Do Opposi-tions compose the universe?

Introduction

I think I've figured out where "everything" comes from. It was 20 years ago, during a hot August day in Chicago, when I wrote the following 830-word essay (while nursing a quart of Old Style beer). Personally, I believe this defies all known classification systems, but (please) judge that for yourself.

Note to Buddhists: If the following God-talk makes you uneasy, just think of this exercise as one more expedient means by which we try to get the God-people to think through their dogma.

Here's a challenge: After reading, answer this question: Is this for real or is it some kind of joke?

What are Opposi-tions?

There's a hidden meaning behind the equation (+X) + (-X) = 0. If we think of zero as meaning "nothing," then the equation tells us that "nothing" has component parts which, when added together, give us "nothing." What are these component parts? I give the (+X) and the (-X) a special name: Opposi-tions (say uh-POZ-i-TIE-ahnz).

What is an Opposi-tion? Well, let's put it this way: Physicists can stop looking for the smallest sub-atomic particle, for what could be smaller than the building blocks of "nothing?" These most basic building blocks of all Creation exist in either of two forms: as Positive Opposi-tions (+X) or Negative Opposi-tions (-X). I call them Opposi-tions because the one type (+X) is opposite in nature to the other type (-X).

This is what we have so far: "If you have one Negative Opposi-tion and one Positive Opposi-tion, you can create one unit of nothingness (a single Voidic Atom) by adding them together." What do I mean by "adding them together?" This adding process is done by what I call the BAF - the Basic Additive Force. Well, since we have Opposi-tions of opposite nature, I guess we need an opposite to the BAF. I name this the Basic Subtractive Force (BSF). The BSF must be present to pull "nothing" apart; that is, to pull (+X)'s away from (-X)'s.

This is the only logical way we can start the process of Creation - with "nothing" to start with. However, a sufficient application of the BSF would soon give us a great number of "free" Opposi-tions to work with. Depending on how many of (and in what manner) these re-configure, specific members of the most basic group of sub-atomic particles are created. These, in turn, combine to form the sub-atomics we're familiar with. Once these larger particles are created, the familiar rules of physics come into play to finish the process of Creation.

This theory doesn't need a Big Bang to explain the creation of the universe. Perhaps Creation (and Un-Creation?) are processes still at work - at this very moment. If so, where does God (or, as some people call it, "the Law") fit in? Consider these possibilities:

ONE: God is Everything and Nothing.

That is, He's the essence of matter (in the forms of the two types of Opposi-tions) and He's the essence of energy (in the forms of the BAF and the BSF) and He's Nothing (when Opposi-tions are "added" together to form Voidic Atoms). This view is a form of neo-Pantheism. In order to consider God to be Everything (and, yes, Nothing is a part of Everything!), He has to, on occasion, manifest Himself as Nothing.

Consider God as a Force. When parts (or aspects) of this Force become restricted - as does energy "contained" in atoms, for instance - then this Force manifests itself as things - i.e., as particles of matter, not just as energy. Since "things" and energy are accounted for - and are the only "things" that make up the universe - Materialists can be satisfied with this first possibility.

TWO: He's only the BSF.

Without the BSF, only Nothing would exist (if "Nothing" can be said to "exist"). Since it seems that a lot of people don't feel pressured to explain where "Nothing" came from, calling the BSF "God" (a God that didn't have to create Nothing but only used it as raw material for creation) would be acceptable. This view is the closest to the traditional Judeo-Christian stance: God is a Thing which existed side-by-side with the Void, and then used "elements" of the Void (a usage we call Creation).

THREE: He just can't be the BSF.

Knowing that BSF stands for "Basic Subtractive Force" - also knowing that subtraction is a negative, "taking away" process - would prove to be bothersome to those who think of God as a positive, giving Thing. The very idea of negativity being the Cause of Creation seems to be sacrilegious. This view is closest to being superstitious and is based on know-nothingism.

FOUR: Perhaps He manifests Himself as both the BAF and the BSF.

Some people would insist on this "because" one of the powers of God must be the ability to create nothing from something as easily as to create something from nothing. If God were a duality, He could very well be both types of forces - the BAF and the BSF - simultaneously. A scientist would be the first to point out that, in nature, there is no such thing as a monopole - that is, for example, a magnet with only a south pole (or only a north pole). A logician would be the first to point out that there can be no "up" without a "down," no "in" without an "out," no "plus" without a "minus." Furthermore, "ups" and "downs" are not two separate things, but are aspects of one basic, primality.

This view is closest to being "fair" - or logically even-handed - or scientific - or even a manifestation of the Yin and Yang principle.

Conclusion

When I wrote this, I had fun doing so. And that's important, since religious contemplation too often tends to bring out a lot of dark heaviness. I hope you can at least see the humor in this piece. At most? I hope you can see its implications.

Steven Searle,  just another member of the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com