The Philosophy of Existence - The law of symmetry

Any other type of use of this text, photos and graphics, other than for personal purposes,
requires the prior written agreement of the publisher.


A way to unify the micro/macro world from the point
of view of the Philosophy of Existence

Tomáš Pfeiffer, Vladislav Šíma


Chapter 2

The Philosophy of Existence

2.2 The law of symmetry

The horizon of cognition is able to explain a number of mysteries that science still struggles with. It plays a key part in connecting the micro and macro world. The perfect symmetry of our world is a direct consequence of the horizon of cognition (because whichever way we look, our view is always limited by the horizon of cognition).

Contemporary cosmologists recognise the validity of the Copernican principle (see [22]), which is based on the philosophical (!) supposition that the Earth is not a privileged observation point. We can therefore assume that the universe looks the same elsewhere. This assumption also well complies with general astronomical observations, including those made by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Philosophical observations and understanding not only fully confirm this, but also show that this principle should be applicable, not only when up, down, right, left, backwards or forwards, but also when moving into micro and macro worlds.

We now propose expanding the validity of Copernican principle, something which may provide us with the key to a fundamental understanding of our world. It is an expression of the symmetry of the universe, a symmetry most likely known to ancient philosophers. The opening sentences on the legendary Emerald Tablet7 can serve as an example. These sentences were found among the papers of the famous British physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton (the founder of classical mechanics and exact science in general) and are available at the Royal Library in Cambridge to this day [23]:

„That which is below is like that which is above
and that which is above is like that which is below
to do the miracles of one only thing.“

Did this genius and father of modern science consider the consequences of this insight?

The law of the horizon of cognition gives rise to the law of symmetry of the universe, and thanks to this law we can understand not only the geometry, but also the topology of our world.

The consequence of expanding the validity of the Copernican principle is namely that our word is an infinite formation contained as a whole in any of its own parts of any size (this means in any arbitrarily small or large part).

Imagine an observer that “grows smaller and smaller”, that “plunges or flies” into the subatomic world. This observer finds an endless chain of “sub-universes” (universes like ours with stars and planets, etc.) one after the other. Similarly, we can imagine an observer that “grows larger and larger”. Such an observer also finds an endless chain of “super-universes” (universes like ours with stars and planets, etc.). Yet both of these seemingly one-way journeys intersect in the infinity (flow into each other) and so each observer will always return to where he started. And it goes on and on in an infinite loop.

Whichever direction we look in the universe, including into the micro and macro worlds, we can only ever see as far as the “envelope” created by the horizon of cognition. And wherever we move, our “view”, i.e. the horizon of cognition moves with us – and so whatever we observe, it remains the same (similar).

This reasoning is supported by Josef Zezulka’s philosophical observations, as described in his publication Existence – A Philosophy for Life [1], page 19:

„I was standing on a sandy seashore on our planet. It was a clear night with a sky full of stars. As I was gazing at the familiar constellations, I started growing upwards and outwards fast. I was spreading out into the universe. Our planet was shrinking away below me. The entire universe was drawing near and condensing and I suddenly realised that I was looking at atoms of a certain material. Everything continued condensing and diminishing. I realised that I was looking at some gigantic object, which gradually shrank into a big boulder, then into a smaller one, until I was holding a stone in my outstretched hand. The stone became smaller and it ended up as just a grain of sand. I looked around me and saw that I was standing on seashore of some planet. There was splendid sky full of stars above my head and I realised that in my hand I was holding a little grain of sand in which there was an atom around whose core an electron was revolving, and that this electron was the planet I had just come from. I realised I was in another material sphere. I let the sand grain fall to the ground, looked at the starlit sky and began to grow again. Everything condensed and grew smaller once again until finally there was again a grain of sand in the palm of my hand. In one of its atoms there was the planet on whose seashore there was the grain of sand in which there was the atom with our planet, from which I had come. This repeated itself several more times, I don’t know how many times, but through this constant moving into dimensionally larger spheres I finally got to the planet from which I had originally started.

When I was standing again at my original place on the seashore, I bent down and took a grain of sand in my palm. I was looking at it and at that moment I began to get smaller. It was as if I was flying into that grain. The grain was growing bigger in front of me, it was as big as a boulder, then as a mountain and I saw its matter becoming thinner. I realised that I was looking at its molecules and then at its atoms. I chose one atom and flew towards it. I saw its nucleus around which smaller particles were revolving. I realised they were planets. I chose one of them. I was getting smaller and flew towards it. It grew bigger and bigger until I began to recognise its seas and continents. Everything was getting closer and I landed on it. I was standing on its sandy seashore. My stature was of approximately the same height as on our planet. Sizes were normal too, despite being aware of the fact that I had become small enough to get into an atom. I realised that I had carried out a reversal of what had occurred before and that I was now standing on the planet which was now a part of the atom of the sand that was now lying on the shore of our planet. I looked about the planet, about its starlit sky, bent down and took a grain of sand in the palm of my hand. I began to shrink again, everything around me was becoming thinner and the experience repeated itself. Once again I was sinking into the lower and lower material spheres, I was going through them until I returned to our planet, from which I had come.

Whether I went up into the universe or down into an atom, I always returned to the starting point.“ [1]

The above shows a self-similarity on many levels of existence. Such a formation is similar to a mathematical fractal (see [24]) – i.e. a pattern that reproduces the same shapes and patterns whichever part we magnify (or demagnify). This phenomenon is called self-similarity, and this is why fractals are independent on any kind of scale. The chaotic systems (systems in which a subtle change in the initial condition alters the final state significantly, see [25]), that we come across in our everyday lives, are also a typical dynamical expression of fractals.

This sounds almost utopian. Could such a thing really be true? It is not just meaningless speculation that does not agree at all with scientific findings based on observations made by state-of-the-art equipment?

There are several analogies, such as:
  1. In the micro world, the atoms/molecules and their electrons are similar to stars and binary or multiple star systems and their planets. (Bearing in mind the old Rutherford and later Bohr atom model with electrons orbiting around the nucleus as the planets around a sun [26]). There is a similar ratio between mass/free space and classical calculations can be used to calculate the angular momentum of the electron – as if the electron was actually orbiting around the nucleus.
  2. The atoms and molecules of bodies warmer than absolute zero always emit heat (infrared) radiation, similar to the most distant observable galaxies (within the limit of the horizon of cognition) which starlight, due to the redshift, has shifted into the infrared spectrum – and is thus very difficult for us to detect.
  3. In the micro world, the nuclei of the heaviest atoms spontaneously decay and thus emit high energy electromagnetic gamma radiation. In the macro world, explosions of the largest stars (supernovae) are also accompanied by intense bursts of gamma radiation.

However, there are fundamental differences, such as the following:

  1. Objects in the macro world are clearly defined, certain, and predictable; we can describe their behaviour with Newton’s classical mechanics or relativistic mechanics. Objects in the micro world behave probabilistically; unless directly observed, they are uncertain and can be described using the wave functions of quantum mechanics.
  2. Typically, star systems and galaxies are concentrated in a plane of rotation, where the planets and stars orbit around a respective core. However, the atoms and molecules in the micro world are not so “flat”; the shape of atomic orbitals is much more complex and is given by the solution of wave equations, which has observable consequences for forces, energy and geometry. The structure of atomic nuclei (protons and neutrons, that are further composed of quarks) does not correspond to our knowledge about the sun and stars either (no such structure has been observed in the sun/stars).
  3. Objects in the micro world behave and exhibit properties that are not reflected in the macro world (quantisation of energy levels, tunnelling, quantum entanglement, etc.) Objects in the micro world also behave differently depending on whether or not they are directly observed, detected – as if our consciousness shaped the reality we observe. Objects in the macro world, on the other hand, are always the same and do not exhibit any duality.

This philosophical statement aims to provide science with a clear and logical explanation as to why the results of scientific observations are what they are. You can of course reject it as mere unsubstantiated speculation.

Or you can try listening to the voice of philosophy; let yourself be inspired and reflect on the greatest mysteries of our world with us.

The Emerald Tablet is shrouded in mystery. We do not know where it was discovered (most likely in an Egyptian tomb or in the pyramids) nor do we know when or where it disappeared again. The only thing that is certain, is it was in human possession at some point. The tablet was made of green glass (hence the name Emerald).

Read more  >>

Tomáš Pfeiffer, Vladislav Šíma - THE HORIZON OF COGNITIONTomáš Pfeiffer, Vladislav Šíma – THE HORIZON OF COGNITION
Translated from the Czech original „Horizont poznání“
Published by © Tomáš Pfeiffer – Dimenze 2+2 Praha  Soukenická 21, 110 00 Praha 1  Czech Republic, 30. 3. 2020, www.dub.cz/en/,
ISBN 978-80-85238-27-3

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system or translated into another language, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

Graphic design including fractal geometry images,  visual works © Tomáš Pfeiffer, Vladislav Šíma

© Tomáš Pfeiffer, Vladislav Šíma, 2020


© Tomáš Pfeiffer. All rights reserved.