Spacetime as a paradigm of our existence: beyond eternity! 10/20/25 – Une approche historique, scientifique et philosophique de la cosmologie

The mystery of our existence

On this site (see Philosophy (25/9/25)-24 items), we have shown at length that the justification of the existence of the universe and of our existence leads to tautologies. The consciousness of our existence justifies that of the universe of which we are an integral part. We are also an encompassing part of the universe, through our thought, which allows us to consider it in its totality.

Does it require a consciousness that considers it to give existence to the universe or any other object (extrinsic existence)? Note that such an existence for this consciousness simply means that it is present in the mind of this consciousness that has taken it into account.

When this consciousness is applied to the one who possesses it (intrinsic existence), is it of the same nature? Could it be possible for a mind to be able to ascertain the existence of an external object (to integrate it into its mind) without being able to assume and deduce the proof of its own existence with its mind and thus acquire the consciousness of existing?

As our mind is constructed, it seems natural that the two are related, but we must not lose sight of the fact that, since in this argument the mind speaks for itself, the objectivity of the argument is questionable.

That’s a lot of questions, the only answer, a little frustrating, that we have proposed is based on existentialist philosophy: existence cannot be explained, it can be observed. Let us emphasize the tautology since, in order to establish its existence, one must exist.

Creation and existence

Our usual patterns of thought, based on the concepts of time and space that are dear to us (immediate data of our consciousness according to the classical philosopher), considering that the default option is that nothing exists, we assume that a creation must have intervened for there to be something.

As Leibnitz said: « Why something rather than nothing? » It can be objected that if there is « nothing », there will be no consciousness to see it, which is again a tautology.

The physical character of the human

Since, it is paradoxical that our being, which, from a physical point of view, is an assembly of atoms, can obtain relatively precise knowledge about the nature of these atoms, our ultimate constituents, in particular about their possibility of combining in such a way as to produce very complex arrangements, allowing us to produce beings like us, which is not only necessary but also coherent with our existence, We can only deduce that it is the relations, the arrangements of atoms that carry the information associated with us, even if to do so, it is necessary that there are different possibilities at the individual level, certainly at a more limited level, but combinatorics will do the rest!

A fortuitous or fundamental structural morphism?

Faced with such a structure, we cannot avoid mentioning the structural morphism, on a macroscopic scale, with our brain, where the basic element is the neuron, which is a cell with relatively elementary functionalities, namely connections with other neurons, some receiving information, in chemical form, other neurons connected others transmitting, selectively (outputs can be activated and others inhibited), information, in chemical form, to other connected neurons.

The transfer function (law between inputs and outputs) depends on parameters previously acquired by « learning », a mechanism that promotes connections that have led to successful actions, which has resulted in a human pleasure characterized by the secretion of specific chemical substances. There is a feedback that will modify the activation/inhibition rules of neurons in order to promote the path followed that determined this success.

Thus, in the clumsy attempts of a baby trying to grasp an object, when he succeeds, it will favor the sequence of actions of the neurons controlling his limbs in his movements that have allowed this success, which will allow him to improve his efficiency (learning). It is clear that, as with atoms, it is combinatorics that represents information, the elements (neurons) allowing its implementation being relatively simple.

It should be noted that this simple neural structure (by learning) is proving to be incredibly efficient to the point that it is incorporated into the algorithms of the most modern computer systems.

There is a morphism between the structure, analyzed from the microscopic point of view, whose basic elements are the atoms, of our mind, of quantum mechanics, and that of our brain, analyzed from the macroscopic point of view, whose basic elements are neurons.

So, we cannot avoid considering that, since it is our mind, our brain, (with this structure) that is at work in the elaboration of the theory of quantum mechanics, the structure of nature, at the level of the atom, might be too fuzzy for being discerned, and what we see could be the imprint, in fact, of the structure of our mind, acting as a filter imposing its ultimate resolution on the perception of the phenomenon.

We can only discern what our mind allows!

As it has been said: « When humans pushed the study of nature to its ultimate limits, they discovered strange footprints, they were their own! »

Does the freedom of our thought have reasonable limits?

Another interesting point is, on the one hand, that we can hold this kind of completely entangled discourse and on the other hand that we can even consider other hypotheses, for example, that our analysis is biased by the intricate physical situation in which we find ourselves and the jumble of tautologies that attaches to it.

We can consider that our analysis is false because of these tautologies that make it unproductive. Even if we don’t know how to get out of it, currently on the basis of Plato’s allegory of the cave, which we can take as a paradigm, we cannot close the door to another interpretation considering that the sensible world in which we are (phenomena) is only a world of appearances of a reality that escapes us, at least for now.

This attitude is an opening that can allow us to consider another approach.

Spacetime shakes up the concepts of the Standard Model

The relativistic Standard Model of cosmology is based on Einstein’s equation which defines not a space and a time, but a spacetime. It is therefore not natural that it should be interpreted in terms of space and time, which are Newtonian concepts.

Interpretation in terms of spacetime provides a much more original and fruitful solution.

Indeed, the notion of the creation of a spacetime has no meaning insofar as a spacetime is « more » than space and time separately, which are only « appearances ».

In fact, a spacetime exists in itself, independently of any other external constraint and does not need to be included in anything else, either « spatially » (would have a container) or « temporally » which would invoke a dynamic of the type: creation-life-death.

A spacetime has no past, no present, no future, notions that are Newtonian notions, it « exists » as spacetime.

These notions (past, present, future) are internal elements of spacetime, which result from arbitrary foliation (cutting), producing, as a result, appearances, without physical character, because of the arbitrary character of the foliation, of its structure.

Spacetime: an inconceivable but analytically describable notion

Our mind, anchored, materially and conceptually, in the usual low-energy physical world, where the characteristics of spacetime are not perceptible, is unable to synthesize this concept (Plato’s cave, we see shadows that our mind mistakes for physical reality and it is difficult to conceive of what objects, these shadows are).

But, thanks to mathematics, we can analytically describe in a very precise way more synthetic concepts that not only produce these shadows but also solve physical problems, (when we are interested in high energies), that the shadows fail to describe.

Thus, the study of the different types of universe lines, the geodesics in particular, which are characteristic of the representation by general relativity of the dynamics generated by gravitation since they describe the trajectories followed by matter and energy, shows us that three types exist: (1) time-type geodesics for matter, (2) space-type geodesics and (3) zero-type geodesics for electromagnetic waves (light for example) and waves which, unlike the others, is of the « spacetime » type.

This can be seen in the expression of the metric tensor (ds²) whose nature is spatio-temporal where for geodesics of the time or space type it takes a combination of space and time in a bilinear form to obtain spacetime with a signature {-1, 1, 1, 1} for example, for special relativity, in Cartesian coordinates t, x, y, z:

ds² = -c²dt² +dx² + dy² + dz²

We see that the form is inhomogeneous since it includes time and space which are physical entities of different natures, the present term c² is to make the form dimensionally homogeneous which does not change the nature of the time parameter, whereas we can write this same form in zero coordinates as used in the Newmann-Penrose formalism

ds² = -2du.dv +2dw.dw*

in a homogeneous way where all coordinates are of type zero, with coordinates, derived from t, x, y, z, but of type zero, u, v, w, w* where w is a complex number and w* its conjugate. Note that there are only 3 degrees of freedom instead of 4, the use of zero coordinates imposing a constraint.

For more details see: https://astromontgeron.fr/SR-Penrose.pdf

We can see, in particular with this example that characterizes the nature of spacetime, that this difficulty for our mind to synthesize spacetime is a very strange paradox, because mathematics is a human activity, a product of our mind which; if he fails in the synthesis of knowledge, succeeds in his analysis, opening the way to a synthesis by a « roundabout » path. In any case, an encouraging prospect of progress in our knowledge.

Where, the decomposition of spacetime into space and time can be misleading!

To illustrate that the representation resulting from a leafing through can be misleading, let’s take the following example. The Big Bang is thought to have occurred 13.6 billion years ago, in « cosmological » time evaluated in a « foliation » in time and space of spacetime described by the Robertson-Walker (RW) metric.

It is in this classical scheme that the standard model of cosmology is situated, with a creation of the universe (birth), a life (evolution in time as we age) and in general an end (death) that can be postponed infinitely in some models.

We note the « anthropomorphic » nature of this description of the phenomenon.

But in this description the big Bang is pushed back to infinity from our past, where it is our (proper) present time that is invoked.

This means that, regardless of our instruments, and notwithstanding the obstacles (opacity for light for example before recombination), we would not be able to see this event after a finite interval of time.

Thus, the singularity, described in the RW coordinates, is pushed back to infinity in our local coordinates, which is probably equivalent to considering that for us, there is no singularity!

If these two points of view converge towards the same description of the universe and its evolution at the physical level, in different coordinates, (the physical description does not depend on the coordinates used, which are arbitrary, for this), some aspects of the predicted physical phenomenology are different. Our point of view from our present is different from that of a cosmic observer, co-moving of the dynamics of the universe in the RW coordinates.

Eternity and spacetime: are we eternal?

One would be tempted to say that a spacetime is eternal, but in the usual sense of the term, that is, located in time and space, this does not make sense for a spacetime for the reasons given above.

In this context of spacetime, paradoxically, we are « eternal » because, in its timeless and spatial existence, it contains everything that is located in it (spatially and temporally in « Newtonian » language) and we are part of it. But we must recognize that we occupy only a small part of this spacetime (an island).

In other words, when we question the origin of our existence, we do so (unconsciously, no doubt, out of habit) implicitly in the context of an absolute space and time. The study of nature, the resulting physics, shows us that this approach is incorrect, we must think of it in the context of spacetime.

As an element of a spacetime that exists (in itself) independently of everything else, the human being, who is part of it, exists.

In this context, the notion of creation is replaced by the notion of « localization » in spacetime.

Indeed, this creation seems to appear when, moving along a worldline, internal to this spacetime, oriented by the human’s proper time, we pass from an « outer » region (which does not contain us) to an « inner » region (which contains us ).

This offers a coherent solution to this problem in the spatio-temporal context that nature offers us.

Representation in spacetime of our existence

We are faced with a first difficulty, because if it is easy to delimit the contours (spatio-temporal – their extension in space and time in Newtonian language) of our material region (the atoms that constitute us, located mainly on Earth at the moment), for our mind it is different.

Does spacetime call into question our destiny?

Our destiny is usually described in the context of an evolution in time and space, with a beginning, an evolution and probably an end (which we hope is not too close). For humanity, we know, in the history of the Earth, to approximate its origin, which is not very distant on its scale (at worst a few million years compared to more than 4 billion years for the Earth). More generally, this is also true for life, all of which is subsequent to the formation of the Earth, about 4 billion of our years ago.

Analysis in the context of a spacetime changes the perspective. In fact, we belong to an entity outside of time and space that exists. In a way, we are a piece of it in the same way as everything else, which could also concern other evolved species, if we qualify as evolved, structures that implement elements of great complexity, such as the combinatorics of our brain for example.

Since we look at things from our « inside » point of view, it is not surprising that we do not perceive the structure of which we are a part.

But this text shows that, if we do not perceive it, we are evoking it, which is already a beginning…

Regarding our ego, is it better to consider ourselves as the center of the world or more humbly as a part of a whole that we know only very partially?

Knowledge and truth

An essential point was the relationship between knowledge and truth.

Thus, Kant declared:

« The two strains of human knowledge, which perhaps start from a common root unknown to us; Sensibility and understanding; by the first objects are given to us, by the second they are thought. »

Note: By sensitivity, we must understand what is accessible to us through our senses.

and he also stated (among other things)

« Truth, » it is said, « consists in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this simple definition, my knowledge must therefore agree with the object in order to have the value of truth. Now the only way I have of comparing the object with my knowledge is if I know it. Thus my knowledge must confirm itself. But this is far from sufficient for the truth. For since the object is outside of me and the knowledge is in me, all I can appreciate is whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. The ancients called such a circle a diallele in the definition. »

(quoted in « The Pleasure of Thought » by A. Comte-Sponville, ed. Vuibert)

Bachelard, (The New Scientific Spirit) later, described science as « impure » metaphysics because it must be accountable to experiments. In the « experimental » sciences, theories, in order to be considered, must make predictions that will be the subject of experimental verification. Any theory that doesn’t do this is useless.

Bachelard emphasizes the duality between the « physical » world, which calls for realism (associated with the experimenter), and the image we have of it, which he calls rationalism (associated with the theorist), while noting that these two aspects of knowledge are not totally independent and cooperate by exchanging their « advice. »

Sometimes it is experience that motivates the theoretician by new discoveries not explained by theory and sometimes it is the theoretician who motivates the experimenter by predictions of phenomena not yet known.

He also emphasizes the inductive nature of scientific knowledge: the theoretician reads the law in the example (paradigm)!

All these remarks show that, in fact, scientific knowledge aimed at an objective character cannot oust a subjective character intimately linked to the structure of our mind which apprehends the world. Science is a human activity.

Paradoxically, knowledge goes beyond our existence

This is one of the paradoxes, because one might think that our knowledge is limited to the portion of spacetime where humanity is present.

In fact, it goes far beyond in its past and even in its future, even if the increase in knowledge diminishes in quantity and quality as we move away from our region of existence in spacetime.

In other words, in Newtonian language, the ability of our mind to apprehend the universe with a knowledge that, if it diminishes with distance, progresses according to time and associated discoveries and theories.

Since it is difficult to associate a boundary with knowledge, an open-type geometric structure, giving an order of magnitude, will be better suited to the description of its extension. This extension is obviously constrained by the (supposed) limits of spacetime representing the universe.

It is therefore necessary to make a double representation for humans, one for the physical part and the other for one’s understanding. It can be two connected regions of spacetime or more simply the material part included in the part associated with the mind that contains it.

Matière: Matter, Esprit: Mind , Espace-temps : spacetime, Univers : Universe, Humanité : Mankind

See figure above. Other « intelligent species » in the universe, which may exist in other islands of spacetime, are not represented.

Space and time cannot create a concept that would transcend them

Concerning a putative creation in time and space, it is difficult to see how, from time and space, which are appearances of spacetime, a spacetime could emerge, a concept that would be superior to it [1].

Indeed, spacetime is not an assembly of time and space but the fundamental indivisible physical entity associated with the theory of general relativity.

In this spacetime scheme, this confirms that the evolution of the universe, the expansion of space, its (arbitrary) layering into time and space are « internal » parameters of spacetime and not external parameters that would apply to the spacetime universe [2].

Spacetime, a paradigm to explain our existence

From the observation that our existence can only be observed and that the spacetime representing the universe also needs nothing else but it to exist and that we can only note its existence, we deduce that there is a morphism between the two entities.

The study of formalism, associated with the concept of spacetime, which is a mathematical object accessible to our mind, can then serve as a paradigm for understanding our own existence. 3]

Interestingly, when our minds seem to be confronted with a conceptual limitation, their formal attempt to model nature opens up a path for us to overcome it [4]. This tends to prove that it is indeed in the formal structure of nature, spacetime for example, that the solution lies.

What paradigm to define the content for spacetime?

The arguments put forward to justify the existence of spacetime tell us only about its existence, not about its type of content.

If we exclude the types of content that do not allow the emergence of a consciousness on the grounds that an existence presupposes a consciousness to appreciate it, a hypothesis that we make, but which seems reasonable as debated in: « Intrinsic, extrinsic, implicit existence. 24/03/25« , https://vous-avez-dit-bigbang.fr/?page_id=3241, then this must impose constraints on this content.

Can the example of our universe serve as a paradigm to investigate these constraints?

In a type of object analysis, we define a static analysis where we identify the objects (in the formal sense) that will be involved in the phenomenon with their characteristic properties and the way to identify them, and the dynamic analysis which describes the history (the evolution from initial conditions) that concerns and will concern these objects, in a framework allowed by their relations.

In the manner of a play, where static analysis describes the characters with their characters and the setting, dynamic analysis describes the unfolding of the story of these characters, depending on their characters and the circumstances, which is proposed to us.

Let us add that there is a great absentee on stage, the author of the play, who is nevertheless omnipresent in the story presented, which bears his indelible imprint even if it is subliminal.

This is the case with science which, even if its purpose is to describe nature, is a human activity and as such includes, in a subliminal way, all the prerequisites and constraints of our mind, itself subject to the same laws of nature to which it belongs. He therefore describes it « from the inside ».

In our analysis of nature, we must never forget this, even if it is not easy, otherwise the interpretation that we will make of the phenomena will be biased. This is obviously a major conceptual difficulty that science encounters in the study of nature.

Matter (static analysis, description of objects)

Its general characteristics include a discontinuous and finite character (even if the number characterizing the limit is very large), three families of a very limited number of elementary physical objects (quarks constituting a list of baryons-protons-neutrons-etc. and a list of leptons) with their symmetric (antimatter) characteristics.

It should be noted that of the three families, only one (the one with the lowest energy) is mainly represented in the nature we know today.

Interactions (dynamics)

A number of 4 interactions (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction).

These are, roughly, the data known to date.

It should be noted that under conditions of low ambient energy, electrons can bind to atomic nuclei, formed of nucleons (which are baryons) to form atoms according to the laws of quantum mechanics. Atoms identified by their number of protons, associated with a chemical property, in also limited numbers (less than a hundred stable atoms) offer a gigantic diversity of combinations in the structures they can generate.

The indeterminacy of quantum mechanics

Without the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, which plays a decisive role in the non-deterministic evolution of systems, our universe would not have been fertile. Indeed, the Standard Model of cosmology, which describes a phase of inflation where quantum fluctuations will be the seeds of the large structures that will generate galaxies, attests to this. Without this indeterminacy, we would not be here. We don’t see what a totally symmetrical universe could generate other than a totally symmetrical universe.

Perfection is sterile, imperfection fruitful

If we consider the evolutionary process that led to our emergence, we see that without repeated errors, in an almost infinite number, in the transcription of our DNA, we would never have appeared on Earth. And what about the emergence of life on Earth?

Nature, through these errors, makes it possible to adapt the individuals of a species to an evolving environment by generating a multitude of new possibilities leading to a multitude of individuals modified by these errors, the environment selecting the most adapted to its constraints (Darwinism).

All these elements seem necessary to provide the universe with a consciousness.

There is no evidence that this is enough, but it is a start to start this type of analysis.

It should be noted, however, that the fact that an assembly, even a sophisticated one, of atoms is capable of describeing, with precision, its ultimate constituents, may seem paradoxical.

In fact, this shows that it is the relationships, the complex arrangements of these atoms that carry information and not the nature of the elementary parts that constitute it, provided, of course, that these parts allow its arrangements.

On the basis of these considerations about the essentiality of relationships, we can already generalize the structure we know, opening the door to other forms of life and consciousness, assuming that a consciousness can only be the prerogative of a life form, which seems reasonable, but no more proven than the rest of the argument presented.

The limits of scientific knowledge

Science being a human activity, it incorporates its characteristics. With regard to its objectivity, the question is: can science dissociate itself (or get rid of) totally from the constraints of our mind?

Considering that our mind is supported by a material support, made up of the same atoms as those of the immense universe, simply arranged differently and even in a considerably more complex way, it is conceivable that limits on the knowledge of the whole universe, by a tiny part of itself, are consubstantially limited.

Like an alloy, by extracting its constituents, in general its properties are profoundly modified, which are generally not those of the constituents and are not the sum of them. How then can we be sure that the decomposition into space and time does not destroy the deep nature of spacetime?

The object and the tool

When comparing several formalisms associated with a problem, the most efficient formalism is the one that incorporates a maximum of structural elements of the problem into the formalism. Indeed, the action of this incorporation is to insert a part of the solution to the problem which is, in fact, partially simplified, (or even totally if the remaining parameters are free parameters: initial conditions, boundary conditions, etc.).

The structure of a tool, which simplifies the execution of a task, can then be posited as a paradigm for the description of the object to which it is adapted.

Moving forward

In this document, we have proposed an interpretation of our existence in the context of a spacetime, in total rupture with the traditional approach. It is physics that commands us to go in this direction. This shows that it is to the teaching resulting from the study of nature, to the acquisition of knowledge about it, even if it often shakes up our habits of thought, that we must conform to, in spite of all the renunciations of thought that this invokes, in order that knowledge may continue to progress.

Notes

[1] In theology, it is assumed that God cannot create a being who would be equal to Him or, even less, superior. Moreover, this is also illustrated in Plato’s allegory of the cave where, from the shadows on the wall (appearances) we ask ourselves if it is possible to reconstitute, through an assembly and a composition of shadows, reality? In the allegory cited, even if we can hope to build the « envelope of a form » (its outer surface) from the shadows, as our brain constructs an image that has a 3D appearance of the object under consideration from two 2D images, we see that this is not enough because the « beings » whose shadows we see are more than their spatio-temporal envelope which only delineates their spatio-temporal limits.

We could invoke the concept of emergence (we cannot totally explain a complex entity based on the properties of its constituents alone and their configuration made possible by these properties), which compromises the reductionist approach, but this principle, which seems rather an escape from our ignorance, produces only an observation, not an explanation.

For emergence, since the object alone cannot explain it, we invoke a relationship of the object with its environment, which then leads to considering the system, mind + environment, as an object: elementary objects are not isolated, they are in relation to the outside. We know how much the environment has constrained and, consequently, modified life, from its elementary forms to the complex forms we know (plants, animals, humans) for example by selecting the most suitable elements.

It would be necessary to understand how properties that the objects themselves did not seem to have, are activated (emerge). Recall that at the most elementary ultimate level, we are reduced to attributing properties of symmetries to elementary particles (quantum mechanics) and interactions (quantum field theory). It is true that if it is the permissible relations between objects (the possible arrangements) that create diversity, the constituents must still have the properties required to allow these arrangements. Thus, a small number of atoms, with their electrons and only four (known) interactions, offer a gigantic diversity of arrangements between them.

Does artificial intelligence undermine this principle? This human-created entity seems to be far superior to it in many areas by its « speed ». We can imagine that these robots will have inherited our know-how and will be able to do, much more efficiently, everything we do (and more?): reproduce, capture and produce energy for their activities, modify themselves, proliferate, probably also make mistakes, and improve and thus supplant us. They will even be able to know the origin of their existence, which can be incorporated into their data. Of course, it’s hard to say if we’re considering all of our abilities in the comparison. But it challenges the quest for the origin of our existence.

[2] This point has been made explicit in many pages of this site.

Expansion of the Universe: A Misinterpretation of the Solution of Einstein’s Equation? 23/09/24 The Big Bang is not the creation of the universe, it is a singularity that is part of it! (rev. 2/03/25) The universe has no history, because, in fact, it is history! Universe expansion, inflation (6/01/22)

[3] Another edifying example is that of the Newmann-Penrose formalism. He shows how the structure of the natural phenomena studied can have been incorporated into the formalism, which translates into a reduction of the parameters to free parameters only and which obviously simplifies the calculations.

[4] For quantum mechanics, it was necessary to « invent » a formalism to describe it. This formalism not only makes it possible to predict the results of experiments, but also informs us, through the morphism it incorporates, about the structure of the phenomenon of nature apprehended by this formalism. It has been said, with regard to quantum mechanics, that « When humans sought to know nature in its ultimate recesses, they found strange imprints: « they were their own ». [4] It takes a hard time to abandon the concepts of time and space in favor of spacetime, which is almost impossible to understand

Author J. FRIC Published on October , 18, 2025