Why the Universe Doesn’t Fall Apart

Ever since Woody Allen ‘discovered’ cosmic inflation (Annie Hall), folks have been asking, “So why doesn’t the Universe simply fall apart? What holds everything together? How is it that Universe is a universe, that it has an identity, that we can make statements that apply to the whole qua whole rather than to just some (or the sum) of its parts?” 

The Universe consists of ‘events’ – quanta of Being, connected in some way(s) to constitute a single event, a Universe. We’re all familiar with the 4 interactive forces: EM, Strong, Weak, and Gravity. They connect events laterally. Every event is linked to other events by these reciprocating forces and wholes are equal to the sum of their parts.  

It is my hypothesis that a universe of events linked together in this way only is not possible. At the end of the day, these bonds are insufficient to generate the degree of solidarity required. Also, according to this formalism, it is not even possible to define the whole as an ‘event’…which is a problem for a Universe that consists entirely of events. 

The actual Universe links events in additional ways. For instance, events are linked via a phenomenon known as Quantum Entanglement. In 1964, John Bell proved (and Alan Aspect later confirmed) that quantum events that interacted strongly in the past remain connected, i.e. entangled, in the present.  

In essence, these events, no matter how remote they may be in spacetime, behave as a single event. Like a skein of yarn, the Universe is inextricably tangled in this way; we call such a universe ‘non-local’. Non-locality provides an additional, stronger mode of connectivity between events.  

Our naïve notion of lateral connectivity via the 4 forces is challenged by the phenomenon of spatial separation. Space works at cross purposes to 2 of the forces. These forces (EM and Gravity) decline in strength according to the square of the distance between entities (inverse square law), i.e. doubling the distance between events reduces the strength of EM and Gravitational attractions by 75%. And on top of that, the Universe is continuing to expand, possibly at an accelerating rate. Not good news for cosmic solidarity! 

There is a third mode of connectivity which is even less intuitive. The events that make up the Universe are held together, and given definition, i.e. identity, by Universe itself. This mode of connectivity is counter-intuitive only because we are stuck in a ‘bottoms-up’ mindset. We are used to causes that produce effects, parts that form wholes.  

Why should this be so? Why should the whole be defined solely by its parts? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the whole to create its own internal partitions, its own structures? We tacitly acknowledge this whenever we talk about a whole being greater than the sum of its parts. This phenomenon masquerades in our ‘bottoms up’ world as teleology, tachyons, synergy, etc.  

The synthesis of a whole from its parts is what we call an ‘accident’ while the distillation of parts by its whole is what we call an ‘intention’. Intentionality is the opposite of determination just as accidents are the opposite of effects. But we are instinctively uncomfortable with such a ‘top-down’ model. 

Would we really prefer to live in a world where future events are caused by their predecessors? How miserable! Effectively, such a Universe is compelled to perpetuate its past, albeit in different forms, without respite. Is this Hell? Thank God we don’t live in such a place! 

We are less familiar with wholes that define their parts, with effects that determine their own causes. Yet, the Apostle John based his 2450 year old Gospel on precisely such a structure:  

“In the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the logos was God. Logos was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through logos and without logos nothing that came to be came to be…” (Jn. 1:1 - 3) 

The order of things precedes the things that are ordered. “It from bit.” (Wheeler) Order does not arise epiphenomenally by a chance combination of unrelated elements. How could it? Without order, how do you get order? “It’s emergent,” you say; but emerging from what? 

Order naturally degrades (entropy); it does not suddenly manifest. Humpty Dumpty’s shell does not spontaneously reassemble, like ‘dem dry bones’ in Ezekial. Then how is it that discrete entities, with internal structure and external relations, come to be?  

Don’t say ‘bootstrapping’. It’s a fun concept and, of course, there are many circumstances in which entities do appear to order themselves spontaneously, but this is only because the principle of order (logos) pre-exists. Bootstrapping cannot account for ‘order’ per se. Being is ordered necessarily, not accidentally!   

Anaximander, for example, believed that entities co-actualize by granting each other ‘reck’ (i.e. consideration, ‘space’). But the potential of things to be, the order that they will manifest, pre-exists the things themselves. Potentiality precedes actuality. 

The 4 forces operate in a world that is quite familiar to us; it is Archimedean, meaning that it exhibits continuity that can be fully described using real numbers only (extended to include complex numbers). We love real numbers! And why not? Between any two real numbers there is always another real number…so it would seem that the requirement of continuity is well satisfied. 

It isn’t! At least not fully. Non-Archimedean geometries expand the domain to include ‘unreal’ numbers, e.g. hyperreal infinitesimals. Between the lowest positive real number and 0, there exists an infinite number of hyperreal infinitesimals. They add another level of continuity to the already continuous set of ‘reals’. 

Real, Schimel, what’s the difference? With Real Numbers, whenever a > b, there is always some number n so that n*b > a. Not so with hyperreals! 

This modification seems innocuous enough; but once again, it isn’t! Among its unexpected corollaries: 

• All triangles are equilateral or isosceles. 

• For any sphere, any point on or in that sphere can be taken as its center. 

• For any two spheres, either one is wholly embedded in the other or they are entirely disjointed, i.e. there are no overlapping spheres, no mere tangencies. 

Without enrolling in Cal Tech, you can see intuitively that each of these corollaries describes another level of connectivity between events. It is our hypothesis that non-Archimedean geometries will be required to model Quantum Behavior (the whole < the sum of its parts) and Teleology (the whole > the sum of its parts) efficiently.  

We have tried to account for the solidarity of the universe with just the 4 ‘lateral forces’. They form the belt that holds ‘the cosmic wardrobe’ in place. Except it doesn’t.  Unfortunately, the belt is not tight enough to prevent embarrassing and nihilating wardrobe malfunctions. 

Turns out, we need a pair of suspenders as well as a belt. Fortunately, we just happen to have the right accessories on hand. Think of entanglement as linkage operating ‘below’ the level of EM & Gravity and think of teleology as a bond operating from ‘above’; together, hold our Universe together.  

***

Kandinsky’s Composition VII (1913) unleashes a storm of interlacing lines, ovals, and color currents that compress themes he’d sketched separately—deluge, Last Judgment, and resurrection—into one vast, turbulent drama. Rather than depict a scene, it aims to sound in the viewer like music, using abstract form and rhythm to suggest spiritual upheaval and renewal.