Life is complex. Even the simplest lifeforms consist of an intricate metabolism that allows the processes of life to occur in addition to a vast complexity of nucleic acids, protein and carbohydrate. Not only does this form an irreducible complexity it also runs contrary to a fundamental principle of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that any system always runs in a way that entropy increases. Entropy is a measure of disorder, and the Law works because probabilistically there are more ways for a system to be disordered than for it to be ordered. What we see in life, however, is synthetic or anabolic reactions which decease entropy are driven forward by the hydrolysis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) which release energy. This ATP is synthesised in the cell by the catabolism or breakdown of glucose, so that the total entropy of the whole system increases. Glucose is in turn photosynthesised by the capture of photons of light, and so we have a totally self-funding localised decrease in entropy, of disorder. Thus rational science has a dual problem, in that not only how did life evolve, but why? Why didn’t things just stay as carbon dioxide, ammonia and water? Why did they have to evolve into a photosynthetic bacteria? Or a monitor lizard? Or a blue whale?
The Symmetry of Gnosis contains the idea that the universe is a fractal, a complex, holographic fractal, that evolves with time. A feature of fractals is self-similarity, which means that if you magnify the image at greater and greater resolutions, zoom in as it were, you see shapes forming that are reminiscent of the whole, and this continues to happen as the magnification gets higher. In the case of the universe we have the self-similar motif of the spiral, where galaxies are spiral, planets orbit stars and so form spirals in space-time, planets rotate around their own axes, weather systems spiral, DNA spirals…..it goes on and on. The quantum geometry described in the Symmetry is reminiscent of a wheel intersecting a wheel, both spinning in opposite directions, and this produces a counter-rotation, a double helix. It is this quantum geometry that defines the self-similar motif, the vortex of the candle flame, the spiral of DNA. The fractal evolves with time, and so the universe gets more complex as it ages.
A fractal definition of the universe clarifies a good deal of phenomena. For example, take any small, seemingly insignificant portion of the world and examine it in closer and closer detail, and it explodes into complexity – just like a fractal. This holds whether we are talking about chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, cosmology and just about every area of natural science. Another example is history repeating itself. As space-time evolves in a spiral it is natural that the same sets of circumstances to keep coming around again and again. This last idea allows us to add the interesting speculation, what if the universe expands in a spiral? What if, as we looked out into space, we were looking back on ourselves, again and again? This would allow us to radically reduce our perception of the extent and age of the universe.
The recent observations from the Planck Space Telescope have allowed physicists to radically increase their estimates of the age of the universe. According to Hawking, however, the universe has no boundary, no beginning and no end. Does not, therefore, the universe form a wheel? If it started with a singularity, does it not have to end in a singularity? Most physicists seem to think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but is this not due to our galaxy outrunning the gravitational pull of our neighbours? If the universe is expanding, then surely at some time past it would have been denser. The gravitational force acting against the expansion would therefore necessarily have been greater, causing a greater deceleration in the velocity of expansion. This would appear from Earth to be a relative acceleration as distance increases. The Hubble regression, therefore, is not linear, it curves upwards, exactly as current measurements show.
Another problem with Hubble is that, when we observe a galaxy 300 million light years away, we are observing it as it was 300 million years ago, due to the finite speed of light. We calculate from the red-shift that it was moving away from us then, but have no information about how it is moving now. Our nearest neighbours are moving towards us, so is it not possible that the universe has already started to contract?
Contradictions in science always point to something being wrong, of a flaw in theory. Just as the incompatibility between quantum theory and relativity points to the need for superstring theory, so the flagrant breach of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that life represents points to another angle in the story, some other truth that hasn’t yet been considered. I believe The Symmetry of Gnosis provides the answer. Fractal cosmology is based on the idea that space-time at minute scales is 2-dimensional, only becoming 4-D over larger distances; my model describes a 10-dimensional geometry that iterates in the sequence 1-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3- 4-2-3-ad infinitum and which is conjectured to be isomorphic with a Calabi-Yau shape. It therefore may bridge the gap between fractal cosmology and superstring theory in a way that is paradigm. The only problem, as far as most physicists are concerned, is that it also acts as a mathematical proof for the existence of God. In a way it’s not too far out to suggest that the thought, the design of the universe came first, but it forms a fundamental schism in thought between atheists and believers. Atheists don’t take evidence of a design as evidence of a designer. My hypothetical model of the universe, if shown to give the correct results, would be proof of the design – and, in view of the way in which it was derived, proof of the Designer.