Quantum Physics Division, Faculty of Physics,
A. Mickiewicz University, Poznaρ, Poland
The beginnings of European philosophy date back to about 2600 years ago, when a small group of Greeks made the first attempt at understanding the world with no reference to religious concepts. To them, the universe appeared as a huge living organism. When confronted with an organism, it is a natural intellectual impulse to decompose it into the simplest elements. To understand the organism, one needs to find its fundamental components and principal laws of its operation. European philosophy started from a well formulated question about the underlying principle of the world. Soon to describe the most fundamental matter and the most fundamental principle of the world, philosophers coined a term arkhe. Although the present understanding of the universe is drastically different from that developed 2600 years ago, the problem of finding its arkhe is still somewhat important. This problem has had a great impact on the development of the study of the physical world by reducing it to elementary principles, which is still followed today.
It is difficult to say precisely when the word arkhe emerged as a technical term of philosophy. It was surely used in this sense by Anaximander of Miletus, a student and then a successor of Thales. Anaximander represents the Ionian philosophy of nature concerned with the search for the first principles and original cause responsible for the form of reality. After Aristotle, the philosophers representing this current were called physicists. Their main aim, i.e. the search for the fundamental principle of reality, which was assumed to be a substantial and normative origin of the universe, has remained one of the most important pursuits of European philosophy partly accepted by modern physics. In contemporary physics this pursuit is expressed by an effort to come up with a general theory making possible the description of all physical phenomena. However, the methodology of physics seems much too restrictive and narrow to allow finding the fundamental principle of reality, that is the arkhe.
In the present essay we will show that the true most fundamental principle, being the deepest possible one, is an appropriately defined omniscience. Thus, the starting point of our considerations will be the following postulate.
There exists omniscience absolute knowledge that is the greatest possible to be conceivled.
With the above hypothesis assumed to be true, we will consider the consequences of this assumption.
To man, only partial knowledge is available. Having incomplete knowledge by extrapolation, absolutisation and idealisation and by the use of analogies, man can imagine the notion of omniscience. Omniscience is knowledge reaching beyond human imagination and comprehension, understood as everything that a human mind can contain. Since knowledge is an attribute of the mind, we put forward a hypothesis that there exists an intelligent being having omniscience denoted as O and defined as the greatest possibly conceivable knowledge. So defined, O is unattainable by human mind and man is only able to determine some of its features implied by its definition.
Let us concentrate on the following important problem: according to the definition of omniscience O the omniscient being knows everything. His knowledge includes full knowledge of himself, which as absolute is identical to its being. Hence, the intelligent being does not have omniscience but is omniscience. Therefore, henceforth we will not talk about the omniscient being but about omniscience O.
For people intelligent beings of limited knowledge the knowledge of themselves is much smaller than that fully defining them. My knowledge is not me if it were me, I would always have it for the simple reason of my existence and I would not have to learn to acquire it; moreover, I would never forget anything. Still, since my knowledge is not me, it is much smaller than me and I do not have full knowledge of myself but only a vague concept of myself as a human being.
Identification of the omniscient being with omniscience can seem paradoxical but it is directly implied by the definition of omniscience. Consequently, omniscience becomes a subject and not an object, not a thing but a being. In this way we reveal the nature of the intelligent and omniscient being which turns out to be omniscience. Concluding what was discussed above we can say that
The omniscient intelligent being is the omniscience O, which means that O is not an object but a subject.
For people the process of acquiring knowledge includes many changes: learning what we have not known, forgetting what we have known, association of facts, meditation or contemplation. The changes result from our ignorance and from imperfection of our memory. We perceive them as a one-directional flow of time overlapping with the relatively regular rhythm of our physiology and changes in surrounding nature. The omniscience O knows everything possible and does not forget anything; it knows the past, the present and the future and that is why it does not undergo any changes. Its cognitive activity is invariant and unlimited. The omniscience O has absolute knowledge in a single act of acquiring it in eternity which is not time. Eternity is the plenitude of omniscience being omniscient. Hence:
The omniscience O is invariable and thus eternal.
Undoubtedly there is only one omniscience O, but the omniscience of itself is also omniscience O. As follows from logic, no rational idea includes itself; therefore, there is no rational reasoning allowing comprehension of the omniscience. It also means that it is impossible to comprehend the omniscience for everyone except the omniscience itself. Thus, for us the omniscience is the deepest and incomprehensible secret of incomprehensible sense. Postulating the existence of the omniscience O, we accept the mystery which is the condition of the understanding of omniscience. Therefore, we can formulate:
The omniscience O is and will be an incomprehensible mystery for rational reasoning.
As we know very well from our daily experience, things comprehensible by our senses differ from those created in our minds imagined as elements of our knowledge. It can be supposed that the same is true in the omniscience. Let us assume that along with the omniscience O there is another real being, which is not the omniscience O; then the omniscience O includes the knowledge of itself and the knowledge of this real being. However, the knowledge of the omniscience about itself is by definition omniscience, so the knowledge of the omniscience O would be smaller than omniscience, which would lead to a contradiction. In view of the above we have:
Apart from the omniscience O there is nothing else.
This conclusion implies very strong limitations on the ontological structure of the reality.
The knowledge of omniscience about itself is absolute so it is also the omniscience O or omniscience O' identical with omniscience O but differing from the latter by the fact that O is the source of O'. It can be said that the omniscience O' comes from the omniscience O like my thoughts come from my mind.
As follows from the definition of omniscience as the knowledge possibly greatest to conceive, the knowledge of the omniscience about itself is not the omniscience O because the existence of omniscience O' derived from O enriches the omniscience. Hence, the omniscience is not the only the subject O but two subjects O and O' and the knowledge of the mutual relation between them. The thinker and his knowledge about himself are different so the omniscience O and O' differ. The thinker is not the knowledge and the knowledge is not the thinker. The thinker's knowledge originates from the thinker and cannot separate from him and have independent existence. Analogously, O and O' are two subjects, but they are not separate. The nature of the two omnisciences is the same because there is only one essence of omniscience.
At this point a complication appears. The knowledge of the omniscience O’ about itself can be expressed in the omniscience O, or O' or another O'', and so on, the knowledge of O'' about itself can be expressed in O, O', O'' or O'''. Therefore, according to the definition of omniscience as the deepest and greatest ever possible to imagine, it should be expressed by the infinite and inseparable chain of subjects: O, O', O'', O''',...
This is, however, impossible for the following reason. The omniscience, being absolute knowledge, also comprises the acts of will of the omniscience. If there are two subjects O and O', the acts of will of the omniscience include their interrelation. Thus, the knowledge of O about itself should include O' and the knowledge about the mutual relations between O and O', but this would imply that the omniscience O is greater than the omniscience O', which is contradictory to the definition of omniscience. Moreover, as follows from the definition of omniscience, the knowledge about the act of will of O concerning the relation between O and O' is identical to the knowledge on the act of will of O' concerning the relation between O' and O. Otherwise O and O' would differ not only in origin, which would contradict the conclusion that there is only one omniscience expressed in the form of a continuous chain of subjects. Therefore, the knowledge of the mutual relation between O and O' enhances the omniscience of these two subjects in the same degree.
According to the definition of omniscience (see Postulate), this enhancement is the greatest possible, and it is possible only when the knowledge on the mutual relation between O and O' is expressed in the third omniscience O'' derived from O' and through it from O.
The presence of O'' generates two new relations: between O and O’’ and between O' and O'', and the knowledge of them should be expressed in another the fourth omniscience O''', expressing also the knowledge of O'' about itself. Hence, the knowledge about the mutual relations between O and O’’ cannot expressed in the omniscience So, we arrive at the contradiction of the definition of the omniscience. In order to avoid it, we have to assume that the fourth omniscience O''' is identical with the first one O. It is rather easy to see that this method is the only one to avoid contradiction. Under this assumption, the knowledge of the mutual relations between O and O' is expressed in the third omniscience O'', the knowledge of the relations between O' and O'' is expressed in O, and the knowledge of the relations between O'' and O is expressed in O'. In this way we obtain a closed, non-contradictory and complete set of relations, with O expressing its knowledge of itself in O', O' in O", and O" in O.
Three subjects O, O' and O'' have the same nature, they are omnisciences, but each one of them is fully itself, aware of itself as itself the first O as such, the second O' as such and the third O" as such as well.
In their mutual relations O, O' and O'' are three subjects and persons existing in the relations of "I," "you," and "we." They form an inseparable triune. In this triune each of the subjects O, O' and O'' expresses the knowledge of another subject about itself, and the knowledge of the mutual relations of the other two subjects. In this way, omniscience comprises not only the knowledge of the subjects O, O' and O'', but also that of their mutual relations. The above considerations lead to the following important conclusion.
The triune omniscience is an inseparable unity of the three subjects: O, O' and O'', differing by mutual relations. The omniscience O does not come from anything else, the omniscience O' comes from O and the omniscience O'' comes from O and O'. The omniscience O expresses the knowledge of O'' of itself and the knowledge of the mutual relations between O' and O''. The omniscience O' expresses the knowledge of O of itself and the knowledge of mutual relations between O and O''. The omniscience O'' expresses the knowledge of O' of itself and the knowledge of the mutual relations between O and O'.
A question arises, however: What its the nature of these mutual relations? We can learn about it only by analogy to human relations, since according to Conclusion 3 omniscience is not available through rational thinking. We know that relations between human beings are very complex, influenced by a whole gamut of knowledge, feelings and emotions. As a consequence, they cannot be defined precisely, accurately and comprehensively, yet a precise definition is not of importance now. What matters are only dual or bi-subjectal relations, because only such relations can occur in the triune omniscience. Apart from that, human relations can be classified also with reference to existence: I can either be neutral to the existence of another being, I may not desire his/her existence, or I may want the being to exist, which means that I enjoy his/her being. Henceforth, between two persons there can be either the relation of neutrality, or hatred or friendship.
On the basis of the definition of omniscience as the greatest knowledge possibly conceivable, we have to denounce the possibility that the triune omniscience can comprise the relations of neutrality and the more the destructive relations of hatred of the type: "I do not wish you existed." With the two options ruled out, only the third type of relation is left that of friendship. From the same definition of omniscience we can infer that the triune omniscience comprises relations that achieve the highest degree of friendship which is referred to as love.
Love is an unclear, ambiguous and open term that is difficult to define. For our purpose here love is considered only in its ideal sense because it refers to the ideal reality of omniscience. A given subject, which is the omniscience, loves two other subjects, yet each of these relations of love is a relation between two subjects. The loving subject desires the existence of another subject, and it desires it both for itself and for the other subject. What is more, it desires the relation not only for its own and the other subject's "I" , but for "us." In this "us" the two omnisciences are born as concrete persons and objects of love. The subject O, O' or O'' is a person in relation to another subject, not in relation to itself. We can talk about love only when there are two "Is" and the knowledge about a mutual "we" being the fruit of their unity. In other words, love in an ideal sense is a full unity which at the same time does not cease to be two persons.
Since by its very definition omniscience is invariable, the minimum love relation in a triune omniscience implies an unchanging, mutual and voluntary desire for the existence of another subject to create a unity with it. This suggests that the nature of the relationship in a triune omniscience which according to a definition of omniscience is love that is the greatest conceivable is the absolute love. A mutual love between O and O', their mutual "we" which is the fruit of their love, is expressed by the omniscience O'' coming from the omniscience O' and through it from O. Certainly, it is not only O and O' that love each other, but also O' and O''; a manifestation of their love relationship is O. Likewise, the love between O and O'' is expressed through the omniscience O'. Moreover, as it was already mentioned, O derives the knowledge about itself from the omniscience O', O' from O'', and O'' from O.
Hence, a full symmetry has been achieved in the chain of omniscience: O, O' and O''. In love relationship the subjects O, O' and O'' exist as "I," "you," and as an expression of a mutual "we." In other words, they exist as "the loving," "the loved," and "love." Hence each of the O, O' and O'' subjects is a fully absolute love. This implies that there can be neither more nor fewer than three loving persons: O, O' and O'', which differ in their origin. The omniscience O does not come from anybody, the omniscience O' comes from O, while the omniscience O'' comes from O and O'. The subjects constitute an inseparable triune of an absolute love with one omniscience which is love having one will. In the mutual relations of love O, O' and O'' are subjects of love and they exist as persons.
Therefore, one omniscience is not something, but "somebody" it is a person, but at the same time a triune absolute love. In view of the above we can formulate:
The triune omniscience is a triune absolute love that is possibly the greatest conceivable.
It should be noted that the absolute love comprises a unique timeless "dynamic" generated by an infinite chain of three persons mutually permeating one another: O, O' and O'' because the knowledge of itself of O is expressed by O', of O' by O'' and O" by O and again of O by O', of O' by O'' ad ininitum. We can write it down symbolically in the form of an unlimited sequence: OO'O''OO'O''OO'O''...., illustrating the dynamic of omniscience. This dynamic functions in spite of an absolute invariability of omniscience and it involves infinite permeation of persons O, O' and O'', where the person O' exists in the person O in the same way as my thought exists in my mind, but also through O'' the person O exists in person O'. Analogous relations hold between all the three persons: O, O' and O'' each of them "contains" the remaining two, yet it itself is also "contained" in them. In view of the above we can formulate the following conclusion:
Omniscience is invariable, but in the triune omniscience an unlimited and timeless process of mutual permeation of persons O, O' and O'' takes place.
At the same time, it is the dynamic of eternal, unlimited and infinite love which is both generated and manifested by persons O, O' and O''. There is a good reason for such a dynamic and unlimited chain of absolute love, since each of the three persons O, O' and O'' wants the other two to exist which is the minimum of love. The triune love is self-generating and it constitutes a closed, imperative and integrated set of explications which does not require any further explications. Then it is the fundamental principle of reality arkhe. This leads us to another conclusion:
The triune omniscience is a self-sustaining necessary (non-accidental) being which cannot be non-existent.
Love as a triune omniscience presents an eternal novelty to itself. Its being is an eternal circulation of love, which is not egoism since it is love in which none of the three persons O, O' and O'' keeps anything for oneself and this is the love of omniscience which is the greatest possibly conceivable. As it is known, egoism is the attitude of a person who wants to do good for oneself at the expense of another person, while this is out of the question in the case of absolute love which is the greatest possibly conceivable. The existence and life of the triune omniscience is loving. Omniscience is love in itself. The essence of this love is selfless and unlimited giving out of one's inexhaustible fullness.
Conclusions 4 and 6 inform us that the fundament of reality of everything that exists is an inseparable unity of persons constituting absolute love. Some people believe that the essence of being is matter or spirit, while others point at oneness. Yet they are all mistaken. The essence of being is the community of love. Absolutely the first is the inseparable unity in love of persons O, O' and O''. The communion of these persons is the archetype of all reality, according to which everything should be moulded. In this communion O, O' and O'' are all the more persons that they are the only ones, who are all the more a unity that they are persons. Therefore it is is absolutely wrong to juxtapose the gift of oneself and fulfilment of oneself.
As follows from Conclusion 4 and 6, everything that exists is omniscience or part of omniscience. This implies that the substance of reality is knowledge which does not exist outside omniscience. According to Conclusion 1, the omniscience is not an object but a subject. One omniscience exists in three persons which differ in their origin. So each of these persons is the omniscience which is at the same time the source and expression of love. Omniscience is invariable but according to Conclusion 7 in the triune omniscience an unlimited and timeless process of mutual permeation of persons O, O' and O'' takes place. Between the three persons a specific dynamic of love is generated, of love that is the greatest possibly conceived, and this dynamic generates a closed chain of absolute love which cannot grow.
Our human existence proves that the triune omniscience in the eternal decree of its will has found a way to enhance the dynamic of love. It took fancy to create from a part of omniscience subjects of limited knowledge, able to love.
As humans we are aware of the fact that we exist as active, self-conscious and intelligent beings of limited knowledge. According to Conclusion 4, we exist as subjects which are components of omniscience. Our conscious human being implies that the non-accidental triune omniscience which is absolute love wants people to exist so that it can create with each of them an independent relation of love. By definition love must be voluntary; therefore, omniscience, out of its free will thanks to which and in which we exist, provided people with a domain of freedom known as the universe which enables them to take unconfined, but somehow limited action. In compliance with the "logic" of love this domain of freedom has to leave them unrestrained in their declaration whether to accept or reject the triune love.
For this to happen, subjects must necessarily have their own free will, since the relation of love between subjects may be established only under the condition of free choice. This naturally presupposes the possibility of choice for or against establishing a relation of love with the triune omniscience. And this is why omniscience created a domain of knowledge in which people can make such a choice. Absolute love must be deeply embedded then not to disturb the sovereignty of human decisions in favour or against establishing the relation of love with absolute love. As humans, we experience such domains of knowledge as our bodies and the surrounding world. The universe cannot be chaotic; it has to be subject to some laws, as for example the laws of physics so that at least in some areas we could make free decisions and take some definite actions. In principle, therefore, everything we observe in our universe should be explicablee in a "natural" way through the operation of specific laws of nature.
Absolute love has hidden itself from us; it not only created the universe but also assigned to each human subject of limited knowledge a definite knowledge experienced by us as human body. The body determines the basic domain of human freedom. It must be complex enough to consider it as a complicated data processor a subject which is a being conscious of its existence. My body is both for me and for others a manifestation of my "I." It also works as a transmitter of knowledge flowing through the senses from the universe to my "I" and of knowledge transmitted from my "I", from my mind, to the universe.
The ultimate goal of omniscience is to prepare as many people as possible to establish the relation of love with it. To this effect, omniscience prepared such living conditions for a human being on Earth so that it could learn love through contacts with other people in the atmosphere of love, the fundamental and irreplaceable source of which in human society is the family; the family which is born out of a mutual love between a man and a woman and whose basic though not sole purpose is to have children. As it is known, sexuality of a man and a woman plays a very important role in the school of love. It makes people communicate and cooperate with one another. Because of the fact that people multiply through sexual intercourse, in human society complex relations of mutual interdependence are built. These relations produce social conditions which may constitute a good school of love.
Since human bodies are extremely complex systems, the environment in which people live on Earth must also be, for obvious reasons, very complex. Consequently, the human world must be a macroscopic world consisting of a great number of interacting elements.
Obviously, these elements (see Conclusion 4) are only "portions" of knowledge stimulated in the human mind by omniscience in compliance with the rules and laws established by it and correlated with a transfer of knowledge to other human minds. This ordered sequence of "portions" of knowledge transmitted by omniscience is perceived by man as the surrounding universe to be experienced by the body equipped with senses. Each subject has "its own universe" generated in its mind by omniscience. Since different subjects receive adequately correlated portions of knowledge, they think that they live in one common universe. This implies that people do not live in the universe, but that the universe exists in the minds of human subjects. Then, human subjects with limited knowledge exist in the triune omniscience which is absolute love. Hence one can distinguish three levels of reality. The first and the deepest level comprises triune omniscience which is love. The second level includes subjects with a limited knowledge, existing in the omniscience. The third level is made of ordered sequences of portions of knowledge stimulated, in compliance with the rules established by omniscience, in the minds of subjects and experienced by the subjects as the universe surrounding their bodies.
In view of the above it is justifiable to conclude that the actual environment in which human beings live is not the universe but the environment of absolute love, which is omniscience. This obliges humans to build the so-called civilisation of love. They must not contaminate the "environment of love" with hatred.
Proposed ontology general model of reality explains the mathematical frameworks of the fundamental physical theory quantum theory and its interpretational problems. It has been shown that the basic postulates of the quantum theory are a simple consequence of this ontology (see Zbigniew Jacyna-Onyszkiewicz, Physics Essays 12 (1999) 397-401; NeuroQuantology 3 (2003) 312-333). From the point of view of this ontology, the postulates of the quantum theory are only implications following from more general concepts existence of the omniscience. Moreover, proposed ontology indicates that the quantum theory principles apply to the whole universe.
The laws of nature apply only to the rules of transfer of knowledge to subjects created by omniscience; they do not apply, however, to omniscience itself and to the subjects. This is the reason why we are not able to comprehend the nature of omniscience and subjects using mathematical and empirical methods applied by sciences. This implies that none, even perfect and the most sophisticated, study of the brain will ever reveal the essence of our mind. The structure of our brain, and by the same token, the structure of the universe, is rational for it was designed by the triune omniscience. Hence, the rationality of the universe and its existence come from the same source. The existence of the universe is a manifestation of a rational idea conceived by omniscience. The universe is cognisable also for the same reason for which it exists. If there is no omniscience which is absolute love, then there is no justification for the existence of man, the universe and its rationality, which is a source of philosophy and science. It is only in a rational and meaningful universe that that it is worth pursuing scientific research. This leads us to the following conclusion:
Omniscience creates human subjects who have limited knowledge and are a portion of omniscience, and who are endowed with a free will. To prepare the highest possible number of such subjects who are voluntarily willing to establish with it the relationship of love, omniscience provides their minds with ordered and correlated knowledge which is experienced as their bodies residing in a common and rational universe.
The goal and at the same time the meaning of human existence is then to create an eternal relation of love with the impenetrable reality of the triune love. It is only this love that is able to fulfil one's heart. Human being is destined forever to recognise in love the impenetrable depth of the triune omniscience which for man always reveals itself as an eternal novelty.
It follows from the definition of omniscience that human subjects, once they are designed by omniscience by the power of its sovereign decision, they never cease to exist. This, in turn, suggests that death does not destroy our "I." So, it is only in the relation of love with the triune omniscience being love that we find the meaning of our existence. In this respect the love of the triune omniscience is unrivalled nothing can compare with it. The triune omniscience being love is then the meaning of our existence and the most fundamental principle arkhe of reality. In view of the above we can formulate the final conclusion:
The triune omniscience which is love provides the meaning of our existence. The aim, destination and meaning of existence of each human subject is forever to pursue, in the relation of love, the impenetrable depth of the triune omniscience.