the designer? The people who understand ons and off and lefts and rights, or the people who use language and pattern or who?

Now let’s turn to organic chemistry. Most of us have read something about how life is produced by having cells containing DNA and genes and stuff making copies of themselves and making other cells which are a bit different but which when combined with lots of different kinds of cells somehow make a bird or a kitten or a human being. What have we here?

The DNA is a string of amino acids in certain sequences‑ patterns! The patterns are built into the sequences of amino acids in such a way that when they are in the presence of a random mix of amino acids they are capable of building replicas of themselves by simply attracting the appropriate molecular fragments to the right places and bonding them together.

The entire pattern for the living organism is contained in the strings of millions‑ billions of amino acids all capable of replicating themselves and of making strings different from themselves for which they have the stored patterns. Well, what makes the strings of amino acids have the ability to replicate themselves? It would appear that the pattern for bonding atom to atom and molecule to molecule is somehow contained in the atomic structure itself.

That is physics!

Modern physics is all busily concerned in trying to explain how atoms function. There are all sorts of building blocks for atoms‑ electrons, protons, neutrons, and a lot of other wild new things which may go into building the blocks‑ quarks, charmed or otherwise, gluons etc .etc. etc. The physicists are finding that there is a basic pattern‑ information system‑ which defines how matter goes together. They are finding a little bit about how that pattern works. It almost seems that matter consists of patterns which set something (or maybe nothing) into motion in precisely defined ways resulting in material existence.

It also appears that by the same logic, there may be, there probably are sub‑micro layers of patterns‑ information‑ upon which the most fundamental (by our current reckoning) definitions are resting. In the words of the legendary woman‑ "it's turtles all the way down."

Those patterns are the basic ons and offs‑ lefts and rights of the universe upon which are built the stars, the planets, the birds, the kittens and human‑kind. The structure is built layer upon layer. The upper layers don't need an understanding of the lower layers, the mere fact of their existence is enough. I will ask again‑ where is the designer?

Is it not possible that there are many designers, just as with computers, there are many designers. With computers, no one need know or be adept at understanding all levels to build and utilize them. With the universe, no one need know or be adept at understanding all levels of existence.

Change of scenery: Suppose an extra terrestrial intelligence were to intercept one of our more complex space probes. Suppose it were able to analyze artifacts only at the macroscopic level. How much do you suppose it would be able to tell about humans by examination of the probe?

It wouldn't do a very good job of figuring out how the thing worked. Then perhaps it got better at analysis and was able to take apart a package around a silicon chip and maybe be able to put a microscope on the chip. Wow! There is a pattern there. But what does it mean. What does it do? Many of you have seen the pretty pictures of the magnified view of a microprocessor. Realize that currently they have millions of silicon junctions arranged in very complex patterns.

Would it make much sense to the average person? We have the same trouble when trying to figure out Poirot's "little grey cells". First we look at brain cells through a microscope‑doesn't look like much. Then we try to experiment and see if by trial and error we can figure things out. Its mostly error‑ darn little information is extracted. But boy‑ we know there is pattern there!

I submit that Life, the Universe and Everything is composed of nothing but information‑ pattern imposed upon a substrate of pattern‑ in turn imposed upon a substrate of pattern‑ ad infinitum‑which we know little or nothing about.

Imposed by forces and intelligences which we know little or nothing about. At first glance we can do nothing but use the layers which we understand and let the stuff we don't understand take care of itself. But it would seem that most of human kind has a built in pattern that requires us to learn as much as possible about all the patterns above and below ourselves as we can possibly find. It is apparent that through increasing our understanding of the patterns of which everything is composed, we are better able to alter the patterns for our own benefit and become better at communicating those patterns.

We have learned that information can be stored, transferred and modified in many ways. The exchange of information between individuals results in greater knowledge and greater understanding than that of the sum possessed by the individuals prior to the exchange. It is through such exchange that human‑kind has attained the characteristics of being human. All of the "higher" values of humanity‑ love, compassion, respect, hope‑ all have come about through exchange of information‑ pattern‑ between people, resulting in the whole being greater than the sum of the isolated parts.

Those "higher" values can be compared to the overall body of information in a similar way that a painting can be compared to the paints and canvass of which it is composed. The essence of the painting is the pattern imposed upon the paints and canvass. The essence of humanity is the pattern imposed upon the raw material of flesh and bone‑ of atom and molecule. The operative factor here is communication. We have to communicate‑ transfer pattern from substrate to substrate.

However, it seems apparent that anything that may be responsible for the creation of a pattern is, itself composed of pattern imposed upon some substrate. And just as we have found in our work with computers, the patterns may be only incidental toward the goal of an even higher (read "more complex") pattern.

I can see in the logic presented so far, the roots of Deism, wherein God created the Universe and then sat back and let it spin. I can also see room for paganism, where we can have designers at many levels, not necessarily with the same goals or even an awareness of each other. But God, or Gods under those circumstances are only small influences on the whole, and therefor are hardly greater than human‑kind.

The only way I can rationalize a pattern (here read "entity") that can encompass all the pattern from the bottom to the top is that the whole‑ which is the sum of all the parts must in actuality be that over all pattern.

The only way we can ever understand the entire thing is to become that thing. In theistic terms we must become one with God. But that means that we have to link in with the entire of creation. We must have an infinite band‑width communication path linking with an infinite number of nodes.

But how can that be achieved? I have no idea! Some have claimed to have perfected that communications link. Some claimed to have observed that others have done so. I believe that to some small extent people have been able to widen their communication path, for varying periods of time. But since the ultimate requirement is infinite to infinite‑ I should think that it would be in the infinite future that it would actually be attained.

Perhaps there are unifying principles operating in the universe as a whole. We sometimes have some glimmerings that there may be. But most of us haven't really tapped into the information bus. Maybe someday we will to some greater extent. Maybe not. There is so much to learn and so little time!

And now for the sequal:

Over the last several years UU’s have devoted a significant amount of attention to the subject of "spirituality." At first glance this might be interpreted to go against one tradition in Unitarian churches (and to a lesser extent in Universalist churches) to stick with the so‑called "rational" approach to life. We have prided ourselves on sticking with the Scientific method. We have tended to reject anything which cannot be rationalized: which cannot be "proven" in the traditional "scientific manner."

At first glance, our search for spirituality goes against this tradition. I don't think so. Science and rationality are still powerful tools and can be brought to bear on the subject of spirituality. But we must take advantage of all the developments of Science. We cannot stay with the classical Science many of us learned forty of fifty years ago. Progress is steadily being made and we have to draw upon it.

My approach is only one of many possible ways to rationalize spirituality. There is a need among U/Us to bring out this subject from many directions. This need is not necessarily in conflict with the rational, scientific approach we have traditionally used.

I postulated that all of existence is composed of just information and quite possibly nothing else. I would now like to get more practical; to bring those premises into the real world, living in the present with our human characteristics and with our human societies.

Our societies are build on patterns, just as the individual human being is built upon patterns. In order for any human organization to function, there must be communication between individuals both inside that organization and between members and "outsiders".

Human communication has three components:

1)The encoding of ideas, emotions, information stored in the human brain into symbols e.g. written English, pictures, sounds, smells etc..

2)The transmission of the encoded information (via sound, sight, electronics or whatever).

3)The decoding of the transmitted symbols back into ideas, emotions, information capable of storage in the human brain. The encoding and decoding is imprecise. It is not reproducible.

It is analog, at best; certainly not digital.

I am getting into technical jargon. I mentioned Analog vs. Digital. You don't really need to know what they are. Just realize that Analog vs. Digital is the juxtaposition of imprecise vs. precise. There is a newer concept involved in what I'm driving at‑ being used by the people working on data compression.

We are constantly researching how to compress data so that it can be stored in smaller and smaller spaces. We also need to compress data so that it can be transmitted faster and more economically. But an important factor to be considered when you compress data is that when you DE‑compress the data‑ that is restore it to its original form‑> have you changed it or is it still exactly like the original? You can get much higher levels of compression if you are willing to live with some distortion when you get it back again.

Life is like that. Most of our communication takes place in a hurry; with little or no checking to see if the thought‑feeling‑idea was received properly.

When I say "data", I mean pattern. It may be a musical passage. It may be a picture. It may be a view out the window. It may be a recipe for Quiche. It may be the recipe for a human being. The only way we know how to transmit, compress and manipulate data precisely is to first render it into digital format. That is convert it to a stream of binary information‑ digital information. The conversion from the actual to the digital involves significant distortion in itself. But once the conversion is made, we then have the options of precise manipulation or of designed imprecision made for various reasons. The information loss in encoding, transmission and decoding can be subject to precise mathematical analysis.

Encoding, transmission, decoding is equivalent to Compression, storage, decompression. We also have precise methods for determining whether any distortion took place, what type of distortion it was and how much.

Now what does that have to do with our human organizations‑ with Nature Coast UU or the legislature or a business enterprise?

Any time we translate thoughts or feelings to words we are encoding those thoughts and feelings. We transmit the words. We talk or write and another person listens or reads. The words are then translated back into thoughts and feelings.

The effect on the other person results in attitudes and/or action. But the resulting attitudes or action are based upon the interpretation received and may not (probably not) have the result desired by the originator.

Of course there are also other means of communication‑ "body language" ‑ nuance and intonation of speech‑ and one that is often overlooked: example.

"Spirituality" may be the human response to transmission of brain stored information between humans on a different channel than the one of language. For instance, people working together in groups to attain a common goal‑ all the hustle and bustle at Church on Sunday morning with everybody doing various things‑ all transmit feelings, ideas, images etc. without the language encoding necessarily taking place.

Another form of communication takes over. Certainly there is plenty of language communication going on, but there is also a lot of non‑language contact. This method of communication is in some ways, more precise than communication with language. It is less sensitive to distortion in transmission from one mind to another.

"Common worship" could well be another extra‑verbal means of communication. Even though there is certainly plenty of language used‑ there is also the meeting together and some sharing of emotions‑ or just sharing by the "togetherness" engendered. This results in some communication on an extra‑verbal level.

Prayer, silent meditation, music, just "feeling" the mood of the morning. When we do these things together‑ there is a communication on several levels which is extra‑verbal. This communication allows us to share something valuable which can never be adequately encoded into words.

Spirituality may be looked upon as communication between individuals, groups and quite possibly other entities on a extra verbal level. A level with a greatly reduced distortion over the distortion introduced by encoding and decoding through language.

Some of my friends have said when I am talking as I have been this morning that maybe I’m just looking for a cosmic internet to plug into.