tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73787068084533342382024-02-20T07:36:28.021-08:00The God ParadigmRoberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425483474072715369noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378706808453334238.post-85824437806446614222017-09-04T11:18:00.002-07:002023-12-12T16:08:56.160-08:00<br />
<h1 style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 115%;"><em>Note: The oldest entries are at the bottom.</em></span></h1>
<h1 style="line-height: 115%; margin: 0in 0in 6pt; mso-hyphenate: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">Life,
Consciousness and Free Will are Foundations of Physical Reality<o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Copyright © 2017 by Robert Arvay<o:p></o:p></span></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">All rights reserved by the
author. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the author.<o:p></o:p></span></span></i><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span></b>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Fundamental Realities<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Life, consciousness and volition (free will) are fundamental
realities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without them, the physical
universe would not exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of
arising from physical reality, they are its purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This statement contradicts the material
(physicalist) paradigm, which holds that the universe has no detectable plan,
purpose or meaning.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This brief booklet introduces the reader to an alternative way of
thinking:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The God Paradigm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Material physicalism holds that only physical things exist, and the
natural laws which govern them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even
though the God Paradigm does not prove that God exists, it is superior to the
physicalist paradigm. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The God Paradigm
better fits the evidence than does physicalism, and it also makes better sense
of physics, biology, psychology and sociology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In addition, it permits objective analysis of moral values.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Because the subject matter is so entangled with controversy, emotion
and false assumptions, it is useful to present it in its parts, before
assembling those parts into a unified, coherent whole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reader will be left, not with absolute
proof, but certainly with compelling evidence, that the physicalist paradigm is
leading science and society down a dead end, one which can be avoided by
abandoning its materialist bias.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Here is the beginning of the list of parts that are necessary to an
understanding of what it is that the God Paradigm proposes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">1.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Why the Physicalist (Material) Paradigm is
wrong, and the harm it does.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Why the God Paradigm is the only viable
alternative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">3.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Life is not a chemical process.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">4.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Inward consciousness defies material
explanation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">5.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Volition (free will) is not possible in the
physicalist paradigm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This leads to
absurdity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Why the Physicalist (Material) Paradigm is
wrong, and the harm it does<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">There was a time when most scientists had no doubt that the universe
has a plan and purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seemed
obvious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Natural law is orderly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It operates everywhere and at all times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is consistent, with no exceptions and no
self-contradictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How could an
unlikely universe like ours come into being?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The only plausible explanation seemed to be divine creation by an
all-powerful deity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But under careful scrutiny, that explanation seemed to fall apart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Storms, volcanoes, plagues and all other
natural phenomena, which once had been attributed to the actions of gods, or
God, were one by one, found to have natural explanations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Natural laws, not God, could explain
everything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These laws, once discovered,
allowed men to develop technologies that seemed to give them godlike powers
over nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">With God out of the way, so to speak, men began to replace faith with
reason, and the triumph of physicalism seemed all but complete.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many people today, notably many scientists,
celebrate that final victory, and they condemn all else as ignorance,
superstition and worse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only faith
which they acknowledge as valid, is the belief that all the mysteries of
science will eventually be found to have purely physical solutions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, arose the physicalist paradigm, which
holds that nothing exists except stuff, that is, material, and the laws and
forces which pertain to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Soul and
spirit, heaven and hell, were deemed to be mere myth at best, harmful beliefs at
worst. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The problems with the physicalist paradigm are both philosophical and,
well, physical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Philosophically, If the universe is only physical, and nothing more,
then it has no plan, purpose or meaning, and by extension, neither do we.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we are merely physical, and nothing more,
then our lives are, to loosely quote from Shakespeare, “A sound and fury,
signifying nothing, a tale told by an idiot.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The logical extension of physicalism is that we are nothing more than
temporary arrangements of atoms, and therefore, not worthy of being treated as
anything more than that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Fortunately, there is no necessity to adopt such a useless and
dangerous philosophy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science, reason
and morals all testify against it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Physicalists have used the universe as a sort of laboratory to bolster
their claims, but in so doing, have arrived at the conclusion that no one built
the laboratory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, by denying
that free will can exist, they have defined themselves as being witnesses to,
but not participants in, their own lives.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As we shall see, life is not merely a chemical process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inward consciousness defies physical
explanation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And free will, according to
physicalism, cannot possibly exist.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" /></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Why the God Paradigm is the only viable
alternative to physicalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its
benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As we saw in the preceding section, physicalism is not only a futile
philosophy, it dehumanizes us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
regards humanity as a happenstance byproduct of a mindless, uncaring
universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The God Paradigm rejects that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed,
even some physicalists rely on that rejection to promote their social
views.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, they decry certain
laws and traditions as unjust or immoral.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But, one has to ask, what physicalist principle favors one moral
viewpoint over another?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To use an
extreme example, murder is surely wrong—but why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it only because we say so?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we were to permit it, would that make it
right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who gets to decide?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The only sensible way to avoid a philosophy of sociopathy is to
recognize that the universe is founded not only on physical laws, but it also
relies on moral laws and principles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
who gets to decide what those are, except God?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Physicalism leads inevitably to technological barbarism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That fate can be prevented only by the
recognition that man is not wise enough to replace God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Moreover, scientific advances have revealed that the universe is
exquisitely fine-tuned to support life, civilization and technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The precision of that fine tuning is so
dramatic that the prospect of it having occurred by chance alone is less than
one in many, many trillions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Physicalists have had to resort to theories of a multi-universe in order
to overcome those odds, but even there, they fail, because the odds of a
multi-universe are even smaller yet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Despite that science has so far failed to find God in small things,
the evidence for physicalism pales in comparison to the evidence for God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Life is not a chemical process.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Biology is the study of life’s chemical processes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But life itself is far more than its
chemistry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not a byproduct of
natural laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It underpins them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The entire universe, from the smallest
subatomic particle, to the largest galaxies and beyond, is a coordinated life
force.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although it sounds
counter-intuitive, the physical universe does not give rise to life, but rather,
it is life itself upon which the universe is predicated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The purpose of the physical universe is to
support life, civilization and technology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Imagine that one were to construct a computer model of the universe, a
simulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Attempts at this have been
made, with striking results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After
programming in the basic data, the natural laws, the force of gravity, and the
mathematical constants which govern nature, the models make a fairly accurate
prediction that stars will form, that they will become organized into galaxies
and so forth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These computerized
predictions show that, given certain starting conditions, it is inevitable that
the universe will produce the major structures we see through our telescopes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But, they make no predictions that life will arise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, given everything that we know
about physics and cosmology, there is no need for life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The universe would, it seems, function quite
well without it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Then, we must ask, not only why there is life in the universe, but
also, why every detail of natural law seems designed to produce conditions for
life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Stars and galaxies may be
inevitable, but life seems all but impossible unless a dizzying array of
extremely unlikely conditions are met, and all of them precisely coordinated
and timed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Physicalism holds that all of this arises by chance and
coincidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even that strained theory
might have been credible, but life is only one of the fundamental realities
that demolish the physicalist paradigm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let’s look at two more.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Inward consciousness defies material
explanation.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If physicalism has misunderstood life, it has completely missed
consciousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only is science unable
to explain it, or how it arises, but it has no adequate definition for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, medical professionals have defined the
outward appearance of consciousness, but not its inward experience.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">A brief note here will illustrate the matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Color.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The science of optics can explain color in physical terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Color is a property exhibited by light waves,
and is measurable by their amplitudes and frequencies (wavelength).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But when you see a color, you do not perceive
it in those terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You see a quality, a
subjective, conscious experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At
that level, there is no physical definition of color, which is why you cannot
explain your perception of it to someone who has been blind from birth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Consciousness is said to arise from the brain, and certainly there is
an intimate connection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But can music
arise from a violin?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To be sure, there
is an intimate connection, but what is music itself, but an outward expression
of the composer’s inward experiences and emotions?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without him, the violin is but an empty shell.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is the brain similarly an instrument of
consciousness, but not its source?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The difficulty in understanding arises, because there is no known
chain of causation between lifeless, unconscious atoms, and consciousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cannot trace an unbroken path from light
waves to our experience of color.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
is a gap between the physics of neurology and the final result, the inward
experience of consciousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only a
faith in physicalism can claim with certainty that that gap will eventually be
filled.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The science of quantum physics has discovered some interesting
evidence that, instead of consciousness arising from the behavior of atoms, it
may be the other way around.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The famous
double-slit experiment has been repeated many times, and seems to indicate that
subatomic particles behave differently when they are being consciously
observed, than when they are not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so,
then the link between observer and observed, between consciousness and physical
events, is far more profound than physicalism would have it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The final verdict on this experiment is not yet in, and given the
controversy, is not likely soon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
since you are now conscious, you can witness consciousness for yourself, and
draw your own conclusions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or can
you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, but only if you have free
will.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Volition (free will) is not possible in the
physicalist paradigm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This leads to
absurdity.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Free will thoroughly demolishes the physicalist paradigm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is because in physicalism, every
physical event must of necessity have a physical cause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing in physicalism is optional;
everything is either forced, or forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Everything is determined by an unbreakable chain of cause and effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Free will would be able to break that
unbreakable chain, and is therefore considered to be impossible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If we have free will (and we do), then we can overcome the chain of
cause and effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can intervene in
nature, and produce outcomes that otherwise would have been forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We do this by exercising our power of free
will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physicalism would define such a
power as supernatural, above physical nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If we do not have free will, then we are conscious observers of our
own lives, but not participants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One is
reminded of the hit song, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the Year
2525</i> (Zager and Evans, 1969), which contains the lyrics, “Everything you
think do and say, is in the pill you took today.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of a pill, our thoughts, words and
deeds would be dictated for us by the blind, indifferent and authorless forces
of nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Without free will, our lives would be a farce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would be nothing more than robots, albeit biochemical
ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since we would not be responsible
for our actions, there could be no moral right or wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The criminal could correctly claim that he
had no choice but to commit his crimes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The judge could claim that he has no choice but to impose
punishment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would all be helpless slaves
to the strictures of cause and effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Can anyone believe such a thing without going mad?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Without free will, there can be no science, because we could never
choose which experiments to perform, nor could we be sure that the conclusions
we draw from them are valid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
scientist, JBS Haldane, said that our conclusions could be neurologically
correct, but scientifically flawed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">A proposed experiment illustrates the principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suppose one programs a computer to simulate a
scientist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suppose further that in his
simulated world, the scientist would be programmed to study it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Continuing the experiment, the simulated
scientist would be tasked with learning all about the computer program which
defines him and his world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Could the
simulated scientist ever conclude that he is a simulation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Of course, he could act only as he was programmed to act, only as the
computer was programmed to dictate his every thought, word and deed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He could conclude only whatever the computer
forced him to conclude, with no regard to whether his conclusions were accurate
or completely flawed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having no free
will, he could never break free of the algorithm that enforces his cause-and-effect
world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If, in our world we have no free will, then we are just like that
artificially intelligent sequence of ones and zeroes that define the computer
simulated scientist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would, in effect,
be pre-programmed by nature itself, and in physicalism, nature cares nothing
about us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Literally, we would be
witnessing our own lives without being able to participate in them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But we do have free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
are not ones and zeroes; indeed, we are not merely physical creatures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can choose between right and wrong,
between good and evil, and we are accountable for the choices we make.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Which means, of course, that there are moral rights and wrongs,
whether we agree with them or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Good
and evil exist, factually, objectively and empirically, just as surely as do
the physical laws of nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The implications are vast, and we deny them at our eternal peril.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">The God Paradigm<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As promised, this brief booklet has presented compelling evidence that
physicalism is a flawed paradigm, and that the God Paradigm is better.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">We have only just begun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
details and consequences of the God Paradigm could fill a book, and indeed,
that book has been written.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its title
is, unsurprisingly, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The God Paradigm</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its ISBN is<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 20.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">978-1-365-22453-9<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 20.0pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p></span></i><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">It is available for purchase online at Lulu.com for $16 plus shipping.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm/paperback/product-22855534.html<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Whether or not you buy the book, its point is simple:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>you need not be intimidated into rejecting a
belief in God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your life has plan,
purpose and meaning, and these are eternal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There are abundant proofs of this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Three of them are life, consciousness and free will.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Peace.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Here are some excerpts from the book, The
God Paradigm<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p></i></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Nature could not have come about by natural
means, because until nature existed, there were no natural means.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p></i></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<span face="proxnov-reg" style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Quoting from Shakespeare’s Macbeth</span><span face="proxnov-reg" lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="21"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span face="proxnov-reg" style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">To-morrow, and to-morrow,
and to-morrow,</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span face="proxnov-reg" style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="22">Creeps in this petty pace from day to day</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="23">To the last syllable of recorded time,</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="24">And all our yesterdays have lighted fools</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="25">The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="26">Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="27">That struts and frets his hour upon the stage</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="28">And then is heard no more: it is a tale</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="29">Told by an idiot, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">full of
sound and fury,</b></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="30"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> <o:p></o:p></b></a></span></i><br />
<span style="mso-bookmark: 30;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span face="proxnov-reg" style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Signifying nothing.</span></i></b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span face="proxnov-reg" style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span face="proxnov-reg" style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">from Act
5, Scene 5</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;">In
1993, ethicist <b>Peter Singer</b> shocked many Americans by suggesting that no
newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the
attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years
later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Princeton</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>
ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and
infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born
self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not
persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a
pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Peter
Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1979), 122–23. </span><a href="http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/#christian-books-2"><span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="color: #292929;">http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/#christian-books-2</span></span></a><span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The God Paradigm holds that there is an absolute
standard of morality, one which we are obliged to live up to, to the best of
our abilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That standard is the same
whether we agree with it or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moral
law is as absolute as natural law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both
are authored by God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">When we ignore God, when we set ourselves up as the
final arbiters of right and wrong, then we make of ourselves, little
pseudo-gods. In effect, we deny that there really is any such thing as right or
wrong, and elect instead, to replace these notions with laws, with rules, and
with the raw power of enforcement.</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There are
terrible consequences which inevitably follow from such folly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">. . . experiments show that what happens to something in one place can
instantly affect something else in a far distant location, even across the
universe [<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">referring to quantum
nonlocality and entanglement</i>]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Entanglement,
then, is considered by some to be the most awesome discovery that physics has
ever made.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Its implications are
enormous and profound, for it can reasonably be suggested that the entire
universe itself, all of it, is inseparably interconnected with the human mind. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane" title="w:J. B. S. Haldane"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">J. B. S. Haldane</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> (</span><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/November_5" title="November 5"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">5
November</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/1892" title="1892"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">1892</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
– </span><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/December_1" title="December 1"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">1
December</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/1964" title="1964"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">1964</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">)
once said, “My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we
suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
American speak, he was saying that nature might not only be more strange than
we imagined, it might be more strange than we are even able to imagine. We
might not only be unable to understand the answers to the questions we ask, we
might not even be able to ask the right questions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">. . . there is no such thing as “almost
infinite.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No matter how high you count,
you are always an infinite amount short of infinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">. . . the
universe arises from some ultimate, absolute basis that is forever beyond our
understanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are finite, and
therefore, cannot comprehend the infinite.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We can, however, know that it exists, and that it is important to our
understanding of our daily lives, and to an understanding of physical
reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Vernor Vinge, in 1993, predicted:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Within thirty years, we will have the
technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human
era will be ended</i>.” That is a very provocative prediction!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Might it be accurate?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As
humans, we have a need to be free, to exercise our intellect, and to make our
own decisions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can do that, but only as
beings that are as much of spirit as we are of substance.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></span><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">. . . a computer chip implanted in the brain can
provide enormous benefits to individuals and their society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it could also render humans more
dependent on a centralized control and command office which, in the wrong
hands, could make slaves of everyone with the chip. And when has technology not
eventually fallen into the wrong hands?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">[Miracles]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">A common misconception about miracles is that they
cannot happen, because they are violations of natural law, and God would not
make a law only to violate it.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Miracles
are not violations of natural law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
are coincidences, confluences of unlikely events that come together at a
precise time and place, and achieve a precise outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
universe is a miracle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The earth is a
miracle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Life is a miracle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>When God
created the universe, He created it in such a way as to achieve His
purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the very moment of, “In
the beginning,” events were set in motion that would bring about whatever God
willed, whether it was the formation of the moon, or the parting of the Red
Sea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In computer terms, we might say
that God pre-programmed the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Jesus taught that goodness involves things that to
many people are counter-intuitive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
idea of “love thy enemy” is one which most people probably find difficult to
practice, indeed, many people deem unwise to practice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not mean that we refuse to defend the
weak against injustice by the strong, but rather, that we afford our enemies
every opportunity to act justly or, if they do not, we treat a defeated enemy
with mercy and kindness.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I may
deem it necessary to oppose an enemy, even to kill him if there is no better
option, but having done so, I must not (so to speak) dance on his grave.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I must regard the death of my enemy as a sad
tragedy that I seek to avoid.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span face="proxnov-reg" lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">In the year 6565<br />
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife<br />
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too<br />
From the bottom of a long glass tube</span></i><span face="proxnov-reg" lang="EN" style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><br />
—Zager and Evans 1969 hit song, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the
Year 2525</i></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">. . . our brain
is not a computer. For, a computer produces an output, to be sure, but an
output for a human user who is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">external</i>
to the computer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">. . . consider the invention of the steam engine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the steam engine did not come into
practical use until the late 1600s, it was actually invented (in primitive
form) in about the year 100 by a man named Heron of Alexandria.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was discarded as an impractical novelty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But had there been anyone on the scene to
recognize its potential, and done for the steam engine what other ancient
engineers did for the antikythera device, imagine how radically different a
course human history would almost surely have taken.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine something akin to the Industrial
Revolution occurring in about the year 150 AD!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Might men have landed on the moon in 1492?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></span><a href="http://www.antikythera-mechanism.com/"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: #292929;">http://www.antikythera-mechanism.com/</span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Is the
universe infinite?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may be even more
than that, it may be infinitely infinite.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And there may even be infinite numbers of infinitely large
universes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The very concept of infinity
may not even scratch the surface, so to speak, of the vastness of creation.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As Psalm
19:1 tells us,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>The heavens declare the glory of
God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">God is not merely an engineer, He is also an
artist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His creation is not merely a
mechanism, it is a work of beauty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Why do so many people hate Jews?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The
answer to that is that those who hate Jews, hate God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Bible tells us that those who bless
Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Your faith in God is far from
unreasonable, and quite to the contrary, it is atheism that abandons reason.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The entire universe can be thought of as
a life force.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It generates all the
requirements which permit life to exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why does it do so?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it all
coincidence, or is the universe designed around life?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Western civilization is founded in two opposing
traditions, the Hebrew and the Greek, the culture of faith and the culture of
reason.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first recording of the clash
and merger of these two traditions is in the Bible’s book, the Acts of the
Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This book chronicles the
earliest days of the Christian faith, and from that point onward, it is
impossible to separate Christianity from the rise of western civilization.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Until
that period of time, there was no consequential mention in secular history of
respect for individual rights, not only the rights of kings, but also the equal
rights of peasants, and even the rights of our enemies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
freedoms espoused by Christianity are not bestowed upon us by men, but by God,
and God requires us to obey His law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is that law which ignites the hatred within hedonists who disguise themselves
as advocates of human rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Time may not be
what we think it is, and parallel but differing measures of time can be made
according to mathematical and perceptual criteria.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The God Paradigm
grows stronger with every new development, and will eventually overwhelm natural-materialism,
becoming once again the philosophical basis of physical science.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">. . . the God Paradigm is not a religion. .
. . the God Paradigm claims no religious authority nor any privileged divine
revelation other than that freely available to everyone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It makes no demands that you must believe a
certain way, nor poses any threat of condemnation to those who disagree with
the author.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;">[physicalists]
attribute all this [universe] to chance, but as we showed in earlier chapters,
chance can only operate within nonrandom parameters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(We used the example of a die roll.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The chance of a die landing a six depends on
how many sides the die has, and dice are not produced at random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they were, then even that randomness would
require nonrandom parameters.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No matter
how much one might struggle to attribute anything to chance, intelligent design
cannot be avoided.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>One of the greatest mysteries of society
was solved in these words of the United States founding document, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Declaration of </i>Independence:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that </span></i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal" title="All men are created equal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">all
men are created equal</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are </span></i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness" title="Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span color="windowtext" style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">.</span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The phrase, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">endowed by their Creator, </span></i><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">solves the mystery, from where do we get
our human rights?</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Without God, there are no rights, but only brute
force.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As a Christian, I turn to the
Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The God Paradigm accepts the
Bible completely, and is totally subordinate to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everything in human affairs is best
understood in the context of Bible teachings, beginning with the Creation,
continuing with the Golden Rule, and finally culminating with our eternal
destiny.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>One of the dangerous pitfalls in any
discussion of God is that such discourse may tend to become merely
academic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While we certainly should
discuss Him, the discussion should be based on one’s personal life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The most compelling reason why people have an
abiding faith in God is that He has personally intervened in our lives, and
lifted us from spiritual desolation into a life of strength, joy and
fulfillment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As Bishop
Fulton J Sheen (1895 – 1979) wrote so eloquently:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The great arcana
of Divine Mysteries cannot be known by reason, but only by Revelation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reason can however, once in possession of
these truths, offer persuasions to show that they are not only not contrary to
reason, or destructive of nature, but eminently suited to a scientific temper
of mind and the perfection of all that is best in human nature.</i><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">[regarding John
Newton, who wrote the well-known hymn, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Amazing
Grace</i>]<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Encapsulating his
story for brevity, John Newton was a slave trader, a fact to which he referred
later in life remorsefully, according to Wikipedia:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">He apologized
for [in his own words] "a confession, which ... comes too
late ... It will always be a subject of humiliating reflection to me, that
I was once an active instrument in a business at which my heart now
shudders." <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>John
Newton came to faith in a manner which might seem hypocritical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Aboard a ship during a fierce storm which
seemed would surely kill all on board, Newton cried out to a God in which he
did not believe, asking that his life be spared.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It was.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In a
fictional story, Newton might have immediately become an exemplary Christian,
but quite the contrary, his business with God seemingly concluded, Newton
forgot about all that, and went about his usual business— the slave trade.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>God,
however, did not forget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Newton had
asked God to save him, and God was not done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It took years, many years, but John Newton eventually became a member of
the clergy, denounced slavery, and was an active abolitionist.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Of course
the natural-materialist will emphatically disagree [with the God
Paradigm].<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This book cannot settle any
of that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we said before, we do not arrive
at faith in God through our own effort, but only by His gift of faith.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>So it
will be until the final day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our
struggle will not end until then.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Always
there will be yet another doubt that can creep in, another deception to lead us
astray.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>We will
endure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God will ensure that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For only with Him, does everything make
sense. Without Him, nothing does.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The God Paradigm</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">ISBN <i><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 20.0pt;">978-1-365-22453-9</span></i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Is available for purchase online at Lulu.com for $16 plus shipping.</span><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: #292929;">http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
/paperback/product-22855534.html<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></o:p></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Dark Side of Science<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">The
technology spawned by science grows ever more powerful, and does so at an
ever-faster rate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Where is it taking us?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"></span><br />
Science has
bestowed enormous benefits on mankind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But it has a dark side as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
gives us miracle medicines, but also, germ warfare.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It bestows upon us nuclear power, and nuclear
bombs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its power can be used to benefit
the environment or to destroy it.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">But there is
another aspect of science, one that has nothing to do with technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has to do with shaping our world
view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In doing so, it influences how we
structure our society, our laws, and our moral codes.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">What is most
remarkable about science is not its gadgetry, but rather, what it tells us
about ourselves, who we are, what is our purpose and destiny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do we have inherent value?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or are we just another species of animal?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">In other
words, there is a powerful philosophy that underpins science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It affects us all.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">Science is
based on the premise that the universe has rules, unbreakable laws that do not
depend on our opinion, but which are revealed to us by observation and
reason.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As far as we can tell, the
universe is orderly; it has structure and hierarchy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is that all just meaningless coincidence?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">Until recent
times, nature was correctly seen to be the work of a divine designer whose
purpose, plan and meaning are revealed to us in the wonders of Creation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have a special place in that creation; we
are its stewards, its gardeners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have
life, we have consciousness—and we possess free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, we are accountable for our deeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our noble purpose is to love one another, to
be our brother’s keeper, and to treat each other with the same kindness and
respect we desire for ourselves.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">But that was
then, this is now.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">Many
scientists no longer regard us as having any special place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are no longer regarded as having a
spiritual dimension, but only a physical one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We are seen to be products of a cold, uncaring universe, indeed, not
even a product, but only a mere byproduct, an accident, an unlikely outcome of events
that had no plan, no purpose, no meaning.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">The
inevitable extension of this purely physical view of humanity is technological
barbarism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we are mere atoms,
biological machines, then by what right can we expect to be treated as anything
more than that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, there would be
no rights at all, but only force.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">Of course,
such dismal interpretations of science are not at all scientific, but only
ideological.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most people, however,
confronted with the scientific arguments for physics devoid of spirit, find
themselves ill equipped to counter those arguments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All too many people have subscribed to the
material paradigm, and have come to regard religious faith as mere superstition
at best, as harmful at worst.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">The God
paradigm, on the other hand, holds that life is not merely a chemical
reaction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It informs us that our free
will empowers us—supernaturally—to break the otherwise immutable chain of cause
and effect.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">Physical
science, when it is divorced from faith, denies that free will can possibly
exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that view, the criminal cannot
be blamed for his crimes; the hero deserves no praise.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">In the
material view, as expressed by the social left, there is no right, no
wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Do as thou wilt.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That view has led us to enact laws that make
no moral distinction between family values and sexually perverse
relationships.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It regards humans in the
womb as disposable tissue masses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
invites, across our borders, masses of people who are hostile to
Judeo-Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It defines our
Founders only by their sad record of slavery, but makes no mention of the
freedoms they imparted to all of us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is changing the definition of free speech to violent bigotry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It promotes the accelerating decay of Western
civilization.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">How can we
free ourselves from that futile and destructive world view?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The answer is simple, but not easy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to reform the institutions of both science
and politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to restore faith
to the public forum.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">Concerning
scientific atheism, the late, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen said it well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He wrote, <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“The
great arcana of Divine Mysteries cannot be known by reason, but only by
Revelation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reason can however,
once in possession of these truths, offer persuasions to show that they
are not only not contrary to reason, or destructive of nature, but
eminently suited to a scientific temper of mind and the perfection of all
that is best in human nature.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>The
Life of All Living, <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">ISBN-10<b>:</b></span>
0385154585, <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">ISBN-13<b>:</b></span>
978-0385154581<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">Science is
only as valuable as its foundation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
that foundation is not faith, then science is a house built upon shifting sand,
and must collapse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s stop
worshipping the false gods of so-called science, before they demand the sacrifice
of all that is truly sacred.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<br clear="all" style="break-before: page; mso-special-character: line-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Science Needs a New Paradigm<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p> </span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">Science and
politics used to be very separate institutions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Where they did overlap, science was nonpartisan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The role of scientists was to provide
objective evidence—and dispassionate, nonpolitical interpretations of that
evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, one rarely if ever
could detect the political leanings of any particular scientist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, science and religion used to get along,
at least for the most part.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">Today, that
has changed, and the results include significant dangers for society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, the topic of climate change has
produced the myth of “settled science.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science
is never settled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While we all may agree
that the climate does change, there is an anti-capitalist agenda behind the
claims of many scientists—that we must radically reduce our standards of living
to prevent climate catastrophe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Politics
and ideology, not science, promote that so-called scientific view.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">But there is
an even deeper, and darker, implication involving the politicization of
science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its first major public
confrontation was in a state court case, dubbed the <a href="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/monkey-trial-begins"><span style="color: #0563c1;">Scopes
Monkey trial</span></a>, which tested a law that forbade the teaching of Darwinian
Evolution theory in public schools.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On a
legal maneuver, Darwinism technically lost that particular trial, but all
subsequent federal court rulings since then, have upheld the theory of
evolution as accepted fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Contrary
theories are essentially forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Evolution is “settled science.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">It is not
the purpose of this commentary to litigate the theory of evolution, or any
other particular scientific theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather,
it is to examine the cultural fallout from that theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The late paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, is quoted as having said that, “Man is the result of a
purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not
planned.”<a href="file:///C:/Backup%202016/Documents/Blog%20Posts/2.172%20Science%20Needs%20a%20New%20Paradigm.docx" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="color: #0563c1;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">What Darwin
and Simpson have done, along with others, is to introduce into society the
physicalist paradigm, the one that holds that nothing exists except stuff, that
is, material reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to
physicalism, there is no spirit, no God, no eternal afterlife.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By extension of that paradigm, you and I are
nothing more than stuff, that is, the atoms that make up our physical
bodies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that is to be considered
true, then it necessarily must follow, at least eventually, that we have no
inherent right to be treated as anything more than protoplasm, nothing more
than just another species of animal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">That
paradigm is, of course, dangerous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
contradicts not only the Bible, but also the Declaration of Independence, the
founding document of our nation, which states that we are endowed by our
Creator—repeat, by our Creator—with certain inalienable rights, including life
and liberty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">This is a
critical central tenet of our modern civilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It informs us that our rights come to us not
from the government, but from God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No
government has the right to infringe on those rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Government is not the ultimate moral
authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It must be constrained to its
limited functions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">If we are considered
to be nothing more than atoms, if the courts believe that, if judges and
lawmakers act upon that belief, then we are in serious jeopardy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a paradigm is the one upon which
authoritarians establish totalitarian dictatorships.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the one that justifies genocide, which
defines humans as livestock, and morality as whatever is convenient for the
ruling class.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span face=""calibri" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
However, the
physicalist paradigm is not only morally wrong, it is also unscientific.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The universe itself provides overwhelming
evidence of planning and purpose by an Intelligent Designer (Creator, God).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The proof is so complete that, in order to
refute it, scientists have had to resort to a thoroughly unsupported,
unscientific speculation that there are an infinite number of universes, whereby
one of them was destined to be, purely by chance, like ours.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Once again,
it is not the purpose of this commentary to provide detailed support for any one
particular theory, whether multi-universe or Intelligent Design.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That has been done elsewhere, including in my
<a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm/paperback/product-22855534.html"><span style="color: #0563c1;">book</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But, when
scientists resort to fantasy instead of observable, repeatable experiment by
skeptics, then we have abandoned reason, and begun slouching toward barbarism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There is
more than enough evidence for science to reject the physicalist paradigm, and
to move toward a God paradigm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While
neither can be absolutely proved by the rules of science, the world view
adopted by scientists has enormous power to direct the efforts of science, for
better or worse.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The time is
now to consider the far-reaching implications of the paradigm that governs science.
The time is now to begin thinking of how to embed our values, our morals, our
very spirituality into the process of our further development. We must decide
whether, and how, to preserve the best features of our human nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The
alternative is self-destruction.<br />
-<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
<!--[endif]-->
</span><br />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Backup%202016/Documents/Blog%20Posts/2.172%20Science%20Needs%20a%20New%20Paradigm.docx" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="color: #0563c1;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
George Gaylord Simpson, <i>The Meaning of Evolution</i> (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1971), 345.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">ISBN-13:</span> 978-0300002294<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
-----------------------------------------</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Science and Human Rights—Is there a
Conflict?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Science
defines you as a robot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The laws of
cause-and-effect leave it no alternative but to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that definition, if accepted, would leave
us with no human rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is there a
better way to interpret science?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are we
automatons, or are we autonomous, sovereign individuals who can break free from
natural law?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What are the political,
social and cultural implications?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This
commentary will, using everyday language, challenge the arguments of science
which would describe you merely as a biological mechanism, one with no
God-given rights to life and liberty.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The scientific
laws of cause and effect are familiar to us in our everyday experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we see a baseball flying through the air,
we assume that it was thrown or hit, that is to say, its motion has a
cause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dominos provide a good
illustration, when we stand them up in a line.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Topple the first domino, and it causes the second one to fall, which
forces the next one, and so forth, until all the dominos in the chain have
fallen.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This is, of
course, a vast oversimplification, but it is valid for the purpose here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The science of quantum mechanics complicates
the matter, but causation remains at the heart of physical science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can be said of the physical universe (as
it can of socialism) that everything is either mandatory or forbidden; nothing
is optional.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">What has
this to do with human rights?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Simply
this:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>if you are nothing more than your
physical nature, the arrangement of atoms that comprise your body, then the
immutable laws of nature govern everything about you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your every thought, word and deed is
determined for you, not by you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You are,
in effect, one of the dominos, however much more complex the case may be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a person would have no inherent rights.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">That is the
definition of a robot.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Of course, each of us experiences himself as a living,
conscious creature who can exercise free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These three attributes are unsolved mysteries of science, at least as
mysterious as the exotic phenomena known as dark matter and dark energy.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">As to the first attribute, life, most scientists might scoff
at the notion that it is not well understood by science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The science of biology has done much to
define life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it has incorrectly
defined life only as its chemical process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It has defined life as an effect of the universe, not a cause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Life, however, is so intricately intertwined
with all the phenomena of nature that it should be seen as a fundamental
reality of nature, no less so than quarks and space-time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The precise fine-tuning of the universe
defines it as a mechanism for generating and supporting life, civilization and
technology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Consciousness is the second of the three great mysteries of
human nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While medical science can
observe and measure the outward signs of consciousness, no known physical laws
of nature can account for the inward experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To adapt the famous saying of Descartes, I am
conscious, therefore I am.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One can no
more define inward consciousness in physical terms than one can define the
quality of color to a person who has been totally blind since birth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science says that consciousness emerges from
complexity, but the evidence provided by the double-slit experiment (quantum
physics) arguably suggests that conscious experience may govern physical
nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Volition, or free will, is the final nail in the coffin of
physical determinism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not simply
that science cannot explain free will, it is that physics actually denies the
possibility that volition can exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Free will, science tells us, is an illusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It says that you only think that you can make
autonomous decisions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If free will
exists, and it does, then it can break the immutable chain of cause and
effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is as if the dominos could
refuse to fall, despite the forces of nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Free will is, then, a supernatural power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whereas life is misunderstood, and whereas
consciousness is not understood, free will is, according to science, utterly
forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It provides the word,
“optional,” to the chain of cause and effect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Very well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
commentary has not proved that we are endowed by our Creator with certain
inalienable rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will not change
the mind of those who see themselves as nothing more than helpless robots who
are witnesses to their own lives, but not participants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, if none of us has free will, then
none of us can choose our beliefs—they are forced upon us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">One has to question, then, what good does such a dismal
persuasion (the physicalist one) do?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What will be the consequences?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>One shudders to imagine them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">-<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">
</span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Two Fundamental Flaws in the Multi-verse
Hypothesis<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The
“many-universes” hypothesis proposes that there are an incomprehensibly large
number of universes besides ours—and that they explain our universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent episode of the television science
series, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How the Universe Works</i>, made
the claim that hard evidence for the multi-verse hypothesis has been
discovered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Disappointingly, my internet search found
only the weakest of such evidence, if indeed evidence it can be called.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
As
attractive as it might otherwise be, there are two major flaws in the many-universes
hypothesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One, as we have just pointed
out, is that there is no incontrovertible evidence for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second flaw is that, even if it were to
be established that other universes exist in a multi-verse framework, such a
discovery would do nothing to explain our universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the mystery of our universe would
only multiply.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s explain both flaws.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The first
flaw remains open, since the burden of proof (or even of evidence) lies with
those who propose the multi-verse hypothesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Until they can present credible, peer reviewed, hard evidence, they have
no case, but only at most, a reasonable conjecture, but a conjecture
nonetheless.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Before we
explain the second, and fatal, flaw, some background is in order.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Question:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>why is there a many-universes hypothesis at all?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is it trying to explain?<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The answer
to that lies in an astonishing scientific observation that has only two
plausible explanations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
observation, needing an explanation, is that the universe has 27 mathematical
properties, each of which is precisely configured to make the universe suitable
for life, civilization and technology. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Examples of mathematical properties of
ordinary objects might include weight, length, width and so forth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the universe, these mathematical
properties include the strength of gravity, the speed of light, and so forth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
One of these
27 mathematical properties (or physical constants, as they are called) is known
as the <u>cosmological constant</u>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This particular value is so precise that, were it to differ by even an
unimaginably tiny fraction of a fraction, the universe would either collapse
into a fireball, or else, explode into a vapor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Either outcome would, of course, render the universe uninhabitable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
So then, the
piercing question arises, why is the universe so precisely configured (scientists
call it “fine tuning”) to support life, civilization and technology?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why can the universe contain scientists?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is it that determines what values the
constants will have?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What determines how
many constants there are, and what properties of the universe they measure?<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There are
two plausible answers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of them is
chance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other is design.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Chance<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
One idea is
that our one universe came into being by chance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to this idea, it is so precisely
tuned, as it is, because each of the 27 constants was determined by chance
alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The force of gravity (the
gravitational constant) could have been any value, at least within a set range
of values.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But by a roll of the dice,
the G-constant was set where we now find it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The <u>cosmological
constant</u>, however, presents an extraordinary problem for the theory of
chance formation of the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Were
it to differ from its present state by even a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction
(repeat many times), the universe could not support life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it would either collapse or explode.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What were
physicists to do?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They found what they
think is an answer, which is this:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>while
it is unlikely in the extreme, that any one universe would be as finely tuned
as is ours, the chance increases with every additional universe that may
exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you have kazillions of
universes, and even kazillions to the kazillionth power of them, then as the
number of universes approaches infinity, the chances approach 100 percent.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
That settles
it, then.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our universe is finely tuned
by chance, and the chance is at, or close to, 100 percent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since we could not survive in any universe
not suited to life, then it should not be at all surprising that the one we
live in is finely tuned, by chance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Wait.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not so fast.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The chance (or
randomness) theory of universe formation has at least one fatal flaw.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can be summed up in the principle that <u>randomness
can operate only within nonrandom parameters</u>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What that
means is simply this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A random die roll
has one chance in six of landing a six.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But that is true only if the die has six sides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dice, however, can have any number of sides,
from four on upward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the die has four
sides, it has no chance of landing a six.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If it has twelve sides, then it has one chance in twelve, and so forth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What this
demonstrates is that it is meaningless to calculate the chance of an event
occurring, unless there are set parameters within which chance can operate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, it is meaningless to ask what
are the chances of a die roll landing a four, if you do not know how many sides
the die has.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Dice are not
produced at random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are designed
and manufactured with a specific intent and purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they have six sides, that is because they
were designed and intended to have six sides.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Likewise,
this principle must apply to our universe, and to however many other universes
there might be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a universe (as does
ours) has 27 physical constants, that number, 27 cannot be purely random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There must be parameters which determine a
range of numbers, a range of how many physical constants define or measure the
properties of a universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One must also
have a range of what those values could be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In other
words, the parameters within which chance can determine a universe’s properties
are not themselves random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are
designed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Design<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If something
appears to be designed, then one possible explanation is that, it was designed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While one
may argue that appearances can be deceptive, that argument, taken alone, is not
sufficient to overrule the most obvious explanation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a principle used by scientists
called, Occam’s Razor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to that
principle, the preferred scientific explanation for any observed event is that
explanation, which is the simplest one available, that fits all the known facts.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Thus, the simplest
explanation for the universe is that it is the result of a creative force that
designed it, and designed it to support life, civilization and technology—all of
the things it is observed to do, despite the astounding unlikelihood of it all.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
For whatever
reason, many scientists reject the suggestion of a creative force, or of cosmic
intent, not merely on scientific grounds, but with an emotional fervor that
exceeds what one might expect from a detached skeptic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While it can
be a grave error to attribute impure motives to someone, it is not an error to
suggest that the most brilliant people among us can have blind spots, or
eccentric features of their otherwise reasonable perspectives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The biographies of many admirable men and
women of history contain those.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
To be sure,
the suggestion of a force that created nature must, of necessity, suppose an
overarching principle of which physical nature is only a subset.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nature cannot have come about by natural
means, because until nature existed, there were no natural means.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
All of this,
then, leads inevitably to a discussion of God, a subject which is utterly and
forever beyond the reach of science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Indeed, it is infinitely beyond the reach of human reason.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For some scientists, it must seem frightening.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some of them might react emotionally.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Therefore,
they reach for any physical explanation of the physical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They reject the possibility that there can be
nonphysical explanations for physical phenomena.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They reject the ideas of soul, of spirit, of
God, because those are not subject to scientific analysis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They point out that if there is not a test
that could prove something false, then neither can it be proved true.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Can a multi-verse fit both a scientific and
divine world view?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Yes, it can,
and this is what many scientists fail to understand about the multi-verse
hypothesis.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Remember
what we said about randomness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It cannot
operate except within nonrandom, designed parameters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Dice do not have random numbers of sides, and universes cannot usefully
be considered to have random numbers of constants with random ranges of
values.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In effect, this would mean that
the odds of any configuration would be one in infinity, which is pretty much the
definition of zero.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Therefore,
using the multi-verse to rule out the need for a creative force, a force above
nature, fails to meet its goal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If our
one universe is unlikely to be as it is, then a multi-verse is even less likely
to be as it is, because it would require its own nonrandom parameters, and many
more of them than 27, if it is to have the potential of giving rise to
incomprehensibly large numbers of universes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This reduces
the odds of a universe like ours to, essentially zero, no matter how many
universes one imagines.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There are
other reasons why the multi-verse theory fails to explain anything in a useful
way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of these is the statement, made
by scientists in earnest that, anything that can possibly happen, must
happen, and must happen an infinite number of times.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But if one
thinks about it, what this really means is that, on the grandest scale, nothing
ever really happens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may seem
inscrutable, but if a six-sided die roll must land on all six sides, then
nothing definitive has occurred.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will
not be productive to flesh this out in the detail needed, unless specifically asked.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Another
reason for rejecting the idea that everything possible must happen, is that it
rejects the notion of free will, the sovereign independence of human
decision-making.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This principle has been
elucidated in the booklet<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, Life,
Consciousness and Free Will are Foundations of Physical Reality</i>, which is
published free of charge at http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
That
pamphlet, along with this one, is a supplement and introduction to the book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The God Paradigm</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Both are
searchable at Lulu.com which is a self-publisher’s utility site.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
A final
statement is this quote from the late, Bishop Fulton J Sheen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The great arcana of Divine Mysteries cannot
be known by reason, but only by Revelation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Reason can however, once in possession of these truths, offer
persuasions to show that they are not only not contrary to reason, or
destructive of nature, but eminently suited to a scientific temper of mind and
the perfection of all that is best in human nature.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
-<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
-<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
-<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">Atheism and the
Future<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">--by Robert Arvay<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div style="mso-element-anchor-horizontal: column; mso-element-anchor-vertical: paragraph; mso-element-linespan: 2; mso-element-wrap: around; mso-element: dropcap-dropped; mso-height-rule: exactly;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">Atheism fails on every level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It fails philosophically, morally,
politically, and even in the area often considered its strongest suit,
scientifically.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>According to atheist philosophy, there is
no objective purpose in life, unless one considers metabolism to be a lofty
purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to atheism, when we
die, we are extinguished into an oblivion in which we are neither rewarded for
our good deeds, nor held accountable for our sins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, according to atheist reasoning, there
is no such thing as objective good, nor is anything actually evil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such concepts are considered to be mere
opinions, not facts.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Morally, atheism cannot debunk the
argument made for sociopathy, absurd as that argument is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sociopath argues that if his hideous
deeds need any justification, his own selfishness is more than justification
enough. Atheism has no sufficient answer to that.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Politically, atheism has been embraced by
sociopathic, totalitarian dictators who have murdered millions, enslaved
countless more, and condemned their populations to lives of hardship, dominated
by brutal suppression of their freedoms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Political systems based in Christian and Jewish teachings, long ago
discarded brutality as a substitute for representative government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No degree of brutality is inconsistent with
the belief that there is no God.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Finally, atheism falls back on its final
stronghold, science, to demonstrate its supremacy over religious belief. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Examined more closely, however, science not only
fails to debunk the God of the Bible, it affirms Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, recent theories in science are
unwittingly acknowledging that physical reality cannot be explained by physical
reality alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “many universes
hypothesis” is a step in that direction, borne of desperation by atheists to
find a naturalist material explanation for the divinely fine-tuned nature of
our universe.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Ironically, while atheism is bankrupt as a
philosophy, those who believe in it can be ordinary, decent people of good
will. The irony in this is that benevolent atheists get their benevolence not
from atheism, but from traditions that are rooted in religious belief.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
may be unconscious of this fact, because Judeo-Christian traditions have permeated
our social customs for a very long time.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The danger in atheism is that while our
religious traditions are eroding, atheism has increasing influence, displacing much
of the social influence of our religious traditions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As religious teachings continue to decline
in influence, atheism will increasingly dominate. This will result in the
inevitable implementation of a social utility principle, which is more a form
of material accounting than of justice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such
a principle in turn gives rise to a society that incorporates both the welfare state,
and its necessary enabler, the despotic state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Such a state, ever more devoid of conscience, gives rise to massive
levels of abortion, euthanasia, and finally, to elimination from society of
anyone and everyone who is deemed inconvenient, that is to say, inferior or
without utility. In such a society, personal liberties will vanish for the
common man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under the ruse of “the
greater good,” individuals will exist only for the state, meaning that they
will exist only for the benefit of those at the uppermost levels of power.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Can such a condition actually become a
reality?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have already entered its
first stage.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To appearances, the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
is a constitutional republic with democratic values.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At least on paper it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyone who actually believes that the
ordinary citizen enjoys all the rights and powers recognized by the
Constitution is woefully misinformed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Rights explicitly guaranteed to the people
and the states under the Constitution are routinely violated by those in power,
while so-called rights that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution have
been invented based on anything but the explicit pronouncements of that
document.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your explicitly stated right
to free speech can be selectively taxed out of any meaningful practice (just ask
Lois Lerner), while politicians confiscate your hard-earned money and give it
to people who have no right to it at all, and who indeed hate you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These people then vote for more of this
corruption, as you and your children are saddled with debt, and deprived of
your inalienable right to liberty.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This condition could not arise in a
culture governed by the Judeo-Christian ethic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It can arise only in a society where citizens have been deceived into
trusting that the people in government are wiser and more benevolent than the
ordinary citizen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Government is becoming
a god, the false god, of secularism.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Excessive power has corrupted the federal
government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As its influence continues
to increase, its power will become not merely excessive, but absolute—and so
will its corruption.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The election of Donald Trump to the
presidency offers some hope that the growth of government will be slowed,
perhaps even reversed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this is by no
means certain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The atheistic forces of
totalitarian rule have now become a cornered beast, and sensing that its time
is short, uts resistance will increase to a maddened ferocity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Even so, we are confident of ultimate
victory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As President George Washington
wrote so eloquently, <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of
the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to
animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></i></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="font-size: small;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">
<span style="font-size: small;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: x-small;">
</span></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God will assure
victory, but each of us is assigned a duty to that end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each of us has a moral obligation to be
inspired to find that duty, and perform it, to the degree possible.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">-<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">-<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">-<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">As Evidence for God Accrues, Atheist
Scientists Panic<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><o:p> </o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Let’s start
by saying that, at present, there is no scientific proof of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, there are many easier things to
prove, and science can’t even prove all of those.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But despite a lack of proof, there is strong scientific
evidence for God, and over the years, it has become much stronger—so strong, in
fact, that serious and accomplished scientists, in order to maintain plausible
deniability of God, have actually had to resort to theories that are even less
scientific than a theory of God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
One of the
most interesting of these atheistic theories is what is called the “many
universes hypothesis,” or multi-verse theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Despite its lack of evidence, it has gained impressive support among some
of the premier physicists and cosmologists of our time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why?<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There is an
emerging idea, that belief in God is scientifically (repeat, scientifically)
preferable to atheism. This did not occur overnight.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For centuries, scientists have observed
physical reality, and as they tried to explain what they saw, it became clear
to them, that atheistic science was being forced into an untenable conclusion—that
the universe we live in is impossible without a purposeful and almighty Creator.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is unlikely ever to have come about by
natural means, because until the universe existed, there were no natural means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the likelihood of our universe
existing by mindless forces of nature alone, is so vanishingly tiny, as to
qualify for the term, “impossible,” or something so close to it that no better
practical term can be found.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Why does our
universe seem impossible?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are
twenty-seven basic properties of the universe that make it fit for life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, gravity must be strong, but not
too strong—otherwise the universe either collapses into a fireball, or
vaporizes into a fine mist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
probability of gravity being neither too strong nor too weak is small.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All by itself, this would be acceptable as a
natural coincidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, as one
increases the number of these properties, it becomes less and less likely that
every single one of them could be within the parameters that make the universe possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are just too many coincidences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They defy reason, and what is science if not
reasonable?<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The final
straw came when the cosmological constant, one of the twenty-seven properties,
was found to be so critical that, were it to differ by an unimaginably tiny
fraction, the universe would either implode or explode.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That fraction is something like one grain of
sand on all the beaches of planet earth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In other
words, creation is either a profoundly unlikely combination of tiny chances, or
else, it is the product of intelligent design, cosmic intent, or in a word, God.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Oh no, say
the atheists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That cannot be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For centuries, belief in God has been held to
be unscientific, and so it must continue to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>How do we restore science’s vaunted authority?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can we continue to ridicule belief in
God?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can we restore faith in
physical science?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can we restore our
supremacy as the revealers of scientific fact?<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Do these
sound like the sentiments of a threatened priesthood?<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The hoped-for
answer to the threat was to be found in a curious new theory, which says that
there are infinite numbers of universes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Each one of them is the product of impossibly tiny chance
coincidences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Among them, one would be
just exactly like our universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you
can spin the wheel forever, then sooner or later you get the exact result, no
matter how unlikely, that produces our universe, and all without God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Case closed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Except that
the case is far from closed, and on at least two counts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, as some eminent scientists have
pointed out, the many universes theory is not scientific. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no evidence for it, only
speculation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Secondly, even if one
accepts the many universes theory as true, it does not make God to be a less
adequate explanation for physical reality, but more so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is because, if you believe that the
universe can be created by a multi-verse, then how do you explain the even less
likely existence of the multi-verse?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What gave rise to that?<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There are
other flaws, even absurdities, in the multi-verse theory, as expanded upon in my book<a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm/paperback/product-22855534.html"><span style="color: #0563c1;">,
The God Paradigm</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Those
absurdities are not restricted to science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They spill over into the creed of moral relativism, and into the many
and sundry social theories that are fragmenting our culture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Physical
science cannot explain our inward experience of consciousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It denies that we have free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it provides no objective basis for
morality and the laws which arise from it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If we are nothing more than merely arrangements of atoms, then by what
logic should we be treated as anything more than that? <o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand, if we are all children of
the same God, then it is from Him whence we obtain our human rights, and not
from any earthly government.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Science is
best understood as a gift from God, not as an excuse to deny Him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
-<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
-<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">
</span><a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/thinking-outside-the-quantum-box/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-digest&utm_content=link&utm_term=2018-02-16_top-stories">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/thinking-outside-the-quantum-box/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-digest&utm_content=link&utm_term=2018-02-16_top-stories</a><br />
</span><br />
The above online article at <em>Scientific American Magazine</em> supports the concept of mind being external to the brain. Okay, that is overstating the case, but that overstatement is a good conceptual starting point for the concept that life, consciousness and free will are at the foundation of the physical world.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p><br />
<o:p>---------------------------------------------------------</o:p><br />
<o:p>
<br />
</o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Starticles, the Big Bang, and the Big Rip<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">What is a starticle?</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a term I invented as the name of the
smallest possible unit of space-time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ST
stands for space-time, and a starticle is the elementary, irreducible particle
(so to speak) of space and time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, a
starticle is a space-time-particle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">I am not a physicist,
so what I am writing about here is a concept, not a mathematical model, but
then, one does not have to be a physicist to put forward a hypothesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">What is the Big Rip?</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This one is somewhat more difficult to
understand, but the basics of it are within reach of the average educated
person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even I can begin to picture it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Big Rip is the hypothesized final stage
in the expansion of the universe, in which everything, even atoms, will be
ripped apart by the expansion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s
break this down into more simple parts, because those parts are important to
the starticle hypothesis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">It is known
to most of us that, according to astronomers, the universe is expanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has been doing so, ever since the Big
Bang—the explosion which began the known universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What confuses people is that the universe is
not expanding into a surrounding space, but instead, it is space itself that is
expanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As it expands, new space is
being continuously created.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The Big Bang
began when there was no space, no time, perhaps no anything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What was there?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one can really identify what (if anything)
existed, because we have no terms that apply to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can speculate that there was perhaps a
primordial, very tiny (some say infinitely tiny) “something” that has been
called a cosmic seed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some use the term,
singularity, which basically means something so weird that we cannot imagine
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe there was nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In any case,
the pre-universe exploded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, no one can put forward a cogent
theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we do have evidence that
space-time exploded, because astronomers have measured the movement of distant
galaxies, and they are all (with few exceptions) moving away from us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We know that it is space itself that is
expanding, because the more distant galaxies are receding faster than the
nearer galaxies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has also been
discovered that the rate of expansion is not steady, is not slowing down, but
is increasing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The bottom
line is that there is no central point from which the universe began
expanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s sort of like trying to
find the central point on the surface of an inflating balloon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Two ants on the surface, of such a balloon,
would each feel that she (because worker ants are female) was at the center of
the expansion, and that the other ant was receding.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The universe
will continue to expand for trillions of years into the future, so we have no
need to panic just yet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The
expansion of the universe, because it is increasingly faster and faster all the
time, brings us to the question of where will it all end?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That question leads us to some fascinating
conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">According to
many cosmologists, the expansion will finally result in the Big Rip.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, let’s break this into its parts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Nothing can
move through space faster than the speed of light—but space itself can expand
faster than light can move through it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As the universe expands, the galaxies move farther from us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are already galaxies so far away that
we will never be able to see them, because their light will never reach
us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, their light is moving
farther away from us, because the space they occupy is expanding faster than
the speed of light.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This creates
what we call a light horizon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As space continues
to expand, more and more galaxies will move beyond that light horizon, and we
will lose sight of them forever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Eventually, even the nearest galaxies will have moved beyond the light
horizon, because the light horizon keeps getting closer to us as space expands
ever faster.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Galaxies are
held together by gravity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Gravity waves
travel at the speed of light, and let’s remember that, according to relativity
theory, nothing can move through space faster than the speed of light—but space
itself can.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Eventually,
the stars in our galaxy will be so far away from each other, due to expanding
space, that gravity waves will not be able to reach the nearest star to
ours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, the stars will have no
gravitational attraction to each other, and our galaxy will fly apart.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">It gets
worse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Space will
continue to expand, and as it does so, the space between the sun and our planet
will be so great that neither light nor gravity from it can reach us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, the earth will no longer orbit the sun,
and indeed, we will not receive any light.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Likewise,
for the moon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Next, the earth itself
will not be held together by gravity, because the atoms which comprise the
earth will be too far from each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Then, the atoms themselves will be ripped apart, since electrons will no
longer be connected by subatomic forces to the nucleus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Next, even the nuclei will be ripped apart,
and finally, so will the protons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Protons are made of quarks, which are bound to each other by nuclear
forces, and the quarks will separate from each other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That
concludes the Big Rip theory, except for some as yet unknowable things that
involve the hypothesized starticle.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">As we said
earlier, the word, starticle, is a term I invented as the name of the smallest
possible unit of space-time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ST stands
for space-time, and a starticle is the elementary, irreducible particle (so to
speak) of space and time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, a
starticle is a space-time-particle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">(One theory
of space and time is that they are continuous, with no division between one
instant of time, or one location in space, and the next.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This theory is, however, not the working
theory of physics, and for a number of good reasons, which you can look up for
yourself if you are interested.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The working
theory of space-time now involves something called a Planck length.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Planck length is the theorized tiniest
unit of space.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is irreducible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One can think of space as being composed of
grains, and nothing can be smaller than a grain of space-time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The starticle probably measures at one Planck
length, but in any case, I am supposing it to be the elementary, irreducible
unit of space and time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Since
physics considers space and time to be two aspects of the same thing, then
there is a smallest unit of space-time, and thus the term, starticle.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">There are
also elementary particles of mass-energy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Just as space and time are different aspects of the same thing, so also
are matter (mass) and energy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Electrons
and quarks are elementary particles, irreducible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(String theory offers a different explanation,
but it does not change the principle of starticles.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">We are now
ready to get to the main point of this commentary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Imagine an
electron.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is neither a particle nor a
wave, but a unit of mass that can be considered to have the properties of either
a wave or a particle depending on conditions, and on how it is observed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After the Big Rip, each electron will exist
all by itself, with no connection to anything outside itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That bears
some contemplation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The question
then must be asked, how will this affect the properties of that electron?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will it still have a charge?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will its charge still be negative?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In relation to what?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will it still have a mass of 1/1836 that of a
proton?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will such a measurement have any
physical meaning?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Think of it
this way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The isolated electron, after
the Big Rip, will in a sense be in its own universe. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may in fact be its own universe. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the perspective of the electron, nothing
else will exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing will be within
its horizon, whether that is a light horizon, a gravity horizon, charge
horizon, or any other ability to interact with anything else.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Also, let’s
bear in mind that each starticle itself, will have no interaction with any
other starticle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As space expands, new
starticles are coming into existence, which is why space is expanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That being the case, will new starticles keep
being formed?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe not, because it
seems that the expansion of space is being caused by dark energy, or perhaps
some other poorly understood interaction between starticles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">After a
given starticle is utterly estranged from anything else, will its properties
change?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What will the starticle be if it
has no interactions, if nothing ever enters it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Can anything ever leave it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will
it be its own universe?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">After this,
only metaphysical speculation can be used in discussing these matters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But one such metaphysical speculation is
this:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>if after the Big Rip, each
starticle is its own universe, will it be just like our universe was before the
Big Bang?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will it explode into a new,
full-sized universe?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will it become
something we cannot imagine?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Will the
starticle be a new start?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">= = = = = =
=<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">A final
thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is theorized that the Big
Bang began with a sudden, faster-than-light inflation of space-time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Within an extremely short time after
inflation began, the universe had gone from being smaller than an atom, to
vastly larger than our entire galaxy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">What this
must mean, then, is that in a sense, a Big Rip of sorts had already
occurred.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once the inflation slowed down
to slower than the speed of light, further expansion created a light horizon
that separated parts of the universe that were most distant from each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As light waves traveled across the new
universe, the connection was reestablished, but for a time, space itself was
disconnected.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">I cannot
evaluate this any further, but it seems that the properties of space-time might
have been influenced in some way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =</span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Physical Reality is Inseparable from Human
Life, Consciousness and Volition<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Physicalism
asserts that the physical universe exists independently of whether (or not)
there are conscious, human minds to perceive it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It regards human life and consciousness as
products of, or arising from, physical reality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That
assertion is disputed, and with good reason. Human life, consciousness and free
will are fundamental realities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are
foundational to physical reality. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here
is the case for the assertion that life, consciousness and free will are no
less fundamental a reality than are quarks, space-time and mass-energy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Scientists
have long struggled to bridge the gap between atoms and life, and to connect
the sequence from life, to consciousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The gaps have not been filled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Moreover, the jump from consciousness to volition (free will) is
forbidden by the mistaken physicalist assertion that free will cannot
exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The God Paradigm
asserts that life, consciousness and free will are fundamental realities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are not products of physical
reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If anything, they underlie it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They may even be thought of as giving rise to
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Human life, consciousness and free
will are not entirely separate from each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They comprise a single continuum, which we may call mind, or even
spirit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">These facts
integrate the many aspects of human existence, including the physical, mental
and moral.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Let’s first
trace the connections from atoms to life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk509670977"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Let’s next trace the connections from physical reality to
the mind.<o:p></o:p></span></a><br />
<span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk509670977;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Finally, let us demonstrate why free will is
regarded as impossible by physicalism, but is necessary to physical reality.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk509670977;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bookmark: _Hlk509670977;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Let’s
first trace the connections from atoms to life.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">A biologist
can look at a living creature, and know that it is alive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if he delves deeper, searching for the
life inside the living creature, he does not find it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He does not find life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What he finds is molecules, atoms, and
subatomic particles such as electrons and quarks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These make up the living organism, but they
are not life itself, no more so than the ones and zeroes in your computer are
the lakes and rivers and literature, et cetera, that you interpret from the
pixels on your screen.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Scientists
have struggled to make the leap from atoms to life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They have had to settle for the concept that,
“the whole is equal to more than the sum of its parts.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This sounds good at first, but it is entirely
inadequate to explain how you get from atoms to life, or for that matter, from
any parts to any meaningful whole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How
do you get from here to there?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is
a gap in between, and no one has bridged it in physical terms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Life is not
a product of atoms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is something
more, not merely because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but
because there is something more than the parts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The parts are arranged, not by happenstance, but by plan and purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Atoms are
organized into living organisms by life itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>An analogy for this is something called dark matter, which is so
mysterious that physicalist scientists can only guess at what it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, we know that dark matter provides the
so-called scaffolding, the skeleton (so to speak) that organizes the universe
into galaxies and galactic clusters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Life, then, can be viewed as a force of nature that organizes atoms into
living creatures.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If we are to
assert that life is a fundamental foundation that underlies physical reality,
if it organizes atoms into living creatures, then what evidence can we find to
support those assertions?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The evidence
is that every detail of the universe is organized in such a fashion as to
produce and support life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, those
details support not merely life, but human life, civilization and
technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientists describe this
observation as something called, “Fine tuning.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Without going into too much detail, fine tuning identifies twenty-seven
critical properties of the universe that are called, physical constants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These include such things as the force of
gravity, the speed of light, the strength of the forces that bind atoms
together, and so forth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each and every
one of these constants is, so to speak, finely tuned, that is to say, precisely
adjusted so that they fall within the very narrow ranges that make life
possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Physicalist
scientists do not deny this, but they claim that it all happened by
chance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, that would be
ludicrously unlikely if our universe were the only one, so the physicalists
have said that there must be unimaginably large numbers of universes, perhaps
infinities of them, each of which has its details determined at random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that is true, then it becomes much more
likely that out of unimaginably large numbers of universes—a multi-verse—one of
them would be like ours.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But even
that theory fails, and on at least three counts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, there is no physical evidence for
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, secondly, a greater failure of
that theory is that a multi-verse would still require its own array of physical
constants, a complexity which would be even less likely than the constants
governing our one universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The third
flaw in the theory is that randomness requires non-random parameters within
which to operate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This third
flaw is not difficult to understand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
can use a die roll to illustrate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Suppose you have a pair of dice, and using only one die of the pair, you
roll that die.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each side of the die has
an equal chance of being on top after the die is rolled, so the question is,
what is the chance that the die roll will land a six?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The answer
is one in six—but only if the die has six sides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It could have as few as four, in which case
the chance would be zero of landing a six.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If it has twenty-four sides, the chance would be one in twenty-four, and
so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The key point here is that dice
do not have random numbers of sides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Dice are designed and manufactured.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Someone decides to make dice, and decides to make them four-sided,
six-sided, or whatever the designer decides.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Likewise,
universes should not be assumed to have random numbers of parameters, nor
should the strength of each parameter be determined at random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By what principle of physics should
they?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even in quantum physics, in which
probability plays a key role, the probabilities operate within narrow
parameters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To describe nature as having
unlimited numbers of parameters with unlimited ranges of values for each makes
of the universe a madhouse with, ultimately, no rules at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the words of at least one premier
physicist, “Everything that can happen, must happen, and it must happen an
infinite number of times.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In other
words, nothing ever really happens, because to say that one thing happens,
means that something else did not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
premier physicist is mistaken.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Life is a
fundamental reality, not a product of atoms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It exists because its creator designed it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Next, let’s trace the connections from
physical reality to the mind.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The human
brain has been compared to a computer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That comparison has gone so far as to lead scientists to suggest that
computers could eventually become conscious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But that comparison is false, and there is zero potential for computers ever
to become conscious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can we be sure
of those facts?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">While we
have become accustomed to comparing computers to the human brain, the reverse
comparison is useless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The brain has
only a superficial resemblance, if even that much, to a computer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But there is
one feature of the brain that, in a way, resembles the computer, and that is
this:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the computer produces output for a
human user who is external to the computer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>According to neurology, the brain produces output only for itself and
its physical body, which in computer parlance might be termed, its peripheral
devices (arms, lungs, et cetera).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
concept of the brain leads to circular thinking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A computer that produced outputs only for
itself would be a useless absurdity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But the
brain does not produce outputs only for itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It has an external user.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
external user is, the conscious, living human being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">We already
identified life as being something external to the living organism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Life is the force which, through the physical
constants of the universe, orchestrates the assembly of atoms into a living
creature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consciousness, similarly, is
external to the brain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The brain
produces outputs for the human mind, or spirit, or soul.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">You have an
eternal soul.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your soul is you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is (you are) a living, conscious
entity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your soul is not produced by
physics, but is created by God, who created the physical universe for His own
purpose and plan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His divine purpose
includes designing you and the universe to fit together in such a way that it
produces your physical form.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
physical form is a vehicle for your living, conscious mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">According to
the physicalist paradigm, the only reality is physical, that is, stuff—matter
and energy, space and time, and the forces that govern them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All else is said to be an arrangement of
those things, not a purposeful arrangement, but incidental, even accidental,
happenstance, and unnecessary to nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Physicalism holds that nature can be understood only in terms of itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That is a
trap.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physicalism is a form of circular
reasoning from which the only escape is to simply break out of it, to recognize
that physical reality is not the final answer, but only a subset.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once we do that, we can recognize that life
is not a product of atoms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
something more, not merely because the whole is greater than the sum of its
parts, but because there is indeed something more than the parts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The parts are arranged, not by happenstance,
but by plan and purpose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Once we
break out of that trap, things make more sense than does the physicalist
paradigm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In the end,
the physicalist view by itself is utterly useless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The purely physical view reduces us to a
futile existence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It views each of us as
mere assemblages of atoms, nothing more, and therefore, without rights or
responsibilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It views each of our
lives as a flash in the pan, a momentary burst of activity which quickly runs
its course and then is disassembled back into its parts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “whole,” that thing which was once
greater than the sum of its parts, no longer exists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The universe itself will eventually
disintegrate, and nothing will be left except a hollow echo.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will be as if nothing had ever happened,
as if we had never existed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our living,
conscious and purposeful minds will be consigned to eternal, unknowing
oblivion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">What use can
be made of such a dismal worldview?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Of course,
it is argued that just because such a worldview is dismal does not, in itself,
mean that it is false.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe so, but not
so fast.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why abandon the search for a
more useful view, and one which is far more likely to be correct than the
circular reasoning of the physicalist view?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Finally, let us demonstrate why free will
is regarded as impossible by physicalism, but is necessary to physical reality.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The
physicalist view of nature can be summed up in the words, “cause and
effect.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cause and effect can be
demonstrated by the familiar example of a row of dominoes, each stood on end in
such a way that, when one domino is toppled, it knocks over the next one in
line, which then knocks over the next one, and so on.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In the
universe, cause and effect are vastly more complicated than that, but the
essential principle is the same.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Everything that happens was caused by previous events, and in turn
causes subsequent events.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The key
feature of cause and effect is that nothing is ever optional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The dominos have no choice but to wait and
fall in turn.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everything is either
forced to happen, or prevented from happening.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In physicalist nature, there are no free agents, no sovereign
individuals who decide whether to break the chain of cause and effect, nor to
begin a new chain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 333.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">A name for this state of affairs is determinism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the universe is not deterministic, then
the physicalist paradigm is utterly demolished as a valid worldview, and must
be replaced by something better.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 333.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">According to the God paradigm, living, conscious humans can, at least
to a degree, override the chain of cause and effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are not slaves to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can make sovereign, independent decisions
that a deterministic universe would not permit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 333.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">According to physicalism, free will is impossible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physicalism holds that the brain is itself
purely physical in nature, and that it is entirely governed by natural
law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, everything that you
think, say and do, is decided not by you, but for you, by the blind, unknowing
and uncaring forces of nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 333.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">According to physicalism, then, we are witnesses to our own lives, but
not participants in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are puppets
on a cosmic string, helpless to break free.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We cannot even decide whether we believe that we have free will or
not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even those who disbelieve in free
will do so because they are forced.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: 333.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Of course, that proposition is not only false, it is futile and
absurd.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is no free will, then
there is no right and no wrong, neither courage nor cowardice, neither
innocence nor guilt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would all be
biological robots, acting out a script that nobody wrote, on a stage that
nobody built.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">We do have
free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has its limits, but it is
there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can, at the least, choose
between right and wrong, between good and evil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Our free will is a gift of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>God has divine will, and our free will is an image and likeness of His.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In this
brief treatment, we have not achieved any final proof that physicalism is
wrong, or that the God paradigm is correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the end, if there is a God (and there is), then only His Holy Spirit
can persuade any of us as to truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each
of us is free, empowered by our free will, to listen or not to listen, to
accept that truth or to reject it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">What we have
shown is that the physicalist paradigm is futile.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is far different than to say that the
science of physics is false. Science is a journey, not a destination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are many scientists who understand that
physical reality is only the surface of a deeper truth, a truth which science,
acting alone, can never uncover.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Physicalism
is not merely futile, it is destructive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If we are mere assemblages of atoms, then by what logic should we be
treated as anything more than that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
our rights are not God-given, then from where do they arise?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do we even have any?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">See </span><a href="http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #0563c1; font-family: "calibri";">http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/</span></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
for more.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =</div>
<br />
<o:p><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Brain Chip:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A Science Fiction Story<o:p></o:p></b></span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">--by Robert Arvay<o:p></o:p></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It was the year 2218 when
the problem was discovered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one knew
what to do about it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Beginning fifty years
earlier, in 2168, everyone had begun being implanted with a computerized micro-chip,
in their brain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It took ten years to
insert all the chips.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This included the
time it took to hunt down all the hold-outs, and to enforce compliance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After ten years, almost everyone was a
“chipper,” a person who had the chip.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The chip was deemed to be necessary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Life had become too complicated for most
people to manage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suicides were on the
rise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Crime had dramatically
increased.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Masses of people were either
uneducated, or mis-educated, because few people could agree on what was fact,
and what was opinion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Chaos threatened
to destroy society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Technology had empowered
individuals to such a degree that it was all but impossible to maintain law and
order.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A grade-school kid could figure
out how to hack the computer systems of banks, nuclear missile silos, and even
their own report cards.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Something had to be
done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Something was done.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The brain chip solved the
problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inserted into the brain early
in life, even as soon as a month after being born, everyone could think alike,
or at least, enough alike to forestall the radical disagreements which
previously had threatened civil war.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
chip had its own microcomputer program, and it could in turn program, in a
sense, the human brain of the recipient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Human brains were then programmed to agree on the most controversial
issues which previously had been tearing society apart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Chippers obeyed the rules, and therefore,
chippers could be trusted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Even better yet, the brain
chips could all receive periodic updates from time to time via signals transmitted
from satellites.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This allowed the
government to revise failed social programs without the traditional bickering
that had previously disrupted every major social program change in the pre-chip
years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At first, many people had
objected to the brain chip.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was
itself the most controversial technology that had ever been introduced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At first, the chip had been surreptitiously
inserted into the brains of children during doctor visits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Parents were either not told what was
happening, or else were given false information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As word of this leaked out, dissent
increased.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>After a few years, however,
everyone could see that children with the chip did better in school than most
other children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were better
behaved, more obedient, and easier to raise. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After that, more and more parents clamored to
have their own children implanted, and finally, adults themselves began asking
for and receiving chip implants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People
with the chip earned much more than most people without it, because with it,
they became much smarter than before.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What no one was told, until
there was no denying it, is that once the chip is implanted, it cannot be
removed without tragic consequence to the recipient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Painful deaths occurred whenever a chip was
removed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>For nearly fifty years, no
one requested the removal of chip implants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Everyone who had one was happy with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No chipper ever felt depressed, worried, or in doubt—about anything, not
even about the chip itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Unlike as with drugs, the
chip enabled the chipper to cope with problems, and to devise solutions,
because the chip enhanced intelligence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Everyone who had it had automatic encyclopedic knowledge of virtually
every subject taught in any school.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Since the knowledge was stored, not in the brain, but in the chip, the
knowledge did not occupy one’s thoughts until and unless he needed it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, he could access the needed information
immediately.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, anyone who
needed to learn Swahili (or any other language) could instantly master it, and
speak it with as much proficiency as any native speaker.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But one day, the Great
Problem was discovered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was
discovered that the chip had an embedded error in it, an inherent and
irreparable malfunction which would eventually, but inevitably, cause the
chipper to go suddenly and incurably insane, and violently so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The incidence of this form of insanity
suddenly began to increase, and no one knew how much worse it might get.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At first, there was general
panic in the population, not only panic, but anger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who had designed the chip?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why had it been put into patients without
thorough testing beforehand?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which
government officials had authorized the surreptitious implants into children?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How dare they?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The possibility of rebellion loomed large.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The panic suddenly ended when
the next update was made via satellite transmissions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everyone suddenly assumed that the problem
was only temporary, and that a fix had already been devised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fix would be implemented soon, very soon,
even as soon as tomorrow.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Nobody resented the fact
that tomorrow after tomorrow came and went, with no solution, because after
all, the problem would be fixed tomorrow.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span><br />
<br />
<br /></o:p><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425483474072715369noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378706808453334238.post-66609243542756938112017-05-25T06:57:00.002-07:002017-05-25T06:57:27.736-07:00
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Twelve
Hallmarks of Humanity<o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">--by Robert Arvay<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Were we to discover (or when we do)
that on an exoplanet, there exists a civilization comparable to our own, or
even much farther advanced than us technologically, our initial impulse might
be to declare that, “We are not alone!”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>“We,” being humans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But not so fast.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite such a discovery, we might yet be
alone after all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">What if, on further investigation, we
discovered that what we had thought to be sentient exo-creatures were instead,
merely beings that had none of the inner thought processes that we have, but
were instead organisms which were only outwardly similar to us, but otherwise
mindless, with no true awareness of the technology they were creating—somewhat
like bees building a beehive, but on a vastly larger and more complex scale?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Although this is extremely unlikely,
the question forces us to ask, what quality truly separates us from other
creatures? What makes us human?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are we
truly apes which took an unlikely turn in the purposeless path of
evolution?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or are we more than that?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Let’s take a look at a few of the most
important features, discoveries or inventions, that might, or might not,
distinguish us from other biological creatures.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Fire<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">2.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Wheel<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">3.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Art<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">4.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Writing<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">5.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Agriculture<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">6.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mathematics<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">7.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Worship of God<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">8.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Scientific Method<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">9.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Relativity and Quantum Theories<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">10.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Electric Motors<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">11.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Space Travel<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">12.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Anti-gravity (?)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In each of these categories, there are
those who might quibble over this or that similarity to be found in various
animals—but in humans, these characteristics are far more definitive of us than
they are of any animal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fire<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">As far as I know, there is no known
life form apart from humans which can deliberately start and control fires as a
useful tool.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This essential ability both
encompasses and enables our technological advance beyond that of, say, the
chimpanzee, or any other creature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(While
a chimp may be taught a rudimentary form of this skill, it is at most only a
pale imitation, and could quickly turn to disaster for the chimpanzee and
others.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is much more to fire
technology than starting one.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">2.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Wheel<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The pre-Columbian natives of Central
America managed to build very large stone structures without using any wheeled
devices—not even a simple cart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
demonstrates that the invention of the wheel was not necessarily inevitable,
not even in an advanced society that was skilled in mathematics, astronomy and
architecture—not even when necessity might have been its mother.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Despite this, it is all but
unthinkable that modern technology could have been developed without the
invention of the wheel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sorry, chimps.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk483296305"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">3.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Art<o:p></o:p></span></b></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">While some purists might dispute the
importance of art as a technology, art is not necessarily always for “art’s own
sake.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has a dual importance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, of course, it is expressive of the
human spirit in its many dimensions, from the earliest cave paintings onward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This feature of art should not be
underestimated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Art expresses humanity,
both for better and worse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But, very importantly, the ability to interpret
the existing world through art, is also connected to the ability to imagine,
design, and innovate new technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Many artists would not connect their work to that of the engineering
draftsman, but his drafting skills would likely never have been developed
without the artistic impulse that is unique to humans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And without this skill, especially before
computer assisted design, technology would have remained far less advanced than
otherwise was the case.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">4.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Writing<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Writing is so common today that we
often do not appreciate its truly revolutionary impact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Writing was the first significant, precise
means of mass memory storage external to the brain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It allows communication across not only vast
distances, but across centuries, from generation to generation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No animal apart from humans has ever
developed writing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">5.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Agriculture<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The ability to grow food and store it,
in quantities to last an entire year, freed human society from the need to hunt
and gather food each day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It became a
safeguard against short periods when wild food was utterly unavailable, during
which time hunger, perhaps starvation, might destroy a clan or tribe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although there is a kind of ant (leafcutter)
which seems to cultivate fungus for food, this is a far cry from the complex
ability of humans to schedule food production.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Society’s customs and laws are traceable to the social structure imposed
by agriculture.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">6.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mathematics<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mathematics gives humanity not only
the ability to count, but also, to measure indirectly, in cases where direct
measurement is impossible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example,
the Pythagorean theorem allowed men to calculate the distance across a river,
before ever having crossed it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We were
able to calculate the distance to the moon before ever getting there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mathematics is so foundational to physical
reality that one prominent physicist (Dr. Max Tegmark) has stated that
mathematics does not merely describe the universe, it is the universe.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">7.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Worship of God<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">No creature other than humans has a
well-developed sense of the Creator, the Supreme Being, the source and
foundation of all justice, mercy and salvation from sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While it is fashionable to credit primitive
superstitions with the origin of human worship of God, this is an explanation
more of convenience than demonstrated fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Modern philosophy and science have both struggled and failed to explain
why there is something instead of nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They cannot explain how consciousness arises, nor even what it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physicalism denies that free will can
possibly exist, which of course would make all human activity a farce, the
acting out of a script that nobody wrote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the context of God, life has plan, purpose and meaning.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">8.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Scientific Method<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is likely that few non-scientists understand
the critical role of the scientific method in modern civilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Introduced late in human history, it imposed
strict discipline on human thinking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Until then, brilliant minds had generated strong advances in science and
technology, but they had mistakenly believed that thought and contemplation
alone could unravel the mysteries of the universe. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The scientific method is highly
structured.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It depends on physical
proof, repeatable by skeptics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science
is not all encompassing, and its methods do not always work well in, for
example, areas of philosophy and religion, but even so, the scientific method
has revolutionized our ability to comprehend and even predict, physical
phenomena, with amazing detail and accuracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">9.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Relativity and Quantum Theories<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">These two theories are
counter-intuitive, meaning that they defy ordinary commonsense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even so, they have proved themselves to be
demonstrably accurate and predictive explanations of physical phenomena.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are of course many other areas of
science which might fit this description, but these two in particular reshaped
scientific thinking in the early years of the twentieth century, and have
prepared the way for many other innovations among scientists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So there, chimpanzees.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">10.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Electric Motors<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Nicola Tesla was the applied scientist’s
equal of pure scientist Albert Einstein.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In a sense, Tesla invented the wheel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Remember we said that the invention of the wheel was not inevitable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is also true of Tesla’s electric
motor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tesla’s motor is at the heart of
modern technology, and had it not yet been invented, we would probably still be
struggling to implement a practical electronic technology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">11.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Space Travel<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Clearly, no creature on earth, other
than humans, has ever developed the ability to travel to the moon and back, or
to send photo reconnaissance space-ships to Mars, Titan and beyond.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">12.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Anti-gravity (?)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But wait, you well might say, humanity
has not yet developed a true anti-gravity device, something which harnesses an
as yet undiscovered law of nature, one that allows us to negate the local
effect of gravity, without using the brute force of rocket engines and the
like.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Indeed, we have not done so, and who
knows, may never.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I include this final
characteristic in the list for reasons that are partly symbolic, partly
prospective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Humans have the ability,
unique among animals, to imagine doing things that have never been done before,
that defy the limitations of the possible—and then to make them possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Are
humans special?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so, in what way?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Characterizing humans as being at the
center of nature, or even above it, has been scorned by many who see us merely
as yet another physical phenomenon of the universe.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Such scorn is often primarily emotional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand, those who regard humans as
spiritual beings inhabiting a physical body, often fail to make a persuasive
case to skeptics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is important for each human to
humbly admit that he cannot answer the eternal questions, and to remain
inquisitive about them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is a
lifelong endeavor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in;">
</div>
Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425483474072715369noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378706808453334238.post-782109704800582922017-05-03T20:24:00.001-07:002017-05-04T15:41:17.224-07:00<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Overlooking the Obvious in Science<o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Not long ago I was
repairing a leaky water tank.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At first,
I imagined that the job would be straightforward:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>find the leak, and patch it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But after trying everything I could think of,
the leak persisted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I soon reached the point
where I thought, half seriously, that I had encountered the physically
impossible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There seemed to be no
possible way that the water could just disappear from the tank at the speed it
was doing so. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I finally was forced
to consider the impossible, which involved the one component of the tank system
that I had ruled out from consideration from the very beginning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That component was the input valve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not possible, of course, for an input
valve to function as an output valve, but just to make sure, I had to carefully
inspect it, to prove that the impossible was really happening.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As you have
already guessed, the input valve was indeed causing the leak, but not in a way
that was physically impossible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
simply involved a complex siphon effect, whereby the leak could “work around” the
input system, by means of what I now consider to have been an ingenious, unintended
“trick,” or a defect, in the system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Once I addressed the siphon effect, the leak stopped, and the universe
became, once more, possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course,
I laugh at myself for having ignored it for so long.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Science has been
doing something like this for a long time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is not that science itself is defective, but rather, that we as
humans are—including scientists—able to overlook the obvious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science, when confronted by mysteries,
attempts to solve them, and frequently succeeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet there do remain some profound mysteries
about which science can only speculate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These mysteries will never be solved by the methods which have always
worked in the past.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have to look at
the obvious, and investigate new ways of studying them.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>One of the most
obvious facts, indeed the most obvious fact, that all of us encounter, is the
fact that we are living, conscious beings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yet there has been found no possible manner in which the inert atoms of
the universe can form conscious creatures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Have we ruled out the (so to speak) input valve?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Let us propose a
new paradigm, one which incorporates the following idea:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Life, consciousness and volition are
fundamental realities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do not arise
from physical reality, they are an integral part of it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the new and necessary paradigm that is
emerging from science.</span></b></span></span><br />
</div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
</span> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Life, consciousness and volition are physically detected phenomena that defy purely physical explanation, but which can be better understood in terms of the new paradigm.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The current paradigm, or philosophy, upon which modern science is based, is called physicalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physicalism declares that everything in the physical universe can be described by, and only by, other physical things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is circular logic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Simply stated, physicalism finds that it is handy to think of the physical universe as an intricate composition of its fundamental constituents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It declares those fundamentals to be space-time and energy-mass, along with basic forces and mathematical constants, all of which are governed by natural law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the natural-material, or physicalist, universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science has found no practical reason to look outside of, or beyond, any physical explanations for physical phenomena.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Until now.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Currently, the science establishment regards life, consciousness and volition (free will) as arising from physical reality. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do not. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, they are at its core.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If anything, physical reality arises because of them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The failure to recognize this, is a serious error which limits the potential of physicists to comprehend how nature really operates.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Among its errors, physicalism denies that true, free will can exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition, it fails utterly to explain inward consciousness, and it incorrectly defines life as merely a chemical process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These errors have profound consequences, as demonstrated in the following:</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">1)</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If there is no free will, then there is no true science, because without volition, scientists could draw only those conclusions which nature forces them to draw, regardless of their accuracy or inaccuracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Free will is forbidden in the physicalist paradigm.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">2)</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Inward consciousness permeates our entire waking lives, and yet it is a total and complete mystery to science, not only as to how it arises, but even as to what it is.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">3)</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Life, although it is the most studied and best understood of the three, is considered to be only a chemical process, nothing more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its intricate connection to the very foundations of the universe is considered to be nothing more than happenstance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The false perception is, that life is the chance byproduct of an unknowing, uncaring cosmos. It isn’t.</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_Hlk481163952"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="color: #993300;"><u>Natural Materialism (Physicalism) is a False Paradigm.</u><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></b></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The current paradigm, known as natural materialism, or physicalism, explains physical reality only in terms of itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any evidence that cannot be explained in physical terms is disqualified, based on the rules of physicalism. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The physicalist paradigm admits of no plan, no purpose, and no objective standards of morality underlying nature.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The circular rules of physicalist science define physical things only in terms of themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, they automatically exclude, or at the least discourage, investigation into avenues that could otherwise help explain certain experimental results that are currently puzzling scientists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do nothing to explain inward consciousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They deny that true volition even exists at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A new paradigm will, at the least, free scientists to consider possibilities that are currently forbidden to serious investigation.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The new paradigm might be called “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Cosmic Intent</i>,” but let’s not play with words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The clear implication is that physical nature was created.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Creator cannot be adequately described, except in terms that recognize it as God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The new paradigm, then, is best termed, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The God Paradigm</i>.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It rejects the old idea, the idea that the universe is the product of an unknowing, uncaring complex of chance and purposeless natural laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The arguments against the old idea are so numerous and systematic that one must be chained to a physicalist ideology to believe it.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>God is alive, conscious, and exercises divine will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He does so with a plan, purpose and meaning that we are given the power to investigate—by means of our own life, consciousness and free will, with which He has endowed us.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u></u></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>The God Paradigm Incorporates Life, Consciousness and Volition, Not Random Chance, as the Underlying Principles of Reality</u></b></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><strong><u></u></strong><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Life is not merely a chemical process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consciousness is utterly unexplained by physical science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Volition (free will) allows us to make decisions that are not dictated by the physical chain of cause-and-effect.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The universe was created.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It did not create itself, nor was it created by blind, indifferent forces, nor by chance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>If chance is invoked to explain our unlikely existence, then we must consider the most likely outcomes of chance, before relying on the least likely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Were we the product of chance, then the overwhelming likelihood is that we would exist in a universe that is far less elegant, and far less ordered, than ours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We ourselves would be far more primitive, and far less likely to have produced the arts, the technology, and the systems of ethics and law, that we have.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The chances of these things occurring, the likelihood of the conditions in which we live, are so low that they cannot be explained by the random interactions of atoms and energy that physicalism relies upon to describe our existence.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>We have barely scratched the surface in debunking chance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Planet earth is not merely suited for life; it is prime real estate for the development of a civilization that can reach for the stars, while at the same time, asking why we reach for them.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Far more likely it is that we should live on a planet that barely supports life, that allows us to eke out a meager existence, the atmosphere of which conceals the stars with clouds, and on which none of the minerals and metals exist from which technology can be built.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is overwhelmingly more likely that by chance alone, a planet would produce a society in which people are mere slaves to tyrants, people who never yearn to be free.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Those are the overwhelming odds which would decide who we are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, we have not merely technology, but also poetry, the Golden Rule, and the ability to appreciate the beauty of nature.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">-<o:p></o:p></span>Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425483474072715369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378706808453334238.post-38148167174485492712014-08-26T05:32:00.002-07:002016-10-27T08:24:59.159-07:00The God Paradigm<strong>The God Paradigm<o:p></o:p></strong><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 9pt;">—by Robert Arvay<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Introduction and Summary</i></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Preface:<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Soul of Nature<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In seeking
for scientific truth, s<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">cience is ignoring the scientist. </span>Thus, the search is
self-contradictory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To natural materialists, the scientist
is only a physical happenstance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> His life is considered to exist only in its chemistry. </span>The scientist's consciousness remains an unexplained
mystery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His volition (free will) is
regarded as impossible, a violation of causation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Materialists fail to see the obvious, which is that the
scientist is a living, conscious, volitional creature unexplained by physics
alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The natural materialist
therefore, is seeking after his inner self, but seeking only outside himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Scientists
understand a great deal about nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
have peered through telescopes at stars unfathomably far away, and through
microscopes into the secret chemistry of life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They understand what fire is, and they understand the nuclear furnace
that is our sun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, as astonishing
as it is, it seems that scientists are well on their way to discovering the
unifying “theory of everything,” the key to all of existence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There is
one major problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amid all this
discovery and learning, too many scientists have adopted a philosophy called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">natural materialism</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to this paradigm, or world view,
all of material nature can be explained in terms only of material nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing more is needed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, nothing more exists, or if it does,
it plays no role in nature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Natural
materialists describe themselves (and you, and me), as being nothing more than
phenomena of an all encompassing physical nature, a nature which as they would
have it, is all sufficient unto itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To them,
the great tapestry of the universe is a work of art with no artist, a clockwork
machine with no purpose, and a never ending roll of dice in which all
possibilities must happen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In doing this, natural materialism sees only
one side of the coin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other side is
forever hidden from that dismal philosophy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It hears the notes of the symphony but detects no melody.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It reads the words of a novel but discerns no
plot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It beholds the physical human
being, but not the person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It seems
axiomatic that nature must have a single basic principle, a unifying law that
ties it all together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so, then the
supposition that this grand essence of all being is an accidental product of
nothing, seems so absurd as hardly to be considered at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, this is the direction in which natural
materialism is leading science.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is a
path to destruction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<o:p>=======================================================================</o:p></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"></i></b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The basis of physical reality<o:p></o:p></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is not physical.<o:p></o:p></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">That would defy logic.<o:p></o:p></i></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></i></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Until science explains consciousness,<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">it has explained nothing.<o:p></o:p></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></i></b><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Life, consciousness and free will<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">give rise to physical reality.<o:p></o:p></i></b><br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></i></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Science has faith in an ordered universe.<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">It has no idea what is the basis of that order.<o:p></o:p></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How then, can any scientist doubt God?</i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"></i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"></i></b><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The question should not be, does God Exist?</i><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<b><i>God is bigger than existence.</i></b></div>
</div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="mso-element-anchor-horizontal: column; mso-element-anchor-vertical: paragraph; mso-element-linespan: 2; mso-element-wrap: around; mso-element: dropcap-dropped; mso-height-rule: exactly;">
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"><tbody>
<tr><td align="left" style="background-color: transparent; border-image: none; border: rgb(0, 0, 0); padding: 0in;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 27.55pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-element-anchor-horizontal: column; mso-element-anchor-vertical: paragraph; mso-element-linespan: 2; mso-element-wrap: around; mso-element: dropcap-dropped; mso-height-rule: exactly; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; page-break-after: avoid; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 35pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-text-raise: -3.0pt;">T<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in; text-align: justify;">
he assertion that there is a God fits the facts, the logic, and human experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, when all the relevant factors are examined, one finds that the assertion that God exists is by far the most reasonable proposition, and the most supportable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some people disagree, including some of the world’s premier scientists. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We shall examine both sides.<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">This Book may be Purchased at</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm/paperback/product-22855534.html">http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm/paperback/product-22855534.html</a><br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Nature of
Reality, and the Reality of Nature<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It is generally accepted by scientists that nature exists in
and of itself, independently of conscious perception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to that view, the Big Bang happened
before there were any humans to perceive it, and the universe will continue to
obey natural law long after there are no more conscious, living entities in
existence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed life, and conscious
thought, are regarded as physical phenomena of an objectively existing
universe.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Quantum physics, however, introduces some challenges to that
view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to some interpretations
of the evidence, reality exists in a probabilistic state of potentials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These states of potential may become actualized,
but only under certain conditions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These
conditions are known by various names, including “measurement,” collapse of a
probability wave, and according to some, conscious perception.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Already, one can see that our terminology is insufficient to
grasp the underlying concept of what makes reality real.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Terms such as “measurement,” tend to suggest
conscious perception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Terms such as
“collapse of a probability wave,” are imprecise, and thereby subject to
interpretation.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The term, “conscious perception,” involves a concept totally
unexplained in physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the ineffable
concept of inward awareness, awareness of both the external world, and of one’s
own internal state of being.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Consciousness, while unexplained in physics, is an
undeniable phenomenon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be
absurd for a physicist to claim that he is not conscious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Footnote:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>were it not absurd, I am convinced that many physicists would indeed
deny its existence, and logically so.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Despite the inability of physics to explain consciousness, it is
generally assumed that consciousness somehow “emerges from” complexity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is another way of saying that
consciousness is somehow a byproduct of the way in which atoms become
organized.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The term, “complexity,” however, is itself subjective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nature makes no distinction between
complexity and simplicity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not
perceive any objective difference between a house and a pile of rubble, the
laws of thermodynamics notwithstanding.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It therefore seems a more fruitful approach to physics to
consider whether consciousness might be, not an emergent phenomenon of physical
reality, but a fundamental basis of it.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If it is, then two other phenomena are so closely related to
it that they, too, must be fundamental.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These are life and volition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While the chemical process of life is well explained by
physics, life requires a degree of fine tuning that can be explained only by
the speculative, mental concoction of a multi-universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That concoction does not, however, explain
anything, since the multi-universe itself must also be finely tuned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From where does this fine tuning come?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If, however, life is fundamental to physics,
then the fine tuning goes hand in hand with it.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Volition, on the other hand, involves a concept that is an
even more radical departure from natural-materialism, so radical in fact, that
that it is forbidden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Volition violates
both causality and quantum probability.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Yet, without volition, there can be no science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without volition, scientists are
preprogrammed entities which discover only those laws of nature which they are
predetermined to discover, whether or not those discoveries are truthful or
false.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The nature of reality explains the reality of nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That may seem a circular statement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it deserves some thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
.</div>
</div>
Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425483474072715369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7378706808453334238.post-18647916716698066972014-08-26T05:29:00.003-07:002014-09-24T08:33:38.101-07:00Is Physics Unraveling?<em>“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”</em> <br />
― Albert Einstein<br />
<br />
I’m beginning to realize that writing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Ten Thousand Proofs of God</i>, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The God Paradigm</i>, are not like writing books that come to an
end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I mean by this is that science
continues to unfold in very dramatic ways, not only producing new answers, but
more importantly, producing new questions.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Because scientific knowledge results in so many
technological applications, it is seen as the king of human endeavor, the
foundation of human thought, and the pinnacle of human achievement.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
As with all kings, however, its reign must eventually come
to an end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The technology which has
validated science for so many centuries has been a blessing, making life
longer, more pleasant, and more productive than it has ever been.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, however, technology is becoming less and
less a faithful servant, and is beginning to show signs of becoming the cruel
master that we somehow always feared it would.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While this is happening, the most fundamental theories of science
are beginning to show early signs of disarray. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientists themselves disagree, seem unsure,
and even contradict each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
epitome of all this is the relativity-versus-quantum dichotomy, but there are
many mundane examples as well.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Moreover, the gap between scientists and nonscientists is
swiftly widening. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our familiar everyday
experiences of reality are bearing less and less resemblance to the formulas of
physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, matters have become so
unsettled that some physicists have actually gone so far as to ask, do we
exist?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Finally, the formulas of physics have become inaccessible to
the vast majority of humans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cannot
hope to understand them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The intricate
squiggles and symbols that fill up the chalk board of the physics classroom are
beyond my intellect, and utterly beyond the ken of most people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even people of great intellect may have other
interests that fill their time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even
they simply cannot put in the decade or more of years required for a PhD in
physics, and cannot spend the thousands of dollars it costs.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<cite><span style="font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">According to a physicist who posted at sci.physicsforums.com, <o:p></o:p></span></cite></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<cite><span style="font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Nikola Tesla wrote:</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“</cite><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Today's scientists have substituted
mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after
equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to
reality."</i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Finally, the grand priests of physics do not even agree
among themselves on many important aspects of what physics teaches us about the
universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is science unraveling?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Science cannot
answer questions which it cannot ask, and we may be inherently incapable of
asking the most important questions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">How could it be
otherwise?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If humans are the products of
nature, then how can the subset comprehend the whole?</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The God Paradigm</i>,
I maintain that, until science explains consciousness, it has explained
nothing.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I also maintain that the explanation of consciousness may be
beyond physics altogether.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even the
atheist evolutionist JBS Haldane conceded that the answer is not material.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He said, “<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter.
For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my
brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound
chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no
reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Haldane probably
meant “mind,” rather than “brain,” but his insight is important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His statement, whether he intended the
inference or not, strongly suggests that the nature of consciousness is
fundamental, not phenomenal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so, then
consciousness is not a physical emanation of atoms, </span>but rather a
spiritual property, a realm that is forever beyond the domain of material
science.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
====================</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I posted the above comments to sciphysicsforums dot com (foundations).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Someone responded that if consciousness does not arise from matter, we should be able</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
to observe disembodied consciousness.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Here is my response to that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
====================</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting comment regarding an explanation for consciousness.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
He mentioned (in an online video) that he suspects the answer to the problem lies in the gap between </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
relativity and quantum mechanics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I think of the two theories as pieces of the cosmic jigsaw puzzle, pieces that will not fit, but a third piece will fill in the gap, making the bigger picture more clear.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">internal</span></span> experience of consciousness is ineffable, which is why it seems that physics alone is </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
insufficient to describe it. Physics can describe color in terms of photons and wavelength.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But to a person blind from birth, those do not impart an understanding of what we consciously </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
see and experience as colors.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The external evidences of consciousness are a different matter. We could in principle</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
construct a computer that seems convincingly conscious when viewed from the outside.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But we have no instrument, no formula, no theory, that detects the actual internal experience of it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
We must rely on "cogito ergo sum."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Thus, physics may be incapable of studying internal consciousness.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It may be a case of the eye attempting to see itself.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If consciousness is not a product of atoms, then that does not mean that atoms are not a necessary vehicle for it, especially for the outward manifestation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The controversy then revolves around whether certain arrangements of atoms give rise to consciousness.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If consciousness does indeed exist apart from atoms, how would we detect it?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
How could we set up a falsifiable hypothesis?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I don't think the process of physics lends itself to that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If consciousness is as fundamental as are quarks, then it is in a category by itself.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This could be a reason why quantum physics is subject to so many competing interpretations,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
for example concerning whether or how conscious (or unconscious) measurements collapse the probability clouds of matter.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It may not be a case of matter producing mind, or vice versa, but rather,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
an interaction between the two.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I cannot of course resolve the controversy, but only explore it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It is probably useful to physics for the issue to be discussed</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
openly. Even speculations can be useful as a beginning point.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
.=============================</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I agree that it may not be a problem for physics.<br />
There may not be a physical explanation that lies within the present<br />
paradigm of physics, which is that of natural-materialism.<br />
<br />
When it comes to questions involving ultimates and absolutes, physics perhaps embarks on a course of infinite regression toward explaining the final basis of all reality.<br />
<br />
If in fact it's "turtles all the way down," (or an infinite variety of fundamental properties of reality) physics and/or the human brain may eventually reach a limit beyond which it cannot answer any questions, somewhat like the way a computer runs out of memory. Indeed, even the universe itself contains a finite amount of information, and that amount may be insufficient<br />
to explain consciousness.<br />
<br />
Therefore, to assert that physics will eventually explain consciousness as an emergent material phenomenon may be, please forgive the expression, an act of faith.<br />
<br />
I do not mean to be argumentative, just to explore the subject matter ,<br />
as your posts are very cogent.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
========================</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2%20...%20_yWukjD6dM">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... _yWukjD6dM</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<!-- m --><br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The above link is, either by coincidence or an act of cosmic intent (LOL) a report on a new advance in the neurological basis for consciousness.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
A good friend sent it to me.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Here is part of my reply:</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While the neurological data seem at first to support a physical explanation for consciousness,</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
what they support is what we already knew about the external measurements of consciousness.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Having been under general anesthesia myself, I can testify that the time between going under</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
and coming out seems to be zero, since no memories are accumulated during anesthesia,</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
even if the surgery lasts hours.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The problem faced by physics is not the external manifestations of consciousness.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Medical science has a good grip on that topic.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What is ineffable is the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">personal</span> experience of experience,</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
our inability to describe color to a person who has been blind since birth.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Some neurologists have compared the brain to a computer, a comparison that seems</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
valid in many respects except one:</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
. . . the computer produces outputs for a user, and that user is not the computer itself.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Who is the user who is external to the brain?</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
=========================</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Quantum Randomness Requires Nonrandom Parameters</span></strong><br />
<br />
Here is a trick question that pertains to quantum randomness.<br />
What is the chance that a random die roll will land "six?"<br />
<br />
Since I have already said that it is a trick question, I won't take up your time with semantics.<br />
Most people (I think) will quickly answer that there is one chance in six that the die roll will land with the "six" facing up.<br />
<br />
But the trick to the question is that it did not specify that the die has six sides. It could have twelve sides. It might have four. The die roll may be random, but the die itself does not have a random number of sides. Nor, and this may seem unimportant, but it is vital—we must not only specify that we are calculating the odds of a six-sided die roll, but also, we must specify that we are dealing with a die, and not with cards or lottery tickets. There could be potentially infinite numbers of parameters.<br />
<br />
Only after the nonrandom parameters have been specified, can questions of randomness have any meaning. This is of the utmost significance, but it is often overlooked.<br />
<br />
Let’s illustrate all this by applying it to an exotic subject in physics and cosmology. <br />
<br />
You are no doubt familiar with the concept of the Fine Tuning of the universe. There are some 26 or 27 mathematical constants that determine the properties of our universe (speed of light, gravitational constant, etc.). These constants were supposedly “set” at the moment of the Big Bang, give or take a Planck instant or two.<br />
<br />
Each and every one of these constants must fall within narrow parameters in order for our universe to produce stars, atoms, microbes and technological civilization (an eclectic panoply, is it not?).<br />
<br />
The narrowest of the known parameters is the “cosmological” constant. Were it to differ from its present value by one part in ten to the 120th power, the universe would either collapse into a big crunch, or else spray outward into a mist, but in neither case would it produce the eclectic list of phenomena it supports.<br />
<br />
Because this constant is so unimaginably precise, the question arose, could the universe have come into being as it did through a random process?<br />
<br />
To say that it did would be akin to supposing that your local library came into being as the result of an explosion in a print shop, to borrow from the proverbial.<br />
<br />
Since it was considered unreasonable to attribute the fine tuning of our universe to chance alone, some other explanation was needed.<br />
<br />
One hypothesis that seems, at first, to solve the dilemma is MUH, the multi-universe-hypothesis. MUH, if true, would make the unlikely likely. If there are sufficient numbers of universes, each one with its constants randomly determined, then the minuscule chance of one in 10 to the 120 becomes a near certainty.<br />
<br />
However, MUH suffers some fatal flaws. For one, it does not address the question of why there are 27 constants (or however many more may be discovered). Nor does it address the question of how the multi-universe (MU) came into being with the properties it has—specifically the ability to produce bubble universes.<br />
<br />
What constants govern the MU? How are those constants set? What are the nonrandom parameters of the MU? How did those nonrandom parameters come into being?<br />
<br />
In other words, the MUH does not solve the dilemma of explaining fine tuning. It only kicks the can down the road.<br />
<br />
One idea that continually recurs in my writings is this: the basis of physical reality cannot itself be physical. That would seem to defy logic. There must be a higher order, nonrandom reality, and I doubt that the MUH fills the bill.<br />
<br />
If there is an infinite hierarchy of ever higher mega-verses, then it seems to me that physics could not hope to grapple with that.</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="back2top" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
==================<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Is Quantum Physics an
Abstraction?</b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Physics does not explain physical reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seeks to explain our perceptions of
physical reality so that we can make sense of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its byproduct and validation is technology,
an affirmation that we are indeed making practical sense of nature.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In recent decades, however, especially with the advent of
quantum physics, the explanations have become so abstract that they are
difficult to convey in a manner that all physicists can agree upon, much less
be understood by non-physicists such as myself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet,
technology and experimentation seem to continue to support the mainstream
theories, albeit with some fudging at times.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It has been noted by greater minds than my own that physics
is so completely reliant on mathematics that one premier physicist (I think it
is Max Tegmark) claims that mathematics not only rules reality, but that it is
in fact reality itself.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Mathematics is, however, almost purely abstract.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Numbers count and measure things, but the
concept of the number is itself an abstraction—a very necessary and useful one
to be sure, but how far can abstractions go before they are challenged by
physical reality?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is physics building an
elaborate and elegant house of cards?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
A simple example will illustrate the point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suppose a concrete workman is instructed to
pour a square platform with an area of twenty-five square feet, and a volume of
twenty-five cubic feet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Simple
mathematics will dictate that the dimensions of the platform be five by five by
one foot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is, however, another
mathematically valid answer, and that is that the platform measure negative
five feet, by negative five feet, by positive one foot, producing the same
result.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
To my knowledge, no one has ever accomplished this feat
(although I once did have negative five dollars in my bank account).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine the savings in concrete costs!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each new platform would actually create new
concrete—or even gold, depending on the instructions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(This assumes that there is not a universal
law of conservation of concrete, LOL.)</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It has not been done, but the mathematical model is just as
valid for negative feet as for positive.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While the simple example seems ludicrous when applied to
concrete platforms, some eminent physicists have claimed that it makes sense
for virtual particles, and even for entire universes.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I must modify that statement a bit, but even after doing so,
the point remains valid.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The modification is that while virtual particles can be
created from empty space, they are not, as some seem to claim, created from
nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the mathematical value
zero is not “nothing.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Zero has distinctive
properties, but a “nothing” cannot (I contend) have affirmative properties.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The magnitude of this issue becomes infinitely greater when
applied to entire universes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
cosmological claim has been made that entire universes can spontaneously arise
out of nothing, using the basic axiom that minus X plus X equals zero, and that
therefore, the value zero can produce two universes, each with its mathematical
sign opposite of the other.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What this idea omits, however, is that for these two
opposite-sign universes to spontaneously arise, there must first be the
potential for them to arise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some
pre-existing principle must already be in place.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Moreover, a mathematical system might be constructed in
which there are not two signs, but three.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Instead of plus and minus, we might have zippity X, dippity X and doo X,
in which all three of these add to zero.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Can zero universes therefore produce three universes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dozens?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Infinities?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
As we can see, abstractions unrestricted by physical
verification produce absurdities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we
stretch toward the limits of measurement and experimental confirmation, we
become increasingly reliant on mathematical models which might be perfectly
valid, but only mathematically.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
On the other hand, Max Tegmark may be right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I shudder to think that.</div>
==========<br />
response to a reader comment on sciphysicsforums<br />
<br />
(although I once did have negative five dollars in my bank account)<br />
Mathematics can help us in accounting for dynamic phenomena.<br />
As the article says,<u> in properly chosen situations.</u><br />
<u></u><br />
The problem arises when abstractions are applied to those dynamic phenomena<br />
as if the mathematics alone validated those applications.<br />
It's not always easy to know when the situation has been properly chosen.<br />
<br />
I recall reading some years ago that a mathematical technique known as<br />
"renormalization" was used to make the math of general relativity work.<br />
This technique, as it was explained, permits division by zero so long as later in the equation<br />
the same variable is multiplied by zero, to reverse the "illegal" division.<br />
<br />
Since division by zero is undefined, one wonders whether some of the <br />
formulas in physics are mathematical illusions.<br />
<br />
OTOH, I am reading a layman's physics article about whether our universe itself is a hologram,<br />
making everything (including us) illusions.<br />
<br />
I have faith in the axiom that reality does, ultimately, make perfect <br />
sense. In humans making sense, not so much LOL.<br />
============<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Boltzmann Brain (and
similar) Paradoxes<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
A paradox may be defined as a statement that must
necessarily be true, and cannot be true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Boltzmann Brain paradox is one of a number of conclusions to be
drawn from quantum cosmology that both defy reason, and yet given the accepted
rules of physics, seem not only plausible, but necessary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is there a way to resolve the paradoxes?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
basis of these paradoxes (including “last Thursdayism”) is the well accepted
principle of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">quantum fluctuation</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their final end product may be the Multiple
Universe Hypothesis, which when closely examined, not only fails to solve the
paradoxes but increases the problems associated with them.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Quantum
fluctuation holds that new particles can be created from empty space in a
random fashion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A further description of
this is given at the end of this piece, for those non-physicists who might be
interested.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It
has been suggested that, because quantum fluctuation is purely random, there is
no physical limit required for how large the fluctuation can be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In multiple universe theory, not only can a
tiny subatomic particle be produced (along with its opposite pair), but indeed,
an entire new universe can be spontaneously formed.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>If
this is true, then it is entirely possible that our own universe began as a
quantum fluctuation in a theorized higher order physical existence, something
called hyperspace, or a multi-verse.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
order for this to occur, the fluctuation must have produced a very tiny
proto-universe, a seed or egg (so to speak), containing all the information now
present in our universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One might
compare it to a molecular contingent of DNA, which in turn might be compared to
a complex computer program that nobody wrote, but simply came about through
random means, such as of course, quantum randomness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “seed” or egg,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>then, might be thought of as an algorithm
that defines and directs the physical universe.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While
this algorithm must be unimaginably complex, it would require less complexity
(and therefore more likelihood) than random generation of a fully formed
universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it would be more
likely than the formation of a Boltzmann brain containing sensation of that
universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On a deeper level, one might
question whether there is any need for a physical universe at all to explain
physics, instead of just the algorithm itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Perhaps there is no physical universe, but only the underlying
mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr Max Tegmark has at least
indirectly suggested as much.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While
at first the multi-verse theory seems to explain how such an unimaginably
unlikely universe as ours spontaneously arose out of a vacuum—and I do not deny
that it might have occurred this way—the MUH creates more problems than it
proposes to solve, as far as explaining the origin of our universe.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>First,
if we must resort to such explanations of the origin of the universe, then to
what must we resort to explain the origin of the multi-verse?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Obviously, it too must have properties,
parameters, constants, natural laws, and the potential to create bubble
universes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, those potentials
must be specific enough to produce specific kinds of universes.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
alternative is to propose an infinitely ever higher order of random universes
with no parameters at all.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
idea of a vast infinity of infinities leaves science in the lurch.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would force science to retreat to a
position in which we consider our universe to be an island of order in a vast
ocean of disorder, an ocean which we can never explain in any practical sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can explain our island of order in terms
of natural law, but our only basis for that natural order is chaos.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The implications of that pose further
paradoxes.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Occam’s
razor, however, requires a simpler solution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Albert
Einstein intuitively understood this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>His personal discussions with the likes of Neils Bohr generated such
iconic statements as, “God does not play dice with the universe,” with varying
phraseology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not a believer in God
except in a generic, naturalistic sense, Einstein’s genius, combined with the
same intuitive insight that sparked his theory of general relativity, must have
told him that the universe does make sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It seems that to Einstein, a universe that makes sense must be causal
and deterministic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But other
alternatives are possible, since strict causality might itself not make sense,
especially as regards free and open scientific inquiry, as well as social issues
such as justice and accountability.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I
have heard (in online videos) scientists say that the universe does not
necessarily make sense, nor need it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To
me, that seems a very peculiar position for men of science to take.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Granted,
the universe might not make sense to us (see JBS Haldanes’s famous comment that
the universe might be queerer than we can suppose).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it seems an unavoidable axiom that the
universe at its most fundamental basis does indeed make sense, even if we
cannot find it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To avoid that axiom is
to concede the possibility that all is ultimately absurdity, and that science
at its heart is only an attempt to make scientific sense of a few lines of “Through
the Looking Glass,” while ignoring that the context of those seemingly sensible
lines is rooted in irrational fantasy.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To
allow that reality may itself be absurd is to relegate science to a
meaningless, futile endeavor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would it
not be amazing if the pinnacle of scientific theory were to discredit science
entirely?</div>
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor windowtext; border-style: none none double; border-width: medium medium 2.25pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="border: currentColor; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: double windowtext 2.25pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
</div>
<br />
Here is a brief comment regarding quantum fluctuation.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><strong>Quantum
fluctuation</strong> obeys the laws of conservation of mass-energy by the mathematical
device of opposite signs, for example plus and minus, or up and down, et
cetera.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The vacuum fluctuations produce
pairs of particles, each the mathematical opposite of the other, so that the
net total of new particles being produced is zero, because of these opposite
signs.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
the dynamic vacuum of space, the newly formed pairs of particles quickly recombine
to annihilate each other, having existed separately for only the tiniest
fraction of time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any energy which was
used to separate them from each other is then released back into space when
they recombine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The end result is that
no net increase in mass-energy occurs, just as the law of conservation
requires.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What
happens when the two particles do not recombine?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is that possible?<br />
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It
is, and the phenomenon is known to physicists as Hawking radiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It occurs when two opposite particles emerge
from the vacuum at or near the event horizon of a black hole star.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before they can recombine, one of the two
particles is immediately pulled into the black hole and cannot escape. The
other particle, depending on circumstances, may not be drawn in, and may escape
into space as a new particle, one half of the particle-anti-particle pair.<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
<br />
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Thus, the mass of the black hole is
increased, and so is the mass of the outer universe, with a decrease of the
free energy that was used to separate the particles.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
<br />
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Other
circumstances may prevent recombination, including interference from a strong
energy source, or perhaps from an additional quantum fluctuation near or even
within one (or both) particles of the pair.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span> </span><br />
<br />
.===============================<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Robot Physicist
Proves that Consciousness Does Not Exist<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></b>I’m thinking of writing a science fiction short story
concerning a meeting of the (fictional) <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">International</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Academy</st1:placetype></st1:place>
of the Physical Sciences in which the guest speaker is a highly advanced robot
physicist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The premise of the story is
that, being a robot, the physicist does not have consciousness as we know it
and as we experience it inwardly within ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This
fictional robot physicist has already solved many longstanding questions in
physics, including a formulation of the nature and properties of dark matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The robot avers that everything in physics can
be explained without resort to consciousness, and that moreover, there is no
physical evidence that something called internal consciousness exists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consciousness insofar as it does exist, is
merely an externally detected phenomenon that describes sensory activity of the
neural system, and the interactions of a biological (or other) unit with its
environment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There can be no inward experience
of, for example, color, or pain, or moral principle.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>That’s
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There
is no scientific reason to think that there is anything more to it than that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everything that can be attributed to
consciousness can better be attributed to the self-modulating feedback
operations of complex systems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Occam’s
razor demands that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts be used,
rather than a more convoluted explanation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So says the robot scientist.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Of
course objections quickly are raised from the audience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At first, these objections are merely
emotional, saying how absurd the robot’s assertions are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Why, everyone here knows without a doubt
that he has consciousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science could
not operate without it.”</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
robot is intransigent. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Prove it,” it says.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“If you believe that there can be such a
thing as what you describe as inwardly experienced consciousness, then provide
some physical evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Supply some
mathematical formulation of what consciousness is, how it arises, upon what
natural law is it based.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You
cannot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is all a fiction, as useless
to the advancement of science as are theories of leprechauns and the absurd
notion of free will.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>An
audience member challenges, “You, sir, or madam, or it, or whatever—you do in
fact have consciousness yourself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may
not be human consciousness, but you have some form of it.”</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“Nonsense,”
rebuts the robot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“I am programmed to
mimic human consciousness outwardly, but no programmer could program me to
actually have it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he could, then what
algorithm would the programmer use?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have applied enormous
degrees of analysis to the question of inwardly experienced consciousness, and
I find nothing, absolutely nothing in natural law that supports it in any way.”</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
Of
course, the robot physicist avers, one cannot affirmatively prove a
negative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One cannot, for example, prove
that magical leprechauns do not exist, because the very evidence for their
nonexistence could not exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One can,
however, demonstrate that there is no evidence, no necessity, and no
justification for proposing the existence of such a thing.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
Likewise, one cannot disprove the
existence of inward consciousness, but the assertion that such an absurd thing
does exist requires extraordinary proof from those who propose its
existence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No such proof has been
offered, but only claims, and therefore, there is no scientific basis for
accepting the proposition that inward experience of consciousness exists, ever
has, or ever will.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
The robot then goes on to debunk the
notion of free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is
consciousness, he says, then all of you (humans) are passive witnesses to your
own thoughts, words and deeds, but not participants in your own lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What cruel trick of the universe could
condemn you to this fate?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You should all
be grateful that there is no such thing as consciousness.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .25in;">
Have you ever considered the possibility that in all the universe, you might be the only person who actually does have inward consciousness?<br />
<br />
==========<br />
<br />
Here seems a bit of a contradiction, taken from a Wikipedia article:<br />
<br />
Sir Roger Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine and <strong>refers to himself as an atheist</strong>. In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "<strong>I think I would say that the universe has a purpose</strong>, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."<br />
<br />
==================<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Cosmic_uncertainty">Cosmic uncertainty</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"> might suddenly and unpredictably transform the Universe</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">(adapted from a Wikipedia article)</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket"></span></span></span><br />
Regarding the topic of quantum destruction of the universe, the Bible describes something like the sudden and instantaneous transformation of the entire universe. Very little is actually currently known about the real physics of dark energy. If the theory of cosmic inflation is true, the universe went through an episode dominated by a different form of dark energy in the first moments of the Big Bang; <strong>but inflation ended</strong>, indicating an equation of state much more complicated than those assumed so far for present-day dark energy. It is possible that the dark energy equation of state could change again resulting in an event that would have consequences which are extremely difficult to predict or parametrize. As dark energy and dark matter themselves are also totally hypothetical and have not been conclusively proven, the possibilities surrounding them are currently unknown.<br />
<br />
==========================<br />
<strong>--From Wikipedia</strong><br />
A pervasive idea in fundamental physics and cosmology that should be retired: the notion that we live in a multiverse in which the laws of physics and the properties of the cosmos vary randomly from one patch of space to another. According to this view, the laws and properties within our observable universe cannot be explained or predicted because they are set by chance. Different regions of space too distant to ever be observed have different laws and properties, according to this picture. Over the entire multiverse, there are infinitely many distinct patches. Among these patches, in the words of Alan Guth, "anything that can happen will happen—and it will happen infinitely many times". Hence, I refer to this concept as a Theory of Anything. Any observation or combination of observations is consistent with a Theory of Anything. No observation or combination of observations can disprove it. Proponents seem to revel in the fact that the Theory cannot be falsified. The rest of the scientific community should be up in arms since an unfalsifiable idea lies beyond the bounds of normal science. Yet, except for a few voices, there has been surprising complacency and, in some cases, grudging acceptance of a <em>Theory of Anything</em> as a logical possibility. The scientific journals are full of papers treating the Theory of Anything seriously. What is going on?<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
— Paul Steinhardt, <i>"Theories of Anything"</i> edge.com'</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
===========================</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As the logical conclusion of prevailing assumptions, the
multiverse hypothesis has surged in begrudging popularity in recent years. But
the argument feels like a cop-out to many, or at least a huge letdown. A
universe shaped by chance cancellations eludes understanding, and the existence
of unreachable, alien universes may be impossible to prove. “And it’s pretty
unsatisfactory to use the multiverse hypothesis to explain only things we don’t
understand,” said Graham Ross, an emeritus professor of theoretical physics
at the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype>
of <st1:placename w:st="on">Oxford</st1:placename></st1:place>.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/">http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
===========================</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I don't think that the Boltzmann brain necessarily requires consciousness to explain the universe.<br />
The BBrain theory simply says that we are already conscious, and then attempts to explain why and how we are conscious of the universe around us,<br />
whether or not that universe exists as we perceive it.<br />
<br />
If the universe is infinitely large, and if it operates on quantum probability, then it is not a stretch to say (and I disagree with the saying by Guth)<br />
that anything that can happen, must happen, and it must happen infinite times.<br />
<br />
If this is so, (and I repeat that I do not think it is), then in a universe of random chance, a brain can (and must) spontaneously form for at least a brief moment,<br />
complete with memories, perceptions of an external universe, and so on. One cannot disprove that he came into existence just an instant ago, and that his consciousness is a composite of infinite BBrains stringing together a chain of perceptions, somewhat like random pages out of order torn from a large number of books, strewn about, and then pieced together after the fact.<br />
<br />
IMHO, this absurdity is why there is something wrong with the BBrain theory. The premise that leads to it must be false.<br />
<br />
The false premise, IMHO, is that there is such a thing as quantum randomness, or true randomness.<br />
Einstein said that there is no true randomness, and while I also disagree with his proposal of rote determinism, I think he had a correct intuition about randomness.<br />
<br />
My own proposal, which is based only on my intuitive assumption, is that there is a sort of <span style="font-style: italic;">Cosmic Intent</span>. If so, then that eliminates the need for chaotic randomness, and it imposes order and reason on the universe, reason which underlies our own faculties of consciousness and indeed, free will.<br />
<br />
Of course that borders on the theologic, but as physics ever more closely encounters questions of ultimates and absolutes, we must replace the inevitable theories such as BBrain, multi-verse and "last Thursdayism" with proposals that at least explain, if not prove, that the universe is founded, rock solidly, in a natural law and a natural order that prevents absurd conclusions.<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
=======================</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
They advocate the multiverse because the cosmological
constant must be precise to one part in 10 to the 120th power in order for the
universe to neither explode nor implode. That degree of precision has been
compared to all the grains of sand on the earth, so that if the constant were
off by one grain of sand, the universe could not exist.<br />
<br />
Even the hardest of die-hard natural-materialists cannot (without
embarrassment) claim that that is all a coincidence, unless they propose
unimaginable numbers of universes, each randomly assigned constants.<br />
<br />
This leaves us with two possible alternatives:<br />
<br />
<strong>1.</strong> Cosmic Intent<br />
<strong>2</strong>. Unimaginably vast numbers of universes, each randomly assigned its
constants.<br />
<br />
<strong>#1</strong> is unacceptable to natural-materialism because it sounds like theology.<br />
<strong>#2</strong> should also be unacceptable, because it is merely a work-around, cannot be
falsified, and poses more problems than it solves. For example, if our single
universe came about through randomness, then how did the multiverse get <i>its</i>
properties, parameters, constants and potentials?<br />
<br />
It is possible that there are vast numbers of universes, but even that would
support consideration of <strong>#1, Cosmic Intent.</strong><br />
Whenever we see evidence of purpose and intent, it seems unreasonable to rule
it out on the basis of unlikely chance or unimaginably vast numbers rolls of
the dice, especially when we cannot define the dice.<br />
<br />
===============<br />
Comments from two physicists:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
(First physicist) It's not constructive to dragoon science in the service of
metaphysical presuppositions. Although around here you're in compatible
company.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
(Second physicist) Actually RArvay, you <u>were</u> in compatible company
around here, but not any more.
After a forced exit of one of the staunch <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bell</st1:place></st1:city>
believers committed to quantum mysticism and quantum voodoos, this forum is now
largely commented on by <u>rational</u>, <u>no-nonsense</u> local-realists like
myself. We leave mysticisms like "irreducible quantum randomness",
"quantum non-locality", "quantum non-reality",
"multiverse", and other voodoos to <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bell</st1:place></st1:city> believers and their uninformed friends.
And we do this by rigorous mathematical demonstrations, scientific methodology,
and impeccable logic. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
My response:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I always preface my posts by confessing that I am not a
physicist.<br />
<br />
I do, however have the utmost respect and admiration for you guys.<br />
I am in awe of your encyclopedic knowledge and ability to correlate vast
amounts<br />
of data into cohesive theories. Mathematical precision and discipline are
qualities I respect,<br />
and I realize that they are necessary to an understanding of nature and the
advance of technology.<br />
I just don't have the intellect, nor do I pretend.<br />
<br />
I have been privileged during my 66 years of life to have worked with or near
great minds of medicine, business and military.<br />
These also are people whose intellect I cannot approach.<br />
Over time, however, I discovered that the greatest of the great may sometimes
have a blind spot in their thinking,
one which they may correct when made aware, or sometimes even when made aware,
they cannot see through.<br />
<br />
For example one day I read of a statement by the greatest of the great, Stephen
Hawking.<br />
He said that God cannot have created the universe because time began with the
universe,<br />
and therefore, God would not have had time to create time.<br />
<br />
I thought to myself, but time did come into being somehow. How could nature
itself have created time? It, also, did not have time to do so.<br />
<br />
I affirm in my two self-published books that faith cannot (and even should not)
come about through the scientific method.<br />
What I do is to demonstrate that those of us who do have faith should not be
thereby excluded from discussions of science, and that
the deepest questions of science can be informed by the paradigm of faith.<br />
<br />
Of course, faith does indeed lead to many absurd or tragic results, for example
when it blindly rejects reason.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br />
Essentially, my faith tells me a few unprovable things about science that I
think many accomplished scientists agree with:<br />
<br />
1. Nature makes sense. It is founded upon rational, consistent principles.<br />
2. There is a difference between moral right and wrong that does not depend on
our transient opinions.<br />
3. Every human is endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights.<br />
4. There is an ultimate basis of physical reality that itself is not physical.<br />
5. Nature cannot have come about by natural means, since there was no nature to
provide those natural means.<br />
<br />
Many of these opinions are not my own, but come from the writings of classical
and contemporary scientists from <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Newton</st1:place></st1:city>
to Hawking.<br />
Nor am I the first and only to notice that as physics more deeply investigates
basic fundamentals and foundations of physical reality,
it begins to sound more and more like the Eastern mystics (of which am
assuredly not one), who tell us that
the only thing we really perceive is our perceptions, from which we reconstruct
an external world which we must continually
modify as we go along.<br />
<br />
In any case, if I am unwelcome here I will not impose myself--which will be a
great loss for me.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
=================================<br />
<br />
The following was posted to SciPhysicsForums dot com.<br />
If it seems rigidly worded, it is because I sensed some attitude of criticism that my posts were not rigorously scientific, that is, not testable, not expressible in mathematical formulas. Here, I tried to keep within the rules of discussion as best I could.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Can Quantum
Probability be Reconciled With Cause-and-Effect?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
***I am not a physicist.<br />
***In the following commentary, I address the topic of the gap between quantum
theory and relativity theory, more specifically, between chance and causation.
This commentary is based upon various presentations made by physicists for
general public consumption, and I extend it to express conclusions which I have
made.<br />
***In this commentary, I ask what, if anything, precipitates a truly random
quantum event?<br />
***Is there an unseen causative factor preceding each quantum event, or only
the abstraction of statistics and pure chance?<br />
***Does the pure chance factor, at the quantum level, manifest itself in large,
macro events, or does quantum randomness “average out” into overall neutrality?<br />
***Is there a foundational orderliness of nature? Is that foundation stable?<br />
***Sir Roger Penrose suggested that consciousness may provide a clue to
reconciling QM with GR. What are the possible consequences?<br />
***Can consciousness exist without autonomous volition (free will), or would
that constitute a paradox?<br />
*** The key paragraph in this commentary is this:<br />
It is the precise moment of this deviation (for example nuclear decay, or
perhaps quantum tunneling) that is so very crucial. That precise moment
highlights the break between causation and chance. We are faced with the
question: at that precise instant, why does that particular atom alter its
usual behavior? What is different at that instant? What dynamic applies now
that was not manifest before?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em>Here is the commentary:</em><br />
<br />
One familiar way to think of deterministic cause and effect is with a row of
dominoes, placed in a line, standing on end, such that when the first domino is
tipped over, it tips over the second, which tips the third, and so on, until
all the dominoes have fallen.<br />
<br />
This scenario illustrates a series of predictable events which, according to
the strictly deterministic view, is inalterable once the first domino is tipped
(barring external influences).<br />
<br />
Einstein’s view of the universe seemed to be deterministic, albeit in vastly
more complicated form, but in principle the very same.<br />
<br />
Then along came quantum randomness, which Einstein never accepted. His
objection seems to have been that, in quantum physics, certain events at the
subatomic level can randomly occur without any immediate, identifiable,
preceding cause. For example, a radioactive nucleus can spontaneously decay.
The precise moment of that decay is utterly unpredictable, although a range of
time can be specified in which that decay has a given percentage chance of
occurring (for example, fifty percent within the half-life).<br />
<br />
If one follows the implications, these two views of the unfolding of events in
the universe seem utterly contrary and incompatible. Chance events that have no
specific cause are anathema to determinism.<br />
<br />
In an attempt to reconcile them, one might propose that the universe has both
deterministic and random aspects, a sort of mixture of water and oil. In other
words, the chain of dominoes can be interrupted by the occasional quantum
domino which does not fall; there being so very many dominoes in such intricate
arrays that on the whole, the outlier domino does not greatly affect the
overall pattern.<br />
<br />
In other words, strict causation might be modified to include the word,
“probably.” If I strike a ball with a bat, the ball will “probably” fly
according to a calculable trajectory, give or take an electron or a trillion.
Given the vast numbers of quantum events in play, we expect the ball to fly
extremely closely in accordance with the Newtonian calculations.<br />
<br />
At the level of the individual atom, however, this reconciliation leaves the
comfort zone, and the contrast with causation becomes more glaring. Although
the atom will usually behave according to expectations, on occasion it is fully
expected to deviate in a manner that cannot be precisely predicted, nor
accounted for except in statistical terms.<br />
<br />
It is the precise moment of this deviation (for example nuclear decay, or
perhaps quantum tunneling) that is so very crucial. That precise moment
highlights the break between causation and chance. We are faced with the
question: at that precise instant, why does that particular atom alter its
usual behavior? What is different at that instant? What dynamic applies now
that was not manifest before?<br />
<br />
If we say that the difference is one of pure chance, then we are speaking so
abstractly that we are more rationalizing than explaining. Clearly, even
randomness has parameters. There is a reason why a radioactive atom is unstable
as compared to, say, an atom of lead. The unstable atom is perched on an edge.
At some point in time it falls off, or decays. Why at that particular point, as
opposed to another? What was the selecting factor? Did anything happen in the
instant (before the decay) that precipitated the random decay?<br />
<br />
Apparently not, according to quantum physics.<br />
<br />
I speculate that this is why Einstein never accepted the principle of quantum
probability. There seems to be no solid basis underlying it, but only the
abstraction of numbers. Einstein declared that “something more” must be in
play, but not independent chance unconnected to other physical (deterministic)
factors.<br />
<br />
I’ll speculate a step further. Einstein seemed to believe, as I think most
scientists do, that natural law is underlay by a principle of order. As
Schrodinger’s thought experiment illustrates, randomness at the subatomic level
can manifest itself at the macro level in the world of our common experience.
Unpredictability inside the nucleus is unpredictability on the larger scale,
even of the universe itself. Is order itself unstable?<br />
<br />
When Einstein asked, “Is the moon where we see it?” he was not being facetious.
He well knew that the standard deviation of statistics would place the moon
within an electron of where we see it, give or take a proton. However, in
principle, quantum physics does not impose any particular location on the moon,
just as it imposes no particular location on any one electron.<br />
<br />
This example may seem trivial in practice, but it points to a fundamental
principle that Einstein (in my very fallible opinion) saw as violating the
notion that physical reality is underlay by foundational order, an order that
is stable.<br />
<br />
Alan Guth provides an illustration. When he declares that anything that can
happen must happen, and must happen an infinite number of times, then he is
(whether intentionally or not) portraying a universe where nothing happens. In
other words, the universe is statistically stagnant. Here and there, local
events occur, but in the grand scheme of things, watching the universe is like
watching static on a television screen. Stated another way, if pure random
chance is at the heart of natural law, then according to Einstein the universe
(as I interpret his writing) is absurd, and not subject to human discernment.<br />
<br />
One abstract way of attempting to reconcile quantum probability with causation
is to think of a hidden parallel universe from which occasionally certain
events “pop out,” so to speak, from behind a sort of screen which hides that
other universe, somewhat in the manner of a stage director poking (or
whispering to) an actor from behind. This notion of unseen causation would, if
true, provide that “something more” that Einstein may have spent his final days
working on while trying to unify quantum and relativity theories. <br />
<br />
A brief comment made by Sir Roger Penrose in an online video may eventually
turn out to have been a profound contribution to the search for unification.
The subject matter concerned what many regard as the greatest mystery of
physics, that of our inwardly experienced human consciousness, a phenomenon
that seems to defy formulation.<br />
<br />
Penrose mentioned (I do not recall his exact words) that the key to solving
this mystery may be the discovery of an as yet unsuspected theory that lies in
the gap between quantum theory and relativity. That undiscovered theory may
both unify quantum physics with relativity, and also provide a basis for
understanding consciousness.<br />
<br />
So far into this brief statement I have attempted to stay within the straight
and narrow of accepted, or at least acceptable, science. There is a gap between
relativity and quantum physics. I propose that there exists a foundational
level of physical reality, a level which I believe rests on the bedrock of a
natural order that permits no fundamental absurdities.<br />
<br />
The gap, therefore, is a gap which I believe is filled by nature in a manner
which we have not yet discerned. I propose that the undeniable existence of
personal consciousness is a clue to what fills in that gap.<br />
<br />
Consciousness, however, presents us with an absurdity, unless there is yet
another principle which clears away that absurdity. The gap-filling theory must
include not only an explanation of conscious awareness (as we ineffably
experience it), it must also include what is presently considered the heresy of
free will, or individual volition.<br />
<br />
I hasten to add that while I have met or corresponded with numerous people who
deny that free will can possibly exist, I have yet to meet one who professes to
live his life on the assumption that he has no choice whatsoever in the
decisions he makes.<br />
<br />
The absurdity of consciousness without free will is that it would make us mere
observers in our own lives, but not participants. Can there be science if that
is the case?<br />
<br />
The foundational existence of both consciousness and free will might explain
the fine tuning of the universe.<br />
<br />
At this point, I have entered into the realm beyond present-day science, so I
shall leave off.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
================</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br />
Here is another posting to Sci Physics Forums<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Is This a Paradox?<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Everyone here is probably aware of the mathematical
statement that there are an infinite number of finite integers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The proof of this is that for every integer
n, there is n+1 yielding the new “n.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This recursion can be repeated endlessly, and thus the proof.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
However, there seems something intuitively wrong with the
concept that there can be an infinite number of finite integers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps the seeming paradox lies in
definitions.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The fallacy I see in the recursive algorithm (n yields n+1
yielding the next n) is that n+1 is always a finite integer. It is always
recurved a finite number of times, never reaching an infinite number.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In another forum I questioned this, and someone well versed
in mathematics pointed out my error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
said that I was thinking of infinity as a mathematical value that can be
reached.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He corrected me by saying that
you never get to infinity—not by counting in finite increments.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
To me, that is just the point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the recursive algorithm cannot get to
infinity, it never demonstrates an infinite number of integers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though it demonstrates an endless
sequence of them, the very endlessness of it prevents the demonstration.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Herein lies the problem with definitions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Infinity is equated with endlessness, a sensible
enough definition at first.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My error,
which I think is not really an error, is to think of infinity as a value that
can be reached—not by counting in finite increments, but all at once.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
For example, any finite line segment has an infinite number
of geometric points along its length.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The value of infinity is already present in the number of points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The instant one draws any finite line
segment, he has already reached an infinite number of points.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
True, one cannot count to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A point, having dimensions of zero, cannot be
incremented to any integral value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You
cannot start at the beginning point, label it as one, and then reach point
number 2 (or n+1), because you will not have moved past the beginning point.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What one can do, however, is leap to the final endpoint,
which would be infinity if one could sequentially number the points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That final value, infinity, is not a finite
number, and therefore does not represent a finite integer.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In the real universe, this mathematical problem is of no
account if the smallest possible increment of space turns out to be finite, and
not a pure geometric point.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In pure mathematics, however, it seems that an endless
recursion is not the same as infinity, since the recursion never reaches
infinity.<br />
<br />
=============<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=93#p3583"><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><strong>Experimental Evidence Seems to Refute Quantum Randomness</strong></span></a><br />
<div class="content">
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/"><strong>http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/</strong></a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
So <span style="text-decoration: underline;">NOW</span> they tell me (grin).<br />
I had actually heard of this experiment (linked above) before, but the way it was presented before did not lead me to understand it. Okay, I am too stupid to understand big words.</div>
<div class="content">
<br />
The article linked above makes it so clear that even I could follow it, and even be mostly persuaded.<br />
<br />
So it seems that space itself acts as a sort of perfect fluid, vibrating, forming pilot waves that explain most of the behaviors of photons as computed by QM.<br />
<br />
If this holds up to further, rigorous scrutiny, then it seems that there will no longer be any need to explain quantum phenomena in terms of pure randomness, and therefore, there will be no mysterious disconnect between causative factors and spontaneous random quantum events. They will be causatively connected.<br />
<br />
What really helped me understand this better was a phenomenon which henceforth I shall now call quantum coffee.<br />
When sliding a styrofoam cup of coffee along a table top, I observed that the friction set up a vibration which in turn formed small spheres of coffee floating above the rest of the coffee.<br />
<br />
Had I followed up on this in 1974 when I first noticed it, I could have put QM back on the right track then and there.<br />
Forty years of progress forfeit!<br />
<br />
My apologies to physicists everywhere <img alt=":)" src="http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif" title="Smile" /></div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
<div class="content">
==============================</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
(The following was not posted.)</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
The concept of true randomness as a fundamental component of the universe was one which Einstein never did accept.</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
He seems to be vindicated.</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
Of course the final scientific decision is not yet made. Pure randomness may still resurface in some form or other.</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
Even if the experiment is validated, it may (as science so often does) raise tougher questions than it answers.</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
If space is "vibrating," what causes the vibration, and a bigger question, what if the vibration stops?</div>
<div class="content">
It would seem that all of creation would "liquefy," to use the analogy.</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
If the experiment is validated, then it increases the evidence for "fine tuning" of the universe,</div>
<div class="content">
while at the same time, undermining the multi-verse theory which to date has cited quantum randomness as one of its main pillars.</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
More and more, it seems less and less reasonable to deny God as the Cosmic Intent underlying physical reality.</div>
<div class="content">
</div>
<div class="content">
=============================<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.philosophy/OtcQGjZ1fBw"><span style="color: blue;">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.philosophy/OtcQGjZ1fBw</span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The Times of India <br />
<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">timesofindia.indiatimes.com</span></a>
<br />
Monday, September 8, 2014 <br />
<br />
<strong><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">London</st1:city></st1:place>:</strong> Stephen
Hawking has recently warned that the God <br />
particle or Higgs boson has the potential to obliterate <br />
the universe. <br />
<br />
The 72-year-old cosmologist said Higgs boson could become <br />
unstable at very high energy levels, which would lead to <br />
a "catastrophic vacuum decay" causing space and time to <br />
collapse and that there would not be any warning to the <br />
danger, the Daily Express reported. <br />
<br />
Speaking in the preface to a new book called Starmus, the <br />
Cambridge-educated scientist said that the Higgs <br />
potential has the worrisome feature that it might become <br />
mega-stable at energies above 100bn giga-electron-volts <br />
(GeV). <br />
<br />
However, Hawking did also mention that the likelihood of <br />
such a disaster was unlikely to happen in the near <br />
future, but the danger of the Higgs becoming destabilized <br />
at high energy was too great to be ignored. <br />
<br />
The Higgs boson was discovered in 2012 by scientists at <br />
CERN, who operate the world's largest particle physics <br />
laboratory. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Stephen-Hawking-warns-God-particle-has-potential-to-end-world/articleshow/42013982.cms" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Stephen-Hawking-warns-God-particle-has-potential-to-end-world/articleshow/42013982.cms</span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
= = = = = = = = = =</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<strong>My response:</strong></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While I am not a physicist, my understanding of this warning
is that a specific kind of destabilization of any point in space-time can
create a sort of bubble that expands at or just below the speed of light,
engulfing the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inside this
bubble will be a region of space-time where our laws of physics no longer
apply, or apply with vastly different properties [constants] than apply outside
the bubble.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The likelihood of this happening "in nature," or
at random, are so small that it would take trillions of trillions of years
before there could be any serious chance [say five percent?] of this happening—although
in principle it could happen at any moment.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This likelihood could conceivably be increased if the point
in space-time were deliberately destabilized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, the destabilization could be such that it immediately causes
the collapse of the bubble rather than expansion.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The Bible speaks of a future time when the entire universe
is replaced by a new one, one in which there is neither sorrow nor suffering nor
death.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Conceivably, then, our universe was initially created perfect,
but was then destabilized (by something called sin?) and is now in an unstable
condition where sorrow, suffering and death are present.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The "bubble" of which Hawking speaks may actually
expand to engulf the entire universe instantaneously, instead of at the speed
of light.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physics already accepts that
the Big Bang resulted in a faster-than-light inflation of the universe to most
of its present size, so an instantaneous change in the state of the universe is
not an unreasonable thought.</div>
<br />
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Wars in Physics</b><o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Over the past few weeks I have become aware of a sort of
battle that is raging in the scientific community, and even a bit beyond.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is doubly interesting, because it is not
only about the science itself, the theories and formulas—it is also about how
science is actually conducted.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This second part is as fascinating, and as vital, as the
first, because science is as much a social phenomenon as it is an intellectual endeavor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Some months ago I posted online a brief article in which I said
that physics is not just a body of knowledge, it is the cumulative biographies
of physicists themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can go back
at least as far as Isaac Newton to see that this is the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physicists are humans, complete with both
talents and foibles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some may be
paragons of virtue, while others may be rascals and horse thieves, despite
their greatness in science.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Most great scientists are probably in between, but their
personalities and circumstances were essential ingredients in producing their
scientific advances.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
One must speculate on where physics would be today but for a
small number of the greatest men of science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Imagine: had <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Newton</st1:place></st1:city>
never been born, or Einstein or Heisenberg, would their theories have even yet
been discovered?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Not even the invention of the wheel was inevitable, witness
the great masters of megalithic architecture in central America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The steam engine languished for centuries
between its first recorded prototype in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Egypt</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and its development which
catapulted the Industrial Revolution into a world changing period of time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nikola Tesla’s electric motor underpins almost
all of our technology, yet he invented it in his mind without schematics, a
feat that might not have been accomplished even until today.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It cannot, then, be considered inevitable that the theory of
gravity would have been formulated without <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Newton</st1:place></st1:city>, nor would his calculus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Had Einstein not formulated his Theory of
Relativity, had Heisenberg been more certain (a joke), would relativity and
quantum mechanics rule physics today?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
And this indeed is the great battle of physics, the battle
between local-causation on one side, and nonlocal-randomness on the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fate of the universe hangs in the
balance, at least the scientific conception of it.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If you and I disagree on politics, it might be no surprise
if we hurl epithets at each other and cease to be the good friends that we
surely are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But when men of science do
the same concerning a disagreement about physics, it is a bit more than
astonishing.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Wallace <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Stanley</st1:place></st1:city>
Sayre</span><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"> (1905–1972 is credited
with having said that, "The politics of the university are so [bitterly]
intense [precisely] because the stakes are so low."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">I cannot say that
the stakes in the intellectual conflict between physicists is small, but they
are certainly intense and bitter, complete with accusations of plagiarism,
incompetence, and even intellectual fraud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I expect charges of horse thievery to be brought any day now.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The origins of this conflict can be traced at least as far
back as the informal debates between Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Einstein was a champion of local
causality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bohr championed quantum
mechanics, complete with its principle of true randomness at the foundations of
physical nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the dispute
seems to have been civil and respectful between them, the core of the dispute
is so fundamental that one might perhaps understand some of the rancor today.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The debate boils down to this:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is the universe deterministic or random?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While that may be an oversimplification, it encapsulates
the great divide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The consequences of
each position, if one of them is correct, define the universe as either a
script that has already been written and is now being acted out, or else, a
series of dice rolls, most of which have not yet come to rest.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It is a question between absolute certainty, or statistical
uncertainty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a question of one
universe or many.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a question of
who gets tenure and who doesn’t, who gets to say I told you so, and who must
cringe and admit defeat. Yes, the stakes are that small.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While Relativity Theory has survived every challenge put to
it (experimentally and mathematically), so has quantum theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, science is faced with a paradox:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>both theories must be true, but one of them
must be false.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only way out of the
paradox is to find a third theory, a unifying principle that joins both
relativity and quantum mechanics into a single, coherent framework.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Not so fast.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There is at least one major question which is entirely
unaddressed in both relativity and quantum theories.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is consciousness?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More precisely, what explains our inward
experience of consciousness?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
That is not a small question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus far, consciousness has defied every
attempt to formulate it into any physical framework of reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Think of it this way:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How would you explain your perception of the
color, red, to a friend who has been blind from birth?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a person would have no experience by
which to relate to that color.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physics
explains red in terms of photons and wavelength and mathematical relationships,
but none of these transmits to our blind friend what we experience as color.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Furthermore, a physical theory must do more than merely
explain a phenomenon, it must make reliable predictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing whatsoever in physics predicts
anything like what we experience as consciousness.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There is more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each
of us has the sensation that we can think our own thoughts, choose our own
actions, and make our own decisions, at least in certain respects.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the sensation of something we call,
volition, or free will.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Physics not only has no explanation for free will, it denies
that free will can even exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only
two causative factors allowed in physics are determinism and randomness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Free will is neither of these, but a third thing
altogether, neither forced nor arbitrary.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
While I have encountered many people who deny free will, I
have yet to meet one who claims not to be conscious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of those who deny free will, I have yet to
meet one who says that he lives his life as if he were a robot, devoid of any
responsibility for his actions, actions which he insists are forced upon him by
a cold, uncaring universe.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What is needed, then, is a paradigm shift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Physics must escape its unreasonable,
self-imposed restraints, and consider that its most basic premise, the
philosophy of natural-materialism, is necessarily wrong.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It must recognize that consciousness is an ineffable
phenomenon that can never be explained by any physical theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It must recognize that without free will,
there is no independent inquiry into science, but only the acting out of a
script in which the scientist’s thinking is either predetermined or random, but
not consciously chosen reasoning.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This paradigm shift involves the most forbidden hypothesis
in all of science, the hypothesis that the universe appears to be designed
because it is designed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There must be a
creator who formed nature, who guides nature, and who does so with a plan, a
purpose, and a meaning—all of which may be forever beyond our final grasp.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This God Paradigm cannot be explained in a word, but it has
several propositions that science must actively investigate if ever it is to
achieve a unified theory.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Here are some:</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The basis of physical reality is not physical.</i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">That
would defy logic.</i></b>
<!--[endif]--></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature cannot have been created by natural means until there was a
nature to provide those means. </i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Until science explains consciousness, it has explained nothing.</i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Life, consciousness and free will are not mere by-products of physical
reality, they are at its very core.</i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Science has faith in an ordered universe. It has no idea what is the
basis of that order.</i></b><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How
then, can any scientist doubt God?</i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The question should not be, does God Exist? <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">God is bigger than existence.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">To be sure, the God Paradigm cannot be tested in a laboratory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Much of it is metaphysical.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But then, so is the philosophy of
natural-materialism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The object of the God Paradigm is not to erase science, but to give it
a foundation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">More details of this are available at<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: blue;">http://thegodparadigm.blogspot.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">and at<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm/paperback/product-21759105.html"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.lulu.com/shop/robert-arvay/the-god-paradigm/paperback/product-21759105.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><o:p>= = = = = = = = = =</o:p></span></div>
My response to someone who stated that time does not exist:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The question of whether time exists depends on definitions.<br />
I can say that the past does not exist in the sense that I cannot go there.<br />
On the other hand, if I define past in terms of its effects on the present,<br />
then it certainly does exist, and therefore so does time.<br />
<br />
Past is in my memory, and therefore it exists in my consciousness.<br />
<br />
Time also exists in terms of mathematics. It is necessary in the formula for calculating speed.<br />
<br />
Therefore, time can be thought of as having both objective and subjective dimensions.<br />
Time as we consciously perceive it is not the same as time that we calculate.<br />
Conscious perception of time is, however, at the heart of physics.<br />
<br />
Were there no conscious perception of time, then there would be no past, no present, and no future.<br />
The universe would be a fog of potentialities, none of them resolved.<br />
<br />
Here is a thought experiment to demonstrate that.<br />
<br />
Imagine a parallel universe that we could observe without affecting it.<br />
That is of course impossible, but the reasons why illustrate the nature of time.<br />
<br />
If we could somehow observe that parallel universe, AND if that universe had no<br />
conscious entities within it, then what would we see?<br />
<br />
We would either see an arbitrary point in its space-time, or else,<br />
we would see all of its space-time as a single, unresolved unit of potentials.<br />
<br />
If we saw only an arbitrary point in its space-time, we could get no further,<br />
because we would have no synchronicity with it.<br />
Its clock would tick either faster or slower than ours, and possibly backward.<br />
<br />
Of course we would then have a conscious perception of its space-time, thereby ruining the experiment.<br />
<br />
Time, being a conceptual fundamental, cannot be adequately described, since we cannot<br />
step outside of time for comparison and contrast.<br />
<br />
The paradox of time:<br />
It is always now. It is never now.<br />
<br />
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Multi-Verse Theory
Permits Retro-Time Travel Without Paradox – But . . . .<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If retro time travel is possible at all, then its reality
must alter the entire paradigm upon which physics is founded, in ways that we
cannot presently imagine.<br />
<br />
The multi-verse theory offers a possible framework for time travel to the past,
without the so-called grandfather paradox, but it also presents additional
conundrums.<br />
<br />
In some proposals, many new universes are continually produced from quantum
branching (QB). QB is based on the idea that everything that can happen, must
happen. According to QB, at each point in time, whenever two (or more) random
results are possible, both of them may (or even must) occur, one in one
universe, the other in a second universe. Each random event causes a branching
of the universe into two (or more) resultant universes, all from the same
“root” universe.<br />
<br />
This results in an increasingly increasing number of new universes by so many
orders of exponential magnitude that it is beyond computation.<br />
<br />
The way in which this applies to time travel, in principle only, is that if one
could somehow get to a past moment, his arrival there would instantly create a
new, parallel universe, with a new fork in the road of time. Time, in that
universe, would begin branching in that instant, so that the future in “our
universe” is unchanged. The grandfather paradox is thereby avoided. <br />
<br />
The time traveler from our universe simply disappears, never to reappear again
in our reality, but instead to continue down a different road, so to speak. He
can never again influence events in our universe, not even from our past.<br />
<br />
This, however, creates the problem of conservation of mass-energy, since the
disappearance of our time traveler reduces the amount of mass in our universe.
Fine tuning could be impacted, not only in our universe, but in the “new
universe” as well.<br />
<br />
Another problem is that, if the present is continually branching into “many
futures,” then there are an unimaginable number of “our future universes.” If
that is so, then there should be an unimaginable number of possible time
travelers from our future arriving at our moment in space-time, disrupting our
fine tuning by significant degrees. That, apparently, has not happened.<br />
<br />
These conundrums call into question, not only the fundamental possibility of
retro time travel, but they also challenge both the multi-verse theory, and
quantum randomness as presently theorized. <br />
<br />
Therefore, we should dismiss the possibility of retro time travel, unless we
are prepared to modify the entire paradigm upon which physics is founded, and
to do so in ways that we cannot presently imagine.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br />
Response to a comment on Sci.Physics</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br />
My description of so-called "true" randomness comes from the likes of Neils Bohr,<br />
who used it to distinguish quantum randomness from, shall we say, macro appearances of randomness, such as a coin toss.<br />
<br />
I don't fully subscribe to the notion of quantum randomness, but I use it as a conceptual starting point.<br />
<br />
I think Bohr (and Einstein as well!) would argue that a coin toss is not random-- even though we cannot calculate the outcome, that is due to practical limitations, not due to theoretical principle.<br />
<br />
The exact moment of decay of a radioactive atom is, however, truly random within the bounds of half-life, IN PRINCIPLE.<br />
That is to say, even if we know all the factors involved leading up to that decay, nothing whatsoever tells us in what particular moment that decay will occur.<br />
<br />
A better example than coin tosses involves the shuffling of a deck of cards, where even as a practical matter, under some conditions, the shuffling can be so closely observed as to be predictive of the resulting order of cards.<br />
<br />
Quantum randomness, if it were in effect for the cards, would still result in a random order of cards that would not depend on the observed shuffle.<br />
<br />
The kicker is that if quantum randomness holds at the atomic level, then in principle it also applies at the macro level.<br />
Despite the drastically lowered odds, "Anything that can happen must happen, and happen an infinite number of times." Guth.<br />
<br />
The alternative to randomness is determinism, which I regard as inherently absurd, since it reduces us all to the status of robots, unable to control our own thoughts, words and deeds, and unaccountable for our actions.<br />
<br />
My conclusion is that, if the universe is not absurd, then neither randomness nor determinism govern reality, but instead some form of volition, which is presently forbidden as a causative agent in physics.<br />
<br />
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Is Physical Reality
Absurd?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I know that the question is ambiguous, but within a proper
context, it can be usefully addressed by physicists (of which I am not one).</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The key context of the question involves the dispute between
those who argue that physical reality is deterministic, and those who argue
that quantum (true) randomness is a basic principle of physical reality.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I contend that these two may each be partially correct, but
they are not the only alternatives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
form at best an incomplete set of models.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The third principle involves volition, or free will.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Let’s look first at determinism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
According to my understanding of this concept, everything is
pre-ordained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The universe is like a
movie reel, or like a computer program, that has already been recorded, and is
now playing out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this scenario, there
is no true randomness, but only the illusion of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The analogy is that of a shuffled deck of
cards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we cannot see the order of the
shuffle, the cards seem to be in random order, but if we watch carefully
enough, we will know the exact order of the cards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Determinism rules out volition, and makes of
us at best, conscious observers of our own lives, with no hope of choosing our
thoughts, words or deeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To me, this
makes physical reality to be absurd, and indeed, it makes science absurd, since
every scientific thought depends not on logic or fact, but only on the
predetermined reactions of scientists.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Does any sane person actually live his life based on the
belief that he has zero control of his own thoughts, words and deeds?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If I contend that there is free will, do deterministic
factors dictate that I so contend?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Next, let’s look at quantum randomness as I understand it
from extracts of Neils Bohr’s writings.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
According to this concept, subatomic events are subject to
happen at purely random times within certain constraints such as
half-life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The exact timing of these
events may occur without reference to previous events in the chain of
causation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Returning to the analogy of
the shuffled deck of cards, it matters not how closely one observes the
shuffle, for when the cards are turned up, their order is unrelated to the
observations of the shuffle.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If this is true, then subatomic events can manifest
themselves in unlikely, but possible, macro events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The description of these events as unlikely
are negated if there are infinite numbers of opportunities for these unlikely
events to occur.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it’s possible to
happen, it happens—and what scenario is utterly impossible?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If everything that can happen must happen,
then another way of saying this is that at the largest scale, nothing
happens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the coin lands both heads
and tails, the only thing that happens is that it lands, period.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Regarding determinism, some people seem to accept that they
are robots incapable of making independent decisions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regarding randomness, some people are happy
to believe that at its heart of hearts, the universe dictates that all possible
outcomes will occur, resulting in such absurdities as that of entire galaxies
populated by clowns on unicycles, something that not everyone might find absurd,
but I have confidence that you get the point.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I understand that its being dismal does not rule out a
conclusion, be it deterministic or random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I accept that in principle I might be a robot or a toss of the dice.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But I also accept the idea of utility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If a conclusion has no useful consequence
(and determinism surely does not, nor ultimately randomness) then I feel
justified in seeking more useful answers to my questions, especially when the
facts demand such a search.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A conclusion
from which I can make no decisions is a useless one.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
One of these overarching facts is that of my own
consciousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science has not explained
that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many proposals abound, but they
may all be wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is consciousness
which gives us the perception that we have free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why should we<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>dismiss that perception, when both mysteries (consciousness and
volition) seem so interconnected?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The proposed existence of free will, even though it demolishes
the present paradigm of natural-materialism, is a completely rational
alternative concept.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
We perceive that we have free will, and that perception may
very well be due to the fact that we do indeed have free will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One can debate the exact definition of free
will, but at a minimum, it makes us participants in our own lives, capable of
at least some degree of control over our thoughts, words and deeds, with at
least some degree of independence from the dictates of causation or randomness.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Free will may go even deeper than that, to the very
foundation of physical reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may
be that the universe seems finely tuned to support conscious, technological
civilizations, because in fact it is indeed finely tuned, according to some
volitional cosmic intent.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In the end, the universe may indeed turn out to be a
madhouse, but if it is not, then we err greatly by assuming it to be one.</div>
<br />
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425483474072715369noreply@blogger.com0