Kent ForbesSTPT 4600Prof. Robert RussellMay 2011

The Emergence From God Model

Summary:

Emergence (the existence of emergent properties in nature) indicates

the presence of a primary creative force. Viewed in this light, the

universe itself may be seen as an emergent property of God. In this

way, it is being created continuously. The model I present here

explains the ongoing creation as an observer-dependent interaction.

This is a linking principles concept, and utilizes David Bohm's idea

of an 'implicate order', along with Stephen Hawking/ Thomas Hertog's

'top down' cosmology hypothesis.

Emergence:

The term “emergent property” as used here refers to ontological

emergence. So, we see the universe as constituted entirely of

physical structures, simple or composite. But composites are not mere

aggregates of the simple. There are layered strata of structures

reflecting increasing complexity. Each new layer is the product of an

1

emerging, interacting range, of ‘novel qualities’. Their novelty

being not simply temporal (such as the first instance of a shape), or

the first instance of a particular quantity (the first mass totaling

257.981 kg). Instead, they are a fundamentally new type of property.

We might say that they are ‘nonstructural’, as the emergence of the

new property is not in any way constituted by the occurrence of other

fundamental properties, or relations of existing parts. Most

importantly, newness of property in this sense entails primitive

causal powers, reflected in laws that connect prior states to the new

emergent property. Fundamental particles such as quarks, leptons and

bosons are excellent examples of emergent properties.

Emergent properties are always fundamental, as they are irreducible

to properties at lower levels of complexity, even given ideal

information as to boundary conditions. Because emergent features can

have both same-level effects, and effects in lower levels, we can

recognize the presence of "downward causation".

Early descriptions of emergence could not give very clear accounts of

the relationship between the necessary physical conditions and the

new property, apart from the general lawful character of emergence.

2

Given the required pre-conditions, the new property would simply

emerge. However, more recent thought suggests that we think in terms

of synchronic supervenience, specifically “strong” supervenience. Dr.

Brian McLaughlin defines emergent properties as: “If P is a property

of W, then P is emergent if and only if (1) P supervenes with

nomological necessity, but not with logical necessity, on properties

the parts of W have taken separately or in other combinations; and

(2) some of the supervenience principles linking properties of the

parts of W, with W's having P, are fundamental laws (a law is a

fundamental law if and only if it is not metaphysically necessitated

by any other laws, even together with initial conditions.)”.1

Before a new property emerges, it is implicit. After it emerges, it

is explicit. The question of why new properties emerge is addressed

in a later section.

The Emergence of Space/Time:

Our experience of time is that it flows in one direction. Physical

processes evolve forward in time; hot coffee gets cold, stars

eventually burn out. Physics explains these processes in terms of

“entropy” (a measure of increasing disorder), also known as the

3

second law of thermodynamics. Basically: in a closed system, any

process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the

system. When applied to the universe, this is what we see. It's a

major part of our experience, and establishes an “arrow of time”.

However, a close look at quantum process reveals how limited our

understanding of space and time may be.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics predicts what

Einstein referred to as “spooky action at a distance”. According to

quantum theory, the properties of a pair of “entangled” particles can

be correlated instantaneously across distance. This was a problem for

Einstein, as he believed it would violate relativity's ban on faster

than light travel. However, with the advent of Bell's Theorem, and

many successful experiments, we now know this spooky action does

indeed occur. It may appear that information is “traveling” faster

than light between the entangled pair, but is this what's happening?

According to David Bohm, the answer is “no”. His idea, as expressed

in the fish tank analogy (appendix Fig A), is that we are really

looking at one thing. The “entangled” pair isn't really separated.

What appears to us to be two distinct entities, separated by space

and time, are actually unified. We are seeing multiple aspects of

4

this unity. The deeper reality that Bohm wants us to look at, he

calls the “implicate order”, which is the most fundamental state

imaginable. It represents total unity, or monism. Since the particles

are united in the implicate order, what looks like “travel” isn't

occurring at all – and none of this violates relativity. That is,

relativity appears with the emergence of space/time. For every

186,000 miles of “space” that explicates, one second of “time”

explicates.2

Space/time then, is seen as an emergent property of the implicate

order. Space/time exerts no downward causation on the implicate

order, which is absolutely fundamental, and unchanging. It follows

logically then, that the conditions of the “initial” universe are

still present, as the field which gives rise to the universe does not

change in time.

The Emergence of Matter:

Fundamental particles emerge from vacuum. Physicists have confirmed

that matter can be most accurately described as fluctuations in the

quantum vacuum. This confirmation work is done by simulating the

activity that occurs within protons and neutrons. These particles

5

provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter. Each proton (or

neutron) is made of three quarks - but the individual masses of these

quarks only add up to about 1% of the proton's mass. So what accounts

for the remainder? Quantum theory points to the strong nuclear force

(residual strong force, the second-order effect of the true strong

force), which binds quarks together. In quantum terms, the strong

nuclear force is mediated by a field of virtual particles called

gluons, randomly gathering themselves up, then disappearing again

back into the quantum vacuum. The energy of these vacuum fluctuations

must be included in the total mass of the protons and neutrons, but

it has taken decades to work out the calculations. The strong nuclear

force is described by the equations of quantum chromodynamics (or

QCD), which are too difficult to solve in most cases. So physicists

have developed a method called “Lattice QCD”, which models smooth

space/time as a grid of separate points. This pixelated approach

allows the complexities of the strong force to be simulated

approximately by computer.

Until recently, Lattice QCD calculations focused on virtual gluons,

and ignored other important components of the vacuum, such as pairs

of virtual quarks and antiquarks. Quark-antiquark pairs can pop up

6

momentarily and transform a proton into a different, more exotic

particle (the true proton is the sum of all these possibilities going

on at once). Virtual quarks make the calculations much more

complicated, involving a matrix of more than 10,000 trillion numbers.

There is presently no computer that can store such a large matrix in

memory.

Several groups have been working out different solutions to these

computational challenges, and a team led by Christine Davies of the

University of Glasgow has succeeded in calculating the mass of an

exotic particle known as the Bc meson. This particle contains only

two quarks, making it easier to simulate than the three-quark proton.

Earlier simulations got the particle mass wrong by about 10%, but the

newest figures are within 2% of the values measured by experiment.

So, the calculations show that QCD describes quark-based particles

accurately, and confirm that most of our mass comes from virtual

quarks and gluons emerging from the quantum vacuum.

The Higgs field is thought to make a contribution as well, giving

mass to individual quarks, electrons and other particles. But, the

Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum as well.

7

Fundamental particle masses are thought to come about from an

interaction with the Higgs field, which is redefined and partially

absorbed by other fields (via their redefinition). The Higgs-field is

conceptually different from the gauge fields, from which the

interaction particles (photon, W, gluon, Z) originate. If the Higgs

field exists, quantum theory demands an associated particle, the

virtual Higgs boson (the one remaining real-valued degree of freedom

of excitation from the vacuum-state, is the Higgs-boson). The Higgs

boson is required by the Standard Model, and is the only fundamental

particle predicted that has yet to be observed.

Using particle accelerators, scientists are now searching for the

elusive Higgs bosons. The leading candidate in the search is the

Large Hadron Collider. If it confirms that they exist, all mass is

virtual, and emerging from vacuum.

I suggest that the quantum vacuum is an emergent property of

space/time, and exerts downward causation on space/time - through

gravitation. In this way, quantum electrodynamics may be unified with

relativity.

The Emergence of Life:

8

The universe exhibits a property we describe as “life”. All

reasonable descriptions of an evolving universe begin without life.

The universe presents a combination of pre-existing conditions

without which life would not emerge. These pre-existing conditions

(properties themselves) are fine-tuned to allow for life. Life then,

can be seen as an emergent property of matter.

The degree of this fine-tuning for life is hard to grasp. Hugh Ross

gives an example of one of the less fine-tuned variable (the ratio of

protons to electrons) “One part in 1037 is such an incredibly

sensitive balance that it's hard to visualize. The following analogy

might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all

the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In

comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt

would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.).

Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents

the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into

the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to

pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in

1037” 3

9

Tuning is seen in atoms as well, where the difference in the mass of

the neutron and the mass of the proton must be approximately equal to

twice the mass of the electron. The mass-energy of the proton is

938.28MeV, the mass-energy of the electron is 0.51MeV, and the

neutron weighs in at 939.57 MeV. If the mass-energy of the proton

plus the mass-energy of the electron were not slightly smaller than

the mass-energy of the neutron, then electrons would combine with

protons to form neutrons, with all other atomic structure collapsing,

leaving a universe of only neutrons. If this difference were just

slightly larger, then neutrons would all decay into protons and

electrons, leaving a universe of only hydrogen.

The strong nuclear force is tuned in another, similar way. The Sun

burns by fusing together hydrogen atoms. When two hydrogen atoms

fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If

the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller - 0.6%, a proton

could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of

hydrogen. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger -

0.8%, fusion would happen so profusely that no hydrogen could

survive. The number must lie precisely between 0.6% and 0.8%.

10

Here are the numbers on a few other variables:

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force/Gravity 1:1040

Mass of Universe 1:1059

Cosmological Constant 1:10120. 4

Add to this the fact that life, in any viable description, arises

from the elements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen (C, H, O,

N), and their resulting chemicals water (H2O), ammonia (NH3), and

methane (CH4). There is currently no stable model for any alternative

biochemistry. From what we can tell, the only life that could exist

must be very much like us.

The picture we're getting is of a universe that seems to serve the

express function of allowing life (observation) to emerge. All

properties that precede life must emerge in accordance with the

outcome of life. And, the initial universe must contain all the

information necessary for this process to occur.

One might conclude that there's a relationship between the universe

and life. I would argue that the “state” of the universe is

continually observer-dependent, that it exists to be observed, and

11

that this is why new properties emerge at all.

Some of the arguments against the anthropic principle:

a.) There may be an infinite number of lifeless universes. In such a scenario, we would expect one of them (ours) to contain life.

This argument is losing favor, due mostly to its inherent non-

scientific nature (not verifiable or falsifiable).

b.) There is an unknown underlying principle that creates a relationship between the

variables.

I concur, and suggest here that the underlying principle is the

observer, which exerts downward causation on all other properties.

Top-Down Cosmology:

This idea builds on the anthropic principle by incorporating Richard

Feynman's “sum over paths” approach to describing quantum events.

First described by Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog, the top-down

cosmology concept is this: If we accept that any reasonable model of

the initial universe presents a singularity, then the initial

universe is a quantum state. As such, it is best described by the

Feynman sum-over paths integral. Since quantum events are best

12

described as probabilities, and not by classical laws, the Feynman

approach replaces the notion of a single, unique trajectory for a

system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of

possible trajectories. In a typical example (appendix Fig. B), an

electron is fired at a barrier with two openings. It may travel

through either one or the other. After many firings, a wave-like

interference pattern is seen on the detector screen. The path

followed by the particles is best described as a probability, and the

possible paths of the electron are infinite. While the electron is

“traveling”, it is in a state of “superposition” (everywhere).

Feynman understood the necessity of recognizing infinite

possibilities as a fundamental property of nature. Two mathematical

physicists, Konrad Osterwalder from Switzerland and Robert Schrader

of Germany, have proved a theorem showing that the properties of

quantum theory, formulated in the space-time of special relativity,

can indeed be reconstructed exactly using the Feynman integral. So,

the “initial” state of the universe is actually an infinite variety

of initial states. There is no “single event”.

We know from the above-described double-slit experiment, that the

presence of an observer collapses the wave-aspect of the electrons.

13

Recognizing the observer-dependent nature of quantum states,

Hawking/Hertog assert that the act of looking back through time to

observe the early universe effects how it behaves (what we detect).

Quantum states are influenced by observation. If the initial universe

is a quantum state, then it is influenced by our act of observing and

describing it. So instead of looking at the universe from the bottom-

up (a single event occurs and evolves through time) we should look at

it from the top-down (the observer in the present looks back on one

possible path of the sum-over integral). For Hawking/Hertog, the most

accurate description of the initial universe traces a line backwards

from the present, instead of beginning with a theorized past event

which evolves forward to the present.

What I add to this idea is the suggestion that the act of looking

forward in time has the same observational effect on the “outcome” of

the universe, which remains a quantum event. The ultimate fate of the

universe is an infinite variety of states, and is observationally

influenced by our efforts to define it.

Emergence of Awareness:

In this model awareness emerges from God, and is imparted into

14

creation independently of the implicate order. So, awareness is not

an emergent property of the universe, but is a complementary aspect

in creation. I maintain that since God gives rise to the implicate

order, which is unified and unchanging, awareness must have a

parallel relationship with the implicate order, and reside in the

domain of the “sprit aspect”, alongside the “physical aspect” of

creation. In this way, the implicate order can emerge from God as

monistic (its only property). One might say that the implicate order

is the particle associated with the field of monism, and awareness

provides observation. All succeeding properties maintain this

parallel relationship with awareness, which is equally fundamental

to, but outside of, the implicate order.

In Conclusion:

Individual awareness reflects God's intention to observe. The

universe is a quantum event, predicated upon the existence of an

observer. Matter can be demonstrated to be an emergent property of

the quantum vacuum. The top-down cosmology of Hawking/Hertog asserts

that, as a quantum state, the universe had every possible beginning.

It seems equally logical to assert that the universe has every

15

possible outcome as well. If we see the origin of the universe as an

observer-dependent quantum state, then by logical extension, the

outcome of the universe is observer-dependent as well. Quantum

physics has conclusively demonstrated non-locality. We might then

view the universe as intrinsically timeless, and recognize that the

initial conditions and information that allowed for life to emerge

are still present.

The universe can be reduced to a single field, and the act of

observation. Thus, the process of continual creation is manifest by

God the observer. In this way the universe is emerging from God, and

is forever new, infinite in possibilities.

The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, how will our end come?" and Jesus said, "Have you found

the beginning, then, that you are seeking the end? You see, the end will be where the

beginning is.”5

--->Implicate Order>Space/Time>Matter>Life

God --->

--->Awareness------------------------------------->

Endnotes:

1. Brian P. McLaughlin Emergence and Supervenience, Intellectia, 25,

16

(1997): 25-43. 2. Peter Russell, The Primacy of Consciousness, Physics of Consciousness Conference, Virginia Beach, NC: Nov 20, 2004. 3. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress 1995 4. John D. Barrow, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Clarendon Press 1987 5. Gospel of Thomas:18 Public Domain Translation 2003

17

18

19

Bibliography:

Stephen Hawking, “Cosmology From the Top-Down” Lecture - Davis

Inflation Meeting. May 29, 2003

David Bohm, “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”: Routledge 1980 John

D. Barrow, “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle”: Clarendon Press

1987

Christine Davies, “A Prediction of the B*_c mass in full lattice

QCD”: University of Glasgow, 2009

Paul Davies, “About Time - Einstein's Unfinished Revolution”: Reed

Information 1996

Edward Harrison, “Masks of the Universe”: Cambridge 2003

20