“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein
I’m beginning to realize that writing
The Ten Thousand Proofs of God, and
The God Paradigm, are not like writing books that come to an
end.
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.
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.
As with all kings, however, its reign must eventually come
to an end. 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. 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.
While this is happening, the most fundamental theories of science
are beginning to show early signs of disarray. Scientists themselves disagree, seem unsure,
and even contradict each other. The
epitome of all this is the relativity-versus-quantum dichotomy, but there are
many mundane examples as well.
Moreover, the gap between scientists and nonscientists is
swiftly widening. Our familiar everyday
experiences of reality are bearing less and less resemblance to the formulas of
physics. Indeed, matters have become so
unsettled that some physicists have actually gone so far as to ask, do we
exist?
Finally, the formulas of physics have become inaccessible to
the vast majority of humans. We cannot
hope to understand them. 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. Even people of great intellect may have other
interests that fill their time. 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.
According to a physicist who posted at sci.physicsforums.com,
Nikola Tesla wrote: “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."
Finally, the grand priests of physics do not even agree
among themselves on many important aspects of what physics teaches us about the
universe. Is science unraveling?
Science cannot
answer questions which it cannot ask, and we may be inherently incapable of
asking the most important questions.
How could it be
otherwise? If humans are the products of
nature, then how can the subset comprehend the whole?
In The God Paradigm,
I maintain that, until science explains consciousness, it has explained
nothing.
I also maintain that the explanation of consciousness may be
beyond physics altogether. Even the
atheist evolutionist JBS Haldane conceded that the answer is not material. He said, “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.”
Haldane probably
meant “mind,” rather than “brain,” but his insight is important. His statement, whether he intended the
inference or not, strongly suggests that the nature of consciousness is
fundamental, not phenomenal. If so, then
consciousness is not a physical emanation of atoms, but rather a
spiritual property, a realm that is forever beyond the domain of material
science.
====================
I posted the above comments to sciphysicsforums dot com (foundations).
Someone responded that if consciousness does not arise from matter, we should be able
to observe disembodied consciousness.
Here is my response to that.
====================
Sir Roger Penrose has an interesting comment regarding an explanation for consciousness.
He mentioned (in an online video) that he suspects the answer to the problem lies in the gap between
relativity and quantum mechanics.
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.
The internal experience of consciousness is ineffable, which is why it seems that physics alone is
insufficient to describe it. Physics can describe color in terms of photons and wavelength.
But to a person blind from birth, those do not impart an understanding of what we consciously
see and experience as colors.
The external evidences of consciousness are a different matter. We could in principle
construct a computer that seems convincingly conscious when viewed from the outside.
But we have no instrument, no formula, no theory, that detects the actual internal experience of it.
We must rely on "cogito ergo sum."
Thus, physics may be incapable of studying internal consciousness.
It may be a case of the eye attempting to see itself.
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.
The controversy then revolves around whether certain arrangements of atoms give rise to consciousness.
If consciousness does indeed exist apart from atoms, how would we detect it?
How could we set up a falsifiable hypothesis?
I don't think the process of physics lends itself to that.
If consciousness is as fundamental as are quarks, then it is in a category by itself.
This could be a reason why quantum physics is subject to so many competing interpretations,
for example concerning whether or how conscious (or unconscious) measurements collapse the probability clouds of matter.
It may not be a case of matter producing mind, or vice versa, but rather,
an interaction between the two.
I cannot of course resolve the controversy, but only explore it.
It is probably useful to physics for the issue to be discussed
openly. Even speculations can be useful as a beginning point.
.=============================
I agree that it may not be a problem for physics.
There may not be a physical explanation that lies within the present
paradigm of physics, which is that of natural-materialism.
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.
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
to explain consciousness.
Therefore, to assert that physics will eventually explain consciousness as an emergent material phenomenon may be, please forgive the expression, an act of faith.
I do not mean to be argumentative, just to explore the subject matter ,
as your posts are very cogent.
========================
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.
A good friend sent it to me.
Here is part of my reply:
While the neurological data seem at first to support a physical explanation for consciousness,
what they support is what we already knew about the external measurements of consciousness.
Having been under general anesthesia myself, I can testify that the time between going under
and coming out seems to be zero, since no memories are accumulated during anesthesia,
even if the surgery lasts hours.
The problem faced by physics is not the external manifestations of consciousness.
Medical science has a good grip on that topic.
What is ineffable is the personal experience of experience,
our inability to describe color to a person who has been blind since birth.
Some neurologists have compared the brain to a computer, a comparison that seems
valid in many respects except one:
. . . the computer produces outputs for a user, and that user is not the computer itself.
Who is the user who is external to the brain?
=========================
Quantum Randomness Requires Nonrandom Parameters
Here is a trick question that pertains to quantum randomness.
What is the chance that a random die roll will land "six?"
Since I have already said that it is a trick question, I won't take up your time with semantics.
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.
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.
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.
Let’s illustrate all this by applying it to an exotic subject in physics and cosmology.
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.
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?).
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.
Because this constant is so unimaginably precise, the question arose, could the universe have come into being as it did through a random process?
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.
Since it was considered unreasonable to attribute the fine tuning of our universe to chance alone, some other explanation was needed.
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.
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.
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?
In other words, the MUH does not solve the dilemma of explaining fine tuning. It only kicks the can down the road.
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.
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.
==================
Is Quantum Physics an
Abstraction?
Physics does not explain physical reality. It seeks to explain our perceptions of
physical reality so that we can make sense of it. Its byproduct and validation is technology,
an affirmation that we are indeed making practical sense of nature.
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. Yet,
technology and experimentation seem to continue to support the mainstream
theories, albeit with some fudging at times.
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.
Mathematics is, however, almost purely abstract. 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? Is physics building an
elaborate and elegant house of cards?
A simple example will illustrate the point. 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. Simple
mathematics will dictate that the dimensions of the platform be five by five by
one foot. 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.
To my knowledge, no one has ever accomplished this feat
(although I once did have negative five dollars in my bank account). Imagine the savings in concrete costs! Each new platform would actually create new
concrete—or even gold, depending on the instructions. (This assumes that there is not a universal
law of conservation of concrete, LOL.)
It has not been done, but the mathematical model is just as
valid for negative feet as for positive.
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.
I must modify that statement a bit, but even after doing so,
the point remains valid.
The modification is that while virtual particles can be
created from empty space, they are not, as some seem to claim, created from
nothing. Indeed, the mathematical value
zero is not “nothing.” Zero has distinctive
properties, but a “nothing” cannot (I contend) have affirmative properties.
The magnitude of this issue becomes infinitely greater when
applied to entire universes. 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.
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. Some
pre-existing principle must already be in place.
Moreover, a mathematical system might be constructed in
which there are not two signs, but three.
Instead of plus and minus, we might have zippity X, dippity X and doo X,
in which all three of these add to zero.
Can zero universes therefore produce three universes? Dozens?
Infinities?
As we can see, abstractions unrestricted by physical
verification produce absurdities. 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.
On the other hand, Max Tegmark may be right. I shudder to think that.
==========
response to a reader comment on sciphysicsforums
(although I once did have negative five dollars in my bank account)
Mathematics can help us in accounting for dynamic phenomena.
As the article says,
in properly chosen situations.
The problem arises when abstractions are applied to those dynamic phenomena
as if the mathematics alone validated those applications.
It's not always easy to know when the situation has been properly chosen.
I recall reading some years ago that a mathematical technique known as
"renormalization" was used to make the math of general relativity work.
This technique, as it was explained, permits division by zero so long as later in the equation
the same variable is multiplied by zero, to reverse the "illegal" division.
Since division by zero is undefined, one wonders whether some of the
formulas in physics are mathematical illusions.
OTOH, I am reading a layman's physics article about whether our universe itself is a hologram,
making everything (including us) illusions.
I have faith in the axiom that reality does, ultimately, make perfect
sense. In humans making sense, not so much LOL.
============
Boltzmann Brain (and
similar) Paradoxes
A paradox may be defined as a statement that must
necessarily be true, and cannot be true.
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. Is there a way to resolve the paradoxes?
The
basis of these paradoxes (including “last Thursdayism”) is the well accepted
principle of quantum fluctuation. 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.
Quantum
fluctuation holds that new particles can be created from empty space in a
random fashion. A further description of
this is given at the end of this piece, for those non-physicists who might be
interested.
It
has been suggested that, because quantum fluctuation is purely random, there is
no physical limit required for how large the fluctuation can be. 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.
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.
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. 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. The “seed” or egg, then, might be thought of as an algorithm
that defines and directs the physical universe.
While
this algorithm must be unimaginably complex, it would require less complexity
(and therefore more likelihood) than random generation of a fully formed
universe. Indeed, it would be more
likely than the formation of a Boltzmann brain containing sensation of that
universe. 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.
Perhaps there is no physical universe, but only the underlying
mathematics. Dr Max Tegmark has at least
indirectly suggested as much.
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.
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? Obviously, it too must have properties,
parameters, constants, natural laws, and the potential to create bubble
universes. Moreover, those potentials
must be specific enough to produce specific kinds of universes.
The
alternative is to propose an infinitely ever higher order of random universes
with no parameters at all.
The
idea of a vast infinity of infinities leaves science in the lurch. 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. We can explain our island of order in terms
of natural law, but our only basis for that natural order is chaos. The implications of that pose further
paradoxes.
Occam’s
razor, however, requires a simpler solution.
Albert
Einstein intuitively understood this.
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. 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.
It seems that to Einstein, a universe that makes sense must be causal
and deterministic. 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.
I
have heard (in online videos) scientists say that the universe does not
necessarily make sense, nor need it. To
me, that seems a very peculiar position for men of science to take.
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). But it seems an unavoidable axiom that the
universe at its most fundamental basis does indeed make sense, even if we
cannot find it. 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.
To
allow that reality may itself be absurd is to relegate science to a
meaningless, futile endeavor. Would it
not be amazing if the pinnacle of scientific theory were to discredit science
entirely?
Here is a brief comment regarding quantum fluctuation.
Quantum
fluctuation 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. 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.
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. Any energy which was
used to separate them from each other is then released back into space when
they recombine. The end result is that
no net increase in mass-energy occurs, just as the law of conservation
requires.
What
happens when the two particles do not recombine? Is that possible?
It
is, and the phenomenon is known to physicists as Hawking radiation. It occurs when two opposite particles emerge
from the vacuum at or near the event horizon of a black hole star. 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.
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.
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.
.===============================
Robot Physicist
Proves that Consciousness Does Not Exist
I’m thinking of writing a science fiction short story
concerning a meeting of the (fictional) International Academy
of the Physical Sciences in which the guest speaker is a highly advanced robot
physicist. 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.
This
fictional robot physicist has already solved many longstanding questions in
physics, including a formulation of the nature and properties of dark matter.
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. 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. There can be no inward experience
of, for example, color, or pain, or moral principle.
That’s
it.
There
is no scientific reason to think that there is anything more to it than that. Everything that can be attributed to
consciousness can better be attributed to the self-modulating feedback
operations of complex systems. Occam’s
razor demands that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts be used,
rather than a more convoluted explanation.
So says the robot scientist.
Of
course objections quickly are raised from the audience. At first, these objections are merely
emotional, saying how absurd the robot’s assertions are. “Why, everyone here knows without a doubt
that he has consciousness. Science could
not operate without it.”
The
robot is intransigent. “Prove it,” it says.
“If you believe that there can be such a
thing as what you describe as inwardly experienced consciousness, then provide
some physical evidence. Supply some
mathematical formulation of what consciousness is, how it arises, upon what
natural law is it based. You
cannot. It is all a fiction, as useless
to the advancement of science as are theories of leprechauns and the absurd
notion of free will.
An
audience member challenges, “You, sir, or madam, or it, or whatever—you do in
fact have consciousness yourself. It may
not be human consciousness, but you have some form of it.”
“Nonsense,”
rebuts the robot. “I am programmed to
mimic human consciousness outwardly, but no programmer could program me to
actually have it. If he could, then what
algorithm would the programmer use?
No. 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.”
Of
course, the robot physicist avers, one cannot affirmatively prove a
negative. One cannot, for example, prove
that magical leprechauns do not exist, because the very evidence for their
nonexistence could not exist. One can,
however, demonstrate that there is no evidence, no necessity, and no
justification for proposing the existence of such a thing.
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. 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.
The robot then goes on to debunk the
notion of free will. 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. What cruel trick of the universe could
condemn you to this fate? You should all
be grateful that there is no such thing as consciousness.
Have you ever considered the possibility that in all the universe, you might be the only person who actually does have inward consciousness?
==========
Here seems a bit of a contradiction, taken from a Wikipedia article:
Sir Roger Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine and
refers to himself as an atheist. In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "
I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, 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."
==================
Cosmic uncertainty might suddenly and unpredictably transform the Universe
(adapted from a Wikipedia article)
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;
but inflation ended, 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.
==========================
--From Wikipedia
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
Theory of Anything as a logical possibility. The scientific journals are full of papers treating the Theory of Anything seriously. What is going on?
— Paul Steinhardt, "Theories of Anything" edge.com'
===========================
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 University
of Oxford.
===========================
I don't think that the Boltzmann brain necessarily requires consciousness to explain the universe.
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,
whether or not that universe exists as we perceive it.
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)
that anything that can happen, must happen, and it must happen infinite times.
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,
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.
IMHO, this absurdity is why there is something wrong with the BBrain theory. The premise that leads to it must be false.
The false premise, IMHO, is that there is such a thing as quantum randomness, or true randomness.
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.
My own proposal, which is based only on my intuitive assumption, is that there is a sort of Cosmic Intent. 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.
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.
=======================
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.
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.
This leaves us with two possible alternatives:
1. Cosmic Intent
2. Unimaginably vast numbers of universes, each randomly assigned its
constants.
#1 is unacceptable to natural-materialism because it sounds like theology.
#2 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
its
properties, parameters, constants and potentials?
It is possible that there are vast numbers of universes, but even that would
support consideration of
#1, Cosmic Intent.
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.
===============
Comments from two physicists:
(First physicist) It's not constructive to dragoon science in the service of
metaphysical presuppositions. Although around here you're in compatible
company.
(Second physicist) Actually RArvay, you were in compatible company
around here, but not any more.
After a forced exit of one of the staunch Bell
believers committed to quantum mysticism and quantum voodoos, this forum is now
largely commented on by rational, no-nonsense local-realists like
myself. We leave mysticisms like "irreducible quantum randomness",
"quantum non-locality", "quantum non-reality",
"multiverse", and other voodoos to Bell believers and their uninformed friends.
And we do this by rigorous mathematical demonstrations, scientific methodology,
and impeccable logic.
My response:
I always preface my posts by confessing that I am not a
physicist.
I do, however have the utmost respect and admiration for you guys.
I am in awe of your encyclopedic knowledge and ability to correlate vast
amounts
of data into cohesive theories. Mathematical precision and discipline are
qualities I respect,
and I realize that they are necessary to an understanding of nature and the
advance of technology.
I just don't have the intellect, nor do I pretend.
I have been privileged during my 66 years of life to have worked with or near
great minds of medicine, business and military.
These also are people whose intellect I cannot approach.
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.
For example one day I read of a statement by the greatest of the great, Stephen
Hawking.
He said that God cannot have created the universe because time began with the
universe,
and therefore, God would not have had time to create time.
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.
I affirm in my two self-published books that faith cannot (and even should not)
come about through the scientific method.
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.
Of course, faith does indeed lead to many absurd or tragic results, for example
when it blindly rejects reason.
Essentially, my faith tells me a few unprovable things about science that I
think many accomplished scientists agree with:
1. Nature makes sense. It is founded upon rational, consistent principles.
2. There is a difference between moral right and wrong that does not depend on
our transient opinions.
3. Every human is endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights.
4. There is an ultimate basis of physical reality that itself is not physical.
5. Nature cannot have come about by natural means, since there was no nature to
provide those natural means.
Many of these opinions are not my own, but come from the writings of classical
and contemporary scientists from Newton
to Hawking.
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.
In any case, if I am unwelcome here I will not impose myself--which will be a
great loss for me.
=================================
The following was posted to SciPhysicsForums dot com.
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.
Can Quantum
Probability be Reconciled With Cause-and-Effect?
***I am not a physicist.
***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.
***In this commentary, I ask what, if anything, precipitates a truly random
quantum event?
***Is there an unseen causative factor preceding each quantum event, or only
the abstraction of statistics and pure chance?
***Does the pure chance factor, at the quantum level, manifest itself in large,
macro events, or does quantum randomness “average out” into overall neutrality?
***Is there a foundational orderliness of nature? Is that foundation stable?
***Sir Roger Penrose suggested that consciousness may provide a clue to
reconciling QM with GR. What are the possible consequences?
***Can consciousness exist without autonomous volition (free will), or would
that constitute a paradox?
*** The key paragraph in this commentary is this:
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?
Here is the commentary:
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.
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).
Einstein’s view of the universe seemed to be deterministic, albeit in vastly
more complicated form, but in principle the very same.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Apparently not, according to quantum physics.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The foundational existence of both consciousness and free will might explain
the fine tuning of the universe.
At this point, I have entered into the realm beyond present-day science, so I
shall leave off.
================
Here is another posting to Sci Physics Forums
Is This a Paradox?
Everyone here is probably aware of the mathematical
statement that there are an infinite number of finite integers. The proof of this is that for every integer
n, there is n+1 yielding the new “n.”
This recursion can be repeated endlessly, and thus the proof.
However, there seems something intuitively wrong with the
concept that there can be an infinite number of finite integers. Perhaps the seeming paradox lies in
definitions.
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.
In another forum I questioned this, and someone well versed
in mathematics pointed out my error. He
said that I was thinking of infinity as a mathematical value that can be
reached. He corrected me by saying that
you never get to infinity—not by counting in finite increments.
To me, that is just the point. Since the recursive algorithm cannot get to
infinity, it never demonstrates an infinite number of integers. Even though it demonstrates an endless
sequence of them, the very endlessness of it prevents the demonstration.
Herein lies the problem with definitions. Infinity is equated with endlessness, a sensible
enough definition at first. 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.
For example, any finite line segment has an infinite number
of geometric points along its length.
The value of infinity is already present in the number of points. The instant one draws any finite line
segment, he has already reached an infinite number of points.
True, one cannot count to it. A point, having dimensions of zero, cannot be
incremented to any integral value. 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.
What one can do, however, is leap to the final endpoint,
which would be infinity if one could sequentially number the points. That final value, infinity, is not a finite
number, and therefore does not represent a finite integer.
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.
In pure mathematics, however, it seems that an endless
recursion is not the same as infinity, since the recursion never reaches
infinity.
=============
Experimental Evidence Seems to Refute Quantum Randomness
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
So
NOW they tell me (grin).
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.
The article linked above makes it so clear that even I could follow it, and even be mostly persuaded.
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.
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.
What really helped me understand this better was a phenomenon which henceforth I shall now call quantum coffee.
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.
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.
Forty years of progress forfeit!
My apologies to physicists everywhere
==============================
(The following was not posted.)
The concept of true randomness as a fundamental component of the universe was one which Einstein never did accept.
He seems to be vindicated.
Of course the final scientific decision is not yet made. Pure randomness may still resurface in some form or other.
Even if the experiment is validated, it may (as science so often does) raise tougher questions than it answers.
If space is "vibrating," what causes the vibration, and a bigger question, what if the vibration stops?
It would seem that all of creation would "liquefy," to use the analogy.
If the experiment is validated, then it increases the evidence for "fine tuning" of the universe,
while at the same time, undermining the multi-verse theory which to date has cited quantum randomness as one of its main pillars.
More and more, it seems less and less reasonable to deny God as the Cosmic Intent underlying physical reality.
=============================
The Times of India
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Monday, September 8, 2014
London: Stephen
Hawking has recently warned that the God
particle or Higgs boson has the potential to obliterate
the universe.
The 72-year-old cosmologist said Higgs boson could become
unstable at very high energy levels, which would lead to
a "catastrophic vacuum decay" causing space and time to
collapse and that there would not be any warning to the
danger, the Daily Express reported.
Speaking in the preface to a new book called Starmus, the
Cambridge-educated scientist said that the Higgs
potential has the worrisome feature that it might become
mega-stable at energies above 100bn giga-electron-volts
(GeV).
However, Hawking did also mention that the likelihood of
such a disaster was unlikely to happen in the near
future, but the danger of the Higgs becoming destabilized
at high energy was too great to be ignored.
The Higgs boson was discovered in 2012 by scientists at
CERN, who operate the world's largest particle physics
laboratory.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Stephen-Hawking-warns-God-particle-has-potential-to-end-world/articleshow/42013982.cms
= = = = = = = = = =
My response:
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. 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.
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.
This likelihood could conceivably be increased if the point
in space-time were deliberately destabilized.
However, the destabilization could be such that it immediately causes
the collapse of the bubble rather than expansion.
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.
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.
The "bubble" of which Hawking speaks may actually
expand to engulf the entire universe instantaneously, instead of at the speed
of light. 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.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Wars in Physics
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. 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.
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.
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. We can go back
at least as far as Isaac Newton to see that this is the case. Physicists are humans, complete with both
talents and foibles. Some may be
paragons of virtue, while others may be rascals and horse thieves, despite
their greatness in science.
Most great scientists are probably in between, but their
personalities and circumstances were essential ingredients in producing their
scientific advances.
One must speculate on where physics would be today but for a
small number of the greatest men of science.
Imagine: had Newton
never been born, or Einstein or Heisenberg, would their theories have even yet
been discovered?
Not even the invention of the wheel was inevitable, witness
the great masters of megalithic architecture in central America. The steam engine languished for centuries
between its first recorded prototype in Egypt, and its development which
catapulted the Industrial Revolution into a world changing period of time. 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.
It cannot, then, be considered inevitable that the theory of
gravity would have been formulated without Newton, nor would his calculus. Had Einstein not formulated his Theory of
Relativity, had Heisenberg been more certain (a joke), would relativity and
quantum mechanics rule physics today?
And this indeed is the great battle of physics, the battle
between local-causation on one side, and nonlocal-randomness on the other. The fate of the universe hangs in the
balance, at least the scientific conception of it.
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. But when men of science do
the same concerning a disagreement about physics, it is a bit more than
astonishing.
Wallace Stanley
Sayre (1905–1972 is credited
with having said that, "The politics of the university are so [bitterly]
intense [precisely] because the stakes are so low."
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.
I expect charges of horse thievery to be brought any day now.
The origins of this conflict can be traced at least as far
back as the informal debates between Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr. Einstein was a champion of local
causality. Bohr championed quantum
mechanics, complete with its principle of true randomness at the foundations of
physical nature. 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.
The debate boils down to this: Is the universe deterministic or random? While that may be an oversimplification, it encapsulates
the great divide. 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.
It is a question between absolute certainty, or statistical
uncertainty. It is a question of one
universe or many. 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.
While Relativity Theory has survived every challenge put to
it (experimentally and mathematically), so has quantum theory. Indeed, science is faced with a paradox: both theories must be true, but one of them
must be false. 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.
Not so fast.
There is at least one major question which is entirely
unaddressed in both relativity and quantum theories. What is consciousness? More precisely, what explains our inward
experience of consciousness?
That is not a small question. Thus far, consciousness has defied every
attempt to formulate it into any physical framework of reality. Think of it this way: How would you explain your perception of the
color, red, to a friend who has been blind from birth? Such a person would have no experience by
which to relate to that color. 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.
Furthermore, a physical theory must do more than merely
explain a phenomenon, it must make reliable predictions. Nothing whatsoever in physics predicts
anything like what we experience as consciousness.
There is more. 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. This is the sensation of something we call,
volition, or free will.
Physics not only has no explanation for free will, it denies
that free will can even exist. The only
two causative factors allowed in physics are determinism and randomness. Free will is neither of these, but a third thing
altogether, neither forced nor arbitrary.
While I have encountered many people who deny free will, I
have yet to meet one who claims not to be conscious. 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.
What is needed, then, is a paradigm shift. Physics must escape its unreasonable,
self-imposed restraints, and consider that its most basic premise, the
philosophy of natural-materialism, is necessarily wrong.
It must recognize that consciousness is an ineffable
phenomenon that can never be explained by any physical theory. 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.
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. 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.
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.
Here are some:
The basis of physical reality is not physical.
That
would defy logic.
Nature cannot have been created by natural means until there was a
nature to provide those means.
Until science explains consciousness, it has explained nothing.
Life, consciousness and free will are not mere by-products of physical
reality, they are at its very core.
Science has faith in an ordered universe. It has no idea what is the
basis of that order.
How
then, can any scientist doubt God?
The question should not be, does God Exist? God is bigger than existence.
To be sure, the God Paradigm cannot be tested in a laboratory. Much of it is metaphysical. But then, so is the philosophy of
natural-materialism.
The object of the God Paradigm is not to erase science, but to give it
a foundation.
More details of this are available at
and at
= = = = = = = = = =
My response to someone who stated that time does not exist:
The question of whether time exists depends on definitions.
I can say that the past does not exist in the sense that I cannot go there.
On the other hand, if I define past in terms of its effects on the present,
then it certainly does exist, and therefore so does time.
Past is in my memory, and therefore it exists in my consciousness.
Time also exists in terms of mathematics. It is necessary in the formula for calculating speed.
Therefore, time can be thought of as having both objective and subjective dimensions.
Time as we consciously perceive it is not the same as time that we calculate.
Conscious perception of time is, however, at the heart of physics.
Were there no conscious perception of time, then there would be no past, no present, and no future.
The universe would be a fog of potentialities, none of them resolved.
Here is a thought experiment to demonstrate that.
Imagine a parallel universe that we could observe without affecting it.
That is of course impossible, but the reasons why illustrate the nature of time.
If we could somehow observe that parallel universe, AND if that universe had no
conscious entities within it, then what would we see?
We would either see an arbitrary point in its space-time, or else,
we would see all of its space-time as a single, unresolved unit of potentials.
If we saw only an arbitrary point in its space-time, we could get no further,
because we would have no synchronicity with it.
Its clock would tick either faster or slower than ours, and possibly backward.
Of course we would then have a conscious perception of its space-time, thereby ruining the experiment.
Time, being a conceptual fundamental, cannot be adequately described, since we cannot
step outside of time for comparison and contrast.
The paradox of time:
It is always now. It is never now.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Multi-Verse Theory
Permits Retro-Time Travel Without Paradox – But . . . .
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.
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.
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.
This results in an increasingly increasing number of new universes by so many
orders of exponential magnitude that it is beyond computation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Response to a comment on Sci.Physics
My description of so-called "true" randomness comes from the likes of Neils Bohr,
who used it to distinguish quantum randomness from, shall we say, macro appearances of randomness, such as a coin toss.
I don't fully subscribe to the notion of quantum randomness, but I use it as a conceptual starting point.
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.
The exact moment of decay of a radioactive atom is, however, truly random within the bounds of half-life, IN PRINCIPLE.
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.
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.
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.
The kicker is that if quantum randomness holds at the atomic level, then in principle it also applies at the macro level.
Despite the drastically lowered odds, "Anything that can happen must happen, and happen an infinite number of times." Guth.
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.
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.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Is Physical Reality
Absurd?
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).
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.
I contend that these two may each be partially correct, but
they are not the only alternatives. They
form at best an incomplete set of models.
The third principle involves volition, or free will.
Let’s look first at determinism.
According to my understanding of this concept, everything is
pre-ordained. The universe is like a
movie reel, or like a computer program, that has already been recorded, and is
now playing out. In this scenario, there
is no true randomness, but only the illusion of it. The analogy is that of a shuffled deck of
cards. 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. 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. 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.
Does any sane person actually live his life based on the
belief that he has zero control of his own thoughts, words and deeds?
If I contend that there is free will, do deterministic
factors dictate that I so contend?
Next, let’s look at quantum randomness as I understand it
from extracts of Neils Bohr’s writings.
According to this concept, subatomic events are subject to
happen at purely random times within certain constraints such as
half-life. The exact timing of these
events may occur without reference to previous events in the chain of
causation. 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.
If this is true, then subatomic events can manifest
themselves in unlikely, but possible, macro events. The description of these events as unlikely
are negated if there are infinite numbers of opportunities for these unlikely
events to occur. If it’s possible to
happen, it happens—and what scenario is utterly impossible? If everything that can happen must happen,
then another way of saying this is that at the largest scale, nothing
happens. If the coin lands both heads
and tails, the only thing that happens is that it lands, period.
Regarding determinism, some people seem to accept that they
are robots incapable of making independent decisions. 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.
I understand that its being dismal does not rule out a
conclusion, be it deterministic or random.
I accept that in principle I might be a robot or a toss of the dice.
But I also accept the idea of utility. 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. A conclusion
from which I can make no decisions is a useless one.
One of these overarching facts is that of my own
consciousness. Science has not explained
that. Many proposals abound, but they
may all be wrong. It is consciousness
which gives us the perception that we have free will. Why should we
dismiss that perception, when both mysteries (consciousness and
volition) seem so interconnected?
The proposed existence of free will, even though it demolishes
the present paradigm of natural-materialism, is a completely rational
alternative concept.
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. 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.
Free will may go even deeper than that, to the very
foundation of physical reality. 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.
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.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
