Essay—The Apeiron Society—(78)

Summary—This essay tells about The Apeiron Society—its president, Phillip Hoffmann—his response to my theory of one—and my response to his response. This essay describes the theory of one in detail and pays particular attention to the mathematician Gödel, who introduced the concepts of completeness and consistency in mathematical systems that include the theory of one.

Quotation—Truth is compared in scripture to a streaming fountain—if her waters flow not in perpetual progression then they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.  A man becomes a heretic in the truth if he believes things without knowing their reason but instead relies on his pastors says so or because the assembly so determines.  Though his belief may be true, the very truth he holds becomes his heresy. —John Milton

A Bizzaro comic shows a fork in the road. The sign for the left road is, “Truth, Justice and Wisdom.” The sign for the right road is, “99 Cent Burgers.” There is a long line of people for burgers but no one is lining up for truth, justice and wisdom.

The Apeiron Society. The Apeiron Society for the Practice of Philosophy is a non-profit society founded in 1987 by Professor Petra von Morten. The current president is Phillip Hoffmann. The term “Apeiron” comes from Ancient Greece and means unlimited. The Apeiron Society is a public forum for the exploration of philosophical ideas and methods in the context of actual life issues. Its main activities comprise bi-monthly seminars and group discussions featuring invited speakers. The Society operates from September to May and ends with one of the activities being a week-end symposium at Kananaskis with speakers come from a variety of disciplines including Philosophy, Art, Biomedical Ethics, Literature, Mathematics, Religious Studies, Sociology, Political Science, and Psychology. The Apeiron Society is a unique feature of the cultural life for both Calgary and Alberta. In comparison, Philosophy Magazine is Philosophy and Science for the Third Millennium.

Phil Hoffmann Email. Raymond. Thanks for contacting us. Janet Sisson takes the lead in organizing our speaker programs, and our theme next season starting in September is “Truth”, so she will no doubt consider your suggestion. FYI, I followed up on the link to Chris Bek’s website ( and read the abstract about his book. Here are a few comments based on what I read, which you are welcome to pass on to him. His Theory of One appears to be a general Theory of Everything (ToE) which purportedly unifies QM and general relativity. The theory seems to imply monism (i.e. hence Theory of One), idealism (i.e. ordinary reality is said to be illusory), and the universe is said to be bounded (as opposed to unbounded), which suggests that the universe can be considered as a whole (and is no doubt holistic as well in the QM sense). These elements all align closely with a long mystical and metaphysical tradition of monistic, idealistic and wholistic thinking. However, in my opinion this line of reasoning runs into trouble on Gödelian grounds. One problem is that it implies we can understand the system S we’re in (i.e. the universe or multiverse) in terms of a general ToE from WITHIN S. Gödel’s second theorem suggests this is impossible (at least assuming that S is consistent). If the system we’re in IS consistent, then it must be incomplete (by the first incompleteness theorem), in which case truth outruns any ToE, including Bek’s. In other words, in this case Bek might be wrong, and we can never be certain that he or anyone else will ever have the final word, as it were, with respect to truth. I don’t know whether Bek is a finitist, but if the universe is complete in the Gödelian sense (which is suggested by Bek’s claim about boundedness), then it is inconsistent. If Bek has a rigorous mathematical proof of this (i.e. a proof that 0=1), then sure, he has a ToE, but then all bets are off, and we have no more reason to believe or disbelieve his theory than we have reason to believe or disbelieve anything else. FYI, Stephen Hawking, who for a long time was a vocal proponent of the idea of a ToE, came to a similar conclusion in a lecture he gave at Cambridge in 2003. Best, Phil Hoffmann.

My Response to Email. Dear Phil Hoffmann. Thank you very much for responding to my theory of one. I liked your comments although I thought they were a bit general—which is fine for first contact. In this essay, I will be reviewing my theory and discussing how it relates to the contents of your email that you sent to my friend Raymond—which he subsequently passed on to me. I hope at some point you will consider reading my book, The Theory of One: Realizing the Dream of a Final Theory. I formulated this theory by dauntlessly following the argument wherever it leads—and by refusing to let things get complicated. I came up with the first version of my theory of one 17 years ago and I am now more convinced than ever of its truthfulness.

The Theory of One Review. The theory of one (2001) solves the final theory of everything (ToE) by uniting relativity theory (1905) with quantum theory (1925). Relativity theory is based on light speed and quantum theory is based on Planck’s constant. My theory unites these two theories by recognizing that light speed and Planck’s constant are the same boundary of the universe. Metaphorically speaking, there is no difference between looking through a telescope (relativity theory) and looking through a microscope (quantum theory). Aside from logical proof, my definition of proof is that an argument which is simple, beautiful and reasonable is true. In addition to proving the universe is bounded, it also proves that there is only one photon (a being of light), that one photon is God (the Bible also says that God is light), and perhaps most significantly that reality is an illusion—meaning that the Moon does not exist when no one is looking at it. My theory of one adds to Anselm’s ontological argument by revealing that it actually brings God into existence. God’s existence at the moment of the Big Bang and Anselm’s lucid thought are eternal, synchronous events. They each caused the other simultaneously. Anselm proved God exists, I proved how God came to exist, and Einstein proved that God is the laws of nature. My question is, why hasn’t Big Science discovered the obvious truths presented here?

The Theory of One Extra. In his 1948 book, The Universe and Dr Einstein, Lincoln Barnett wrote, “If a stick should attain the velocity of light, it would shrink to nothing at all.” I contend that if a stick shrinks to nothing at all, then the velocity of light is a boundary of the universe. Not bounded at some distant star, but bounded right in front of our eyes. The boundary between spacetime and nothingness is the medium that supports perceived reality. Electrons weave back and forth between spacetime and nothingness in order to create the tapestry that is perceived reality. From this it follows that reality as we know it is a façade. Consider that, in the universe of all universes, our universe is nothing more than a point as a result of the fact that spacetime has no meaning outside of our universe. Consider also a particle or being of light named God at the moment of the Big Bang. God creates a particle in Her womb which then splits into matter and antimatter and is the universe of matter. The question is—is the universe of matter expelled from Her womb? Since they have already laid down the foundation for a symbiotic relationship, it is reasonable that the universe of matter stays inside of Her womb. Furthermore, this line of reasoning indicates the existence of just one photon which is arguable God. The universe is like a pearl where the universe of matter is represented by the grain of sand in the middle, and the pearl substance represents God.

Objective and Subjective Truth. In university, I wrote a paper entitled Inductive Validity. A deductively valid argument comes from objective logic. An inductively strong argument is likely to be true. My paper proposes a third type of argument called inductive validity based on asymptotic truth that is subjectively true (like the fact that the Sun will rise tomorrow). An asymptotic curve closely approaches a line. I contend any argument that is simple, beautiful and reasonable is subjectively true—like my theory of one. Subjective truth picks up where objective truth leaves off—and is just as good.

Gödel’s Incompleteness. In 1931 Kurt Gödel (1906-78) proved that mathematics is not totally complete nor totally consistent. His first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent system there are arguments that can neither be truly proved nor truly disproved. I would argue that a system which is not totally objectively provable accepts the addition of subjectivity to completely prove its truthfulness. In other words, truths which cannot be proved objectively can be proved subjectively. According to Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, such a system cannot be proved to be consistent. A system is said to be consistent if there is no statement such that both the statement and its negative are provable from the axioms. An axiom is a statement taken to be true that serves as a premise for constructing arguments. Consider my argument that the lone photon in the universe is God. It may not be objectively provable but can be recognized as subjectively true owing to its simplicity, beauty and reasonableness. As for the question of the consistency of the theory of one—consider my fundamental arguments that the universe is bounded, that there is only one photon, that one photon is God, and that reality is an illusion. None of which can be proved negatively—and are thus consistent.

Conclusion. Lewis Carroll (1832-98) said, “The time has come the Walrus said to speak of many things.” The argument that reality is an illusion is, for the first time, based on science. In response to Stephen Hawking’s comment in 2003 that he was no longer interested in a final ToE, I would say that I am not blown around by every wind. I would very much like to have a dialogue with you so that we can hopefully nail down my theory. Perhaps we could meet for coffee. Sincerely, Christopher Bek, peaceful warrior.