This book proposes that the Standard Cosmological Model can be greatly simplified and improved by the expedient of postulating a form of absolute "Causality". This is to say that, even when the cause cannot be determined by direct observation, it must be inferred that the driving force for any action was applied through some physical means.
Of course, this would directly contradict the Copenhagen Interpretation (of the meanings of Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle") that has provided the basis for the Quantum Theory and its highly useful derivations. However, in its unlimited philosophical applications this has also led to "quantum weirdness" and finally to the futile conclusion that there is probably no single objective reality. Causality would not impair Quantum Theory, but rather it would relegate it to a special case that applies only to stochastic systems in which quantum effects are appreciable.
A case for going beyond the Copenhagen Interpretation is presented in the attached paper "Science Should Have a Rational Causal Foundation". There it is proposed that three fundamental laws of science that provide a purely theoretical foundation for the Standard Cosmological Model should be postulated. Together these laws would define the physical universe to be a single objective reality in which inductive inference can be freely applied, and in which no physical action occurs without previous and direct physical cause. The paper discusses and offers arguments against interpretations of experiments based upon "Bell's Inequality" that are claimed to have proven that the universe is lacking in one or more of these qualities.
In the causal universe, the Copenhagen Interpretation - that there is no physical existence beneath Heisenberg's Limits - can be seen to be merely a useful simplifying assumption that defines a special case of subatomic stochastic realities. This would be in the same sense that a dirrerent assumption - no forces other than those generated by their elastic collision and rebound act upon the constituent particles of a confined gas - defined the stochastic realities of atomic and molecular gases, and allowed derivation of the Perfect Gas Law. The fact that neither assumption is absolutely true means only that there are limits as to the applicability and accuracy of both theories. (Goodbye, Weirdness!)
Similarly, Absolute Causality would not impair statistical "field" theories other than to infer that such forces are transmitted and applied through some particular physical medium, whether or not it can be directly observed. And then the sources and actions of that medium need be explained, and so on. Even the Photon of electromagnetic energy must have a physical composition and structure.
But undoubtedly the principal benefit of the assumption of Absolute Causality is that it avoids the philosophical poverty of unlimited probabilism. For instance, if it is recognized that even the laws of thermodynamics have only limited applicability, then the predicted "thermal death" of the universe is not a certainty. Perhaps it can be delayed or avoided altogether by the conscious evolution of further structures and organizations having non-predictable potentials for actions beyond even current imagination. After all, such non-predictable and useful potentials have arisen in the past at each defining level of what is called the Evolutionary Process.
Indeed, consideration of the facts of the Evolutionary Process in light of Absolute Causality infers that there is more going on than can be explained by the laws of thermodynamics, quantum theory, and even the (current) Standard Cosmological Model. For instance, the continuing evolution of evermore complex structures having evermore powerful potentials is counter to these probabilistic laws, which decree that, except for improbable excursions and energy driven changes of physical state, structural complexity and organization will decay over time. Since such evolution has apparently been continuing in an unbroken progression of increasingly complex physical structures--from SubAtomic Particles at the Big Bang to Modern Man in recent years, and from compete chaos to conscious control of some physical systems--it seems reasonable to consider that , rather than being merely an improbable excursion, what we know as Evolution might instead be driven by some hidden physical cause.
This line of thought has suggested the hypothesis that there is operant in the Universe a convergent physical force that is more fundamental than even gravity, and further, that such force, here called "Contropy", is derived from actual potential that is created by positive-sum, cooperative interactions between or among individual entities and/or their collective structures. (This idea seems to directly violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, but, as argued elsewhere on this site, those Laws can be accommodated without need for modification within the larger perspective afforded by inclusion of the Contropic Scale as an extra physical dimension. See Contropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics.)
This hypothesis is extended into a formal theory set upon causal metaphysical and physical bases in the two appended papers (which are published at this site for free use and/or distribution): The Special Case of the Theory of Contropy and The General Case of the Theory of Contropy. The theory is tested in the special case for correspondence with fundamental realities by constructing models for the Photon, based on internal positive-sum cooperation. It is shown that, from first principles, these models allow the derivations of constants of dimensional relationship that closely match the Universal Constants of Planck (h), Einstein (c), and Boltzmann (k). Direct derivations for the Gravitational and Electromagnetic Force equations are also suggested by the models.
Among the predictions from the theory is that there might well exist practical catalysts for the "Cold Fusion" of atomic nuclei. This is based on contropic structural "working" models for the electron, proton, and neutron that suggest that the geometry and period of these cyclic structures, provided that they are relatively aligned in a very particular way with respect to axes of spin and polarity, can allow these structures to approach each other while experiencing only minimally if at all the general mutually repulsive force between them. With this alignment, the nuclei can, when within range, exchange their cyclic outer particles once per cycle and shorten the cycle time for both, creating a force of attraction between the nuclei, and stabilizing them into a "fused" structure. If a catalyst causes the nuclei to align in the right way, fusion might be accomplished without inputting the high thermal energy needed to overcome the repulsive forces that apply when the nuclei are simply slammed together at high temperature in random alignments.
Another prediction, derived from the depiction of the Photon as a dynamic physical structure, is that mechanical inefficiencies within that structure as well as within the beam will cause a loss of energy over time. This offers theoretical support for Fritz Zwicky's (1929) "Tired Light" theory, which he presented (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15:733) to explain the "red shift" observed in light from distant galaxies, and which was also supported by LaViolette's observational tests described in his (1985) article "Is the Universe Really Expanding?" (Astrophysical Journal 301:544-553). Such predicted loss of energy from light might be most pertinent currently in view of recent observations that seem to indicate need for correction of the "cosmological constant"(see 1999 Hogan, Kirshner, and Suntzeff: "Surveying Space-time with Supernovae", and Krauss: "Cosmological Antigravity"; both at Scientific American 280:1, pp 46-52).
Of course, the philosophical implications of being in a positive-sum, directed universe are much more hopeful and satisfying than are those based on being in a zero-sum (or worse), randomized universe. The book develops such implications into a Contropic Philosophy, based on the proposition that Contropic growth (the creation of increased potentials for positive-sum, cooperative interactions) is the fundamental "Good", by which progress--or antiprogress--can be measured. In this perspective, the primacy of the individual over the collective is firmly established. Incorporation of findings presented by Robert Axelrod in his 1984 book The Evolution of Cooperation (New York:Basic Books, Inc.) into the philosophy shows that the human traits generally held to be desirable by most religions are also consistent with Contropic ideals.
The philosophy offers sound bases upon which to prefer free market economies based in democratic republics that have explicit limitations on governmental powers. It is claimed that "In such a rationally consistent and simplified universe, it is increasingly possible for anyone to hope that he/she sees, and that he/she can serve a desirable purpose that gives meaning to his/her life." The open-ness of the Universal future depicted by Contropy is described as "comforting" in contrast to the closed future of "Thermal Death" that is predicted by the current Standard Cosmological Model. It is concluded that "When we realize that we truly are shipmates bound for tomorrow and work together harmoniously to reach for the stars, we can create Heaven on Earth."
In Cooperating for Survival in the
Positive-Sum Universe, Earl Willis
proposed that the universe is actually
causal and positive sum.
This stance doesn’t mesh with current
scientific theories, but he argues we
need to look at the universe in a new
way. In this companion to his first book, Willis elaborates on his theory that the universe is real, rational, and causal, and under that basis he proposes the theory of contropy.
This theory builds upon Darwin’s theory of evolution and further describes the evolutionary process to offer a new view of the world. It provides a simpler and more accurate description of reality than prevailing views.
Willis argues that his theory explains
the dichotomy of perspectives
between many reasonable, intelligent
people regarding political, economic,
and even religious issues. These
differences all hinge on whether
someone’s fundamental point of view is individualistic or collectivist.
Get ready to explore the philosophical, political, and economic implications of the theory of contropy, and find out how we can work toward a more positive future by Cooperating for Enhanced Survival in the Twenty-First Century.
The Theory proposes that an antientropic progressive evolution of
increasingly complex structures is and has been taking place in the universe since at least the Big Bang. This is a causal generalization of Darwin’s (1859) theory of biological evolution. It further claims that this EP is being driven against entropic decay by potential that is created through positive-sum, mutually beneficial (“cooperative”) interactions.
Unlike the probabilistic standard model that underlies current science
and scientific philosophy, The Theory holds that the universe is not a fundamentally randomized system doomed to inevitable thermal death. Instead, The Theory concurs with Teilhard de Chardin’s theory that there is a clearly documented trend in the universe marked by the progressive biological evolution of increasingly complex operating
structures. Chardin showed that this trend has reached a current extreme with the state of man, which he differentiated as being unique by virtue of the capability for reflective thought, which is the basis for rational consciousness.
The Theory extends this idea to claim that the EP trend of complexification
began either at or before the Big Bang and, more importantly, that there’s no reason to conclude that this line of evolution toward higher consciousness has ended with humans.