Cosmogeny: Theories on how the Universe came into existence, but, more importantly, where it is going.

'What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?'� Tommy Joyce asked me.

Tommy was almost a big brother to me. He was the one who taught me how to dribble a soccer ball, how to do a 'banana'� kick when taking a corner ' with either foot ' and how to defend myself against bigger and faster schoolmates. Being a few years ahead of me at school, he was always coming up with ideas that could be fascinating ' like Einstein's Theory of Relativity and other subjects he was covering in class.

It was years later, when reading the Old Testament, that Tommy's question came to mind. In the O.T., right at the start, it says that God created the world, and divided it into three sections (note: this is an interpretation, not the actual wording). The middle section was the Universe as we know it. The other two sections were what the Universe could become.

Now, if you understand Einstein's question ' Tommy's question in my mind ' it is really saying that an irresistible force meeting an immovable object is an impossibility in our Universe: all forces can be resisted, and all objects can be moved. These two entities would have to exist in very different Universes.

In other words, this is a postulate: there are three universes ' our normal one, one with irresistible forces, and one with immovable objects. God's three sections or 'vaults'�.

How God did it is not important. Even the question of whether God exists or not is unimportant. We can't demonstrate any assumption about God: with both assumptions (there is a God or there is not a God), there is no logical inconsistency, and both assumptions 'prove'� that they are right. It's a matter of belief more than something provable.

How does this relate to the three sections or vaults?

One thing we do know about our Universe is that it is always changing. And that changes are not reversible. Our observations fit with the idea of entropy. If we leave the Universe to do its own thing, we know for sure that, eventually, all energy will be distributed equally around the Universe ' the 'heat-death'� of the Universe. It's a one-way movement.

Think about this for a moment.

If all energy is equally distributed around the Universe, and everything is at the same temperature (something around 4 degrees absolute), would there be any real difference between it and the universe of immovable objects?

Things might actually still move, but that would be through inertia. There might be some changes in direction of movement when one mass bumps into another, but inertia would still be preserved. It would be a universe in which change is meaningless, if not impossible. In other words, a universe without any forces.

What's the opposite?

That's easy: a universe where there is no immovable objects, where everything is possible, and change is the only constant, and change is always meaningful.

It would be a Universe of syntropy rather than entropy, a place of synergy rather than energy. (The concept of synergy and syntropy come from another of the world's great thinkers, R. Buckminster Fuller. However, the use of the concept here is my interpretation).

It doesn't take much imagination to place this Universe in the third vault/section of the Pluriverse.

So, what's the point of this third vault?

Basically, it is a matter of Purpose. Specifically, the Purpose of life. Life is about choosing what our normal Universe will become. We really have only two choices: either we help our Universe go the 'natural'� way by increasing entropy, or we help it go the other way, by increasing syntropy. We work towards the Universe of Immovable Objects, or we work towards the Universe of Irresistible Forces.

It is not important how the Pluriverse came into being.

If you believe that God created it, then you believe in free will, a gift from God, because we are made in God's image. Which way would God have us push the evolution of our Universe? I'm certain it would be towards the Irresistible Forces one, the IF Universe, because, there, our free will can be fully exercised.

If you don't believe in God creating the Universe, then self-preservation, or preservation of the species, suggests that the IF Universe is the more desirable one, the one that ensures we survive for eternity.

Whatever you believe about God, the answer is the same: life is syntropic. We can't let our Universe devolve into the Immovable Object Universe, the Static Universe.

Until next time, keep on fighting The Amoeba!

Want to comment on this Essays? Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Essays and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...