"The entire system of things that is the Universe encompasses the very large and the very small, the astronomical scale of stars and galaxies and the microscopic world of elementary particles. Between these limits lies a complex hierarchy of structure and pattern that results from the interplay of forces and matter. And in the midst of all this we find ourselves.
"The aim of cosmology is to place all known physical phenomena within a single coherent framework. This is an ambitious goal, and significant gaps in our knowledge still remain."
Coles ends his preface:
"It is a good time to write this kind of book. An emerging consensus about the form and distribution of matter and energy in the Universe suggests that a complete understanding of it all may be within reach. But interesting puzzles remain, and if history tells us anything it is that we should expect surprises!"
What I wish to emphasise here is that the "single coherent framework" to which Coles refers must be created by and in human minds, and that such creation is a personal task for each and every human being. Each of us is at the centre of his or her own self-created 'universe'.
From my personal point of view, not only do "significant gaps in our (collective) knowledge still remain": I also feel that the scope of scientific cosmology as delimited by Coles is not, and probably never can be, sufficiently comprehensive to enable any "pure scientist" to utter the "last word" on the subject. The "world of elementary particles" is not "microscopic": it is "sub-microscopic". At the other end of the scale, we have no means of "sensing" where, if at all, the Universe ends. Even when amplified by the most powerful telescopes and microscopes, our physical senses are too limited to perceive more than tiny 'samples' of processes proceeding in an infinite Universe.
The "objective observer" cannot put the Universe on a bench in a laboratory and perform controlled experiments on it. This implies that, at both ends of the scale, physical science falls off the edge of the physically knowable world. Hence I suggest that scientific cosmology can never be anything more than a blend of experiential fact, logical inference, and imaginative speculation. This in turn requires the would-be cosmologist to learn as much as possible about his or her own constitution which, when physical science has exhausted its resources, must play the dominant role in forming a coherent personal mental model of the Universe.
Now please refer to Vibrations The Rationale of Mysticism.
Professor Kapp's seminal conception is that creation and extinction of matter are continuouly in progress throughout the Universe. Matter appears in space-time, exists for a while, and disappears without trace. Does this not "ring true" for us as being a "natural" process which we recognise in all aspects of our physical lives? Is it not true of our own bodies? Appearance and disappearance, birth and death, change and decay in all around we see.
In academic circles, the "origin" of the Universe is supposed to have been a "Big Bang" which happened "once upon a time" as in a fairy story; or about 14 billion years ago as in current scientific faction. We should, however, bear in mind that the "Bang" and its date are only the imaginary creations of certain people. Such a unique event need not be taken as "God's Truth", but only as "unholy writ". As an alternative, Kapp offers us countless billions of "little bangs" and "unbangs" constantly occurring throughout the Universe, and carefully considers the implications.
Could we perhaps come to see ourselves as consciously active participants in the evolution of the Universe, equipped and authorised to contribute our own "little bangs" to the intricate tapestry of creation?
Readers might obtain some helpful insights among the references listed under "See also:".
If we are properly attentive to our human experience, whether of the organic or the inorganic realms, we gradually begin to perceive regular patterns underlying what superficially seems to be a state of continual chaotic change. Closer observation enables us to describe these patterns in words or mathematical formulae which, with refinement, eventually assume the status of definitions or "laws".
The Law of Three Forces is a general statement of what is known in conventional physics as the 'Triangle of Forces'. It means simply that when three forces are in equilibrium, i.e. balance each other, they form a relatively stable configuration in space-time. For practical examples, look at the repetitive triangular structures which make up 'cantilever' bridges and cranes and provide the strength and stability needed to transfer loads over long spans and to resist deterioration for long periods of time.
In Hermetic System Lecture 5, Ouspensky points out that the Law of Three forces is a universal law, i.e., it applies in the metaphysical as well as in the physical world. Can we identify three fundamental metaphysical entities which, in equilibrium, produce stable configurations which are perceptible by our consciousness?
On page 8 of Cosmology: A Very Short Introduction, we read:
"The modern era of scientific cosmology began with Einstein's general theory of relativity, published in 1915, which made possible a consistent mathematical description of the entire Universe. According to Einstein's theory, the properties of matter and motion are related to deformations of space and time. The importance of this for cosmology is that space and time are no longer thought of as absolute and independent of material bodies, but as participants in the evolution of the Universe. General relativity allows us to understand not the origin of the cosmos in space and time, but the origin of space and time themselves."
Speaking for myself, I have great difficulty in imagining "deformations" of space and time. Also, I cannot readily imagine how an understanding of "the origin of space and time" can emerge from a mathematical description, no matter how consistent perhaps because I am firmly wedded to the proposition that space and time are properties of my own consciousness and, I assume, also of yours. They are two mental "faculties" whereby I can discern order and, by implication, purpose in a Universe that would otherwise seem merely chaotic.
We note in Frequency and Form that discernible forms result from vibrations in plasma, and this helps me to imagine space-time as a sort of mental 'plasma' in which formations, rather than 'deformations', may be perceived. We know from our own mental constitution that we discern forms in space and that 'stable' forms continue to exist for extended periods of whatever we know in ourselves as time. But what is it that 'vibrates' and thus gives rise to the 'forms' we perceive?
Ouspensky points out that the all-important third force is not always easy to identify. In connection with space-time, could it be a fundamental universal energetic vibratory substrate the ultimate unanalysable constituent of all 'stuff' which is 'formed' into the quarks, leptons, and bosons of quantum physics? Might it, indeed, be the very 'stuff' of consciousness itself? Could such a force be the "Spirit" that Thomas Troward discusses in The Universal Spirit?
When I search within myself, I feel that the thoughts and sensations of which I am conscious cannot be accounted for solely on the basis of gravitational and electromagnetic forces. Hence I am persuaded that the universal Spirit within each of us also conveys a unifying force which might be called consciousness. This is what makes us fully "alive", i.e. it is what gives us existence and enables us both to influence the space in the vicinity of our bodies and to emanate what we might call "noetic" vibrations which may be telepathically detected and interpreted at a distance.
Please refer to: