There is an “Out There” Out There

. 

It has become fashionable among some philosophers to adapt the Eastern mystic philosophy which says that all of reality exists only in the conscious mind, not outside of it.  This idea has some support, but upon closer examination, even that support can be more strongly applied to the idea that there is an objective reality that is external to the mind.

 

In order for us to be conscious of some thing, there must be “a some thing” to be conscious of.

 

This is not to say that consciousness is a phenomenon of physics.  Consciousness has not been explained by physics, neither by matter nor by any forces or principles of nature.  The weight of evidence is that consciousness is a separate thing unto itself, fundamental, and unlike any of the substances or properties of material nature.

 

Therefore, it follows that consciousness does not arise from physics, but rather, is fundamental to it.  The most compelling interpretations of quantum physics strongly suggest that consciousness influences physical events rather than arising from them.

 

This in turn strongly suggests that a hierarchical structure of nature best explains—well, everything we know.  Instead of creating a model of the universe that begins with subatomic particles, and working upward from there to atoms, planets and so forth, it makes more sense to start from the top and work downward. 

 

Therefore, the model suggests that we begin with a self-existent divine Creator, which is alive, conscious and volitional (having free will).  The Creator creates beings after His own image, who also have life, consciousness and free will.  Note that consciousness already exists before we get down to the physical universe.

 

The physical universe consists of natural laws and principles, and of the space-time-energy-matter which is governed by those laws.

 

The physical universe forms and fashions our brains, through which we can sense physical reality.  This makes sense, because to sense and interpret physical reality should require a physical brain.  But the brain alone would not be enough to do this, and in fact, it would pose a paradox, the eye seeing itself. 

 

The actual reality of physics may be something very unlike what we see.  For example, in physical reality, there are no colors, only photons with a mathematical property called wavelength.  The colors are not, “out there,” but they trigger in our consciousness an inner experience which interprets what is—and is indeed—out there.  Photons are really out there.

 

We bring what is in reality “out there”—we bring it “in here,” where our supernatural consciousness interprets it.  The brain is sort of like a TV set.  Consciousness is what watches that TV.

.

.

 

Theory of Consciousness

Perhaps the greatest question in physics today is, how does consciousness arise from material substance?

The answer is, it does not.  Consciousness is a thing unto itself.  It is not produced by matter.

One theory that seems to attempt to bridge the gap between inert matter and consciousness is that of panpsychism.  In that theory, consciousness is (so to speak) baked into the cake.  Mind and matter are considered to be one and the same.  Everything is said to have some degree, level or form of consciousness.  Complex arrangements of matter, such as the brain, therefore, are said to exhibit the highest known level of consciousness.

The problem with this idea is that panpsychism does not really explain anything.  It does not tell us what consciousness really is.

Furthermore, panpsychism makes predictions about consciousness which are speculative at best, and in grave error at worst.  One of these speculations concerns the predicted advent of computer systems, one day, “waking up,” and becoming conscious and purposeful, perhaps on a level higher than any human could ever attain.

This prediction demeans human life by promoting the idea that physicalists already imply, that is, that humans are (or will become) irrelevant and disposable in the universal scheme.  It makes of humans, mere products of physics.

A better theory of consciousness is the one which is hierarchical, or to use an older term, supernatural.  (The word, supernatural, is entirely unlike the word, unnatural.)  Consciousness is a fundamental reality, but not baked into physical reality.  Consciousness is above physical reality, and exists independently in a different and higher realm.  The physical realm is produced by the conscious intent of the Creator.

The brain is an instrument of consciousness, not its source.  The violin does not produce music on its own.  Music needs the trinity of composer, player, instrument.  Likewise, consciousness needs the Creator, the soul, the brain.  

The Creator created us, and endowed us with three of His divine characteristics, those of life, consciousness and free will. With His living, conscious volition, he created all of physical reality, and perhaps, infinities more realms than we can ever imagine.

Panpsychism attempts to make the creation into the Creator, and is therefore fatally flawed.

 

Michael Larkin wrote the following at:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/metaphysical-speculations/Gz8z1P3Ms30

 

“It seems to me that Christianity, in positing Jesus alone as God, inevitably distances the rest of us from the possibility of enlightenment /salvation. At the same time, it attempts to have its cake and eat it by insisting that through the doctrine of the redemption, salvation is rendered possible for all. This somewhat lessens personal responsibility for achieving it, although one still has to join the club (be baptised) and live a relatively blameless life to achieve salvation. It's no bad thing to do good acts, refrain from harming others, and so on, in fact these are probably necessary for achieving enlightenment. But they aren't sufficient, because behind our acts is our motivation for doing them, and this needs to be more than the essentially selfish desire to attain paradise, or to avoid punishment in hell.”

 

I responded:

Allow me to both praise and criticize.  Larkin did an exceptionally good job of encapsulating what many believe.  I view some of them as very widely held misconceptions about Christianity, misconceptions which indeed are widely held even among Christians.  I will address these.

I must begin by affirming two things:  First, I am no theologian, and am therefore without authority.  Second, I have enormous respect for Hindu-Buddhism as a metaphysics and philosophy.  From my seven years military service in Korea and Japan, my limited contact with their religions left me with the impression that the respect is mutual.  Larkin’s tone reflects that respect, and I commend him for it.

The chief difference between Christian and Hindu thinking is that whereas Christians focus on salvation, the Eastern religions focus on achieving enlightenment. 

Salvation is undeserved, but is the free gift of a merciful God.  Enlightenment, on the other hand, involves personal achievement through individual effort.  While these are not mutually exclusive, neither one of them is a substitute for the other. They are like apples and oranges.  We can have both, but—one can be unenlightened and saved, and another can be unsaved and enlightened. 

The Bible tells us that salvation and good deeds go hand in hand, but salvation is not the result of good deeds.  Truly selfless good deeds occur when the only incentive to do them is gratitude.  Having received salvation and being aware of it, the saved person is eager to express his devotion to God.  He expects nothing in addition, because the ultimate gift is already given.  Indeed, saved Christians experience persecution and even death, not in search of salvation, but in gratitude for it.

The Trinity is, as Larkin recognizes, not three gods, but three persons (aspects) of the one God.  Jesus is God in the flesh.  The Father is the Creator of all physical and spiritual reality.  The Holy Spirit might be what Hindus describe as the unknowable essence.

In my fallible view, salvation is the default condition of all humans, based on the Biblical teaching that we are utterly incapable of achieving it for ourselves.  Salvation can, however, be rejected by a knowing, willful and persistent effort, which I believe is what the Bible represents as taking the mark of the beast, or the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  This knowing, willful and persistent effort is agonizingly painful, and no one who loves God can begin to understand why anyone would do it, but we are assured that many do.

One of the many amazing descriptions of Jesus is His exemplary humility and servitude.  Seeking nothing for Himself, He left His throne in heaven, lowered Himself to physical form, demonstrated love and compassion for sinners, and then suffered a humiliating death while forgiving his murderers.

I understand that there are many denominations of Christianity that have conflicting teachings.  There are many in the clergy who are the selfsame hypocrites that Jesus condemned.  And I understand most of all, that I am a sinner myself, not worthy to tie the shoelaces of the Savior.

Even so, I know that Jesus loves each and every one of us with a love that surpasses understanding.  If one seeks true enlightenment, then let him begin there.

-

You are not an accident of the universe.

  You are not an accident of the universe.  You are its purpose.  It is not vanity to say so, but reverence. 

      One might think of reality in two dimensions, the physical and the spiritual.   The physical universe, without its spiritual dimension, is without color, without music, and without meaning.  It is because you are of spirit that you perceive art, and truth and purpose.

      The material paradigm describes you as an assortment of atoms, a book that nobody wrote, an illusion having an illusion.  The God paradigm is a worldview which describes life, consciousness and free will as much more than the atoms of your physical being.  Life is more than a chemical process; consciousness is a complete mystery; free will empowers you to rise above your physical limitations. 

      The material paradigm holds that you are nothing more than a puppet on a cosmic string, a helpless observer of your own life, not a participant.  Its inevitable conclusion is that you are worthy of nothing more than to be treated as such.  The God paradigm holds that you were created by the Almighty Deity to be loved and nurtured forever.

      These are not simply words.  They have eternal consequence.  They are founded not in wishful thinking, but in science, in social structures, and in your personal life.

      If society is to avoid self-destruction, then humanity must accept its responsibility as the caretaker of God’s universe, not by worshipping creation, but by honoring its Creator.

What is Life ?

Biochemicals are the instrument.  Life is the music.

      Science will say that life is a chemical process.  If so, then it is the most complex chemical reaction in the universe.  It is so extraordinary and complex that many people, for many reasons, believe that it cannot have come about by accidental means, but only as a result of intent and purpose.

      The extreme unlikelihood of life— even in its most primitive form— coming into existence by purely material means, depends on pretty much everything else in the universe being exactly right for life.  The entire universe conspires, as it were, to form life.  More than even that, the universe provides the right conditions for the existence of human beings.  There is even more— the universe provides the precise environment needed for civilization, science, and advanced technology.  

      It is easy to overlook these facts and to minimize their importance.  According to natural-materialism, life could possibly have come about without producing humans.  Humans might have come about without the conditions needed for civilization, science, and advanced technology.  Enormous numbers and combinations of exact conditions were needed to produce the result, that result being humans producing a technologically advanced civilization.

      Let’s consider some of the steps in that process.

      First, the formation of life from inert atoms is itself miraculous.  Atoms come together to form amino acids.  These combine into more complex proteins.  Eventually, DNA[1] comes into being, which is perhaps the most amazing molecule in the universe, for it has the ability to make copies of itself, and to control every physical process of life from conception to reproduction, and even death.  And we are only scratching the surface.

      Because the conditions for life require that everything in the universe must come together with unimaginable precision, life is clearly intertwined with the universe as a whole.  But, whereas natural-materialists view life as the happenstance byproduct of nature, the God Paradigm says the opposite, that the universe is the product of life.  The living God made the universe, and designed it precisely as a physical home for life.

      There is more.  Were life to consist of only a few microorganisms, that would be amazing enough in itself.  But human life has gone far, far beyond the mere biological definition of life.  We have developed technology, social structures, arts, and yes, science.  This requires enormous cosmic infrastructure which science is only just beginning to fully appreciate.  In order for human civilization to occur, the universe must not merely be so designed as to support a few chemical processes; much more is required.  The unimaginable series of so-called coincidences that support human civilization are beyond calculation.

      For example, we have already mentioned the physical constants that govern the universe.  These alone seem miraculous, but they are only the beginning of a long and coordinated series of coincidences, most of which are mysteries to science.  For example, seventy-six percent of the known universe is comprised of dark matter and dark energy, and scientists do not know what these are.  (We shall discuss them later.)

      The universe is structured into filaments of galaxies, galactic clusters, and galaxies.  Planet earth exists in one of the billions of galaxies in the known universe, but not just anywhere within that galaxy.  The galaxy itself is structured into spiral arms, and in order for the earth to support life and human civilization, our planet must be carefully located within a favorable part of the galaxy.  We must be neither too far from the center, nor too close to it.  Furthermore, we must be situated just right with reference to the spiral arms.

      If that is not enough, there is a long list of other requirements for human civilization to arise and flourish.  The structure of our sun, the orbits of the planets, and the precise relationship between the earth and the moon are just a few of the many, many coincidences that make human civilization possible.

      Atoms themselves are complex structures composed of various electric charges and nuclear forces (the strong and the weak), and these must be precisely coordinated with each other, or else atoms could not exist, nor could they form complex chemicals.

      On the earth itself, the chemistry must permit long-term stability.  There must be oceans and dry land, and a transparent atmosphere composed of the right mix of elements to permit fire, but without scorching the planet.  The dry land must contain minerals and metals that are used in technology, and these must be close to the surface where they are accessible.  Coal and petroleum must be formed to provide the massive amounts of energy needed for industry.

      Add to that, another, even more astonishing series of coincidences which resulted in the formation of our moon.  The earth-moon relationship produces so many benefits to life that they are not yet fully known.

      The moon is thought to have formed when, billions of years ago, the primordial planet earth collided with another planet.  In effect, the two planets collided with each other in exactly the right way so as to send billions of tons of debris into orbit, but without destroying the earth.  This debris eventually coalesced into what today we see as the moon.  That collision also adjusted the rotational speed and the angle of the earth’s inclination toward the sun, so as to result, eventually, in our present 24-hour day and our four seasons. 

      It has been said that this collision had to be so precise that even the tiniest angle of difference would have produced very different results, results not conducive to life.  Tracing backward in time, this collision had to have been “set up,” so to speak, from the very first moment of the universe’s existence.

      Many, many other conditions for human life and civilization were also met, conditions too numerous to explore fully in this text.  A book titled, The Privileged Planet contains many astonishing details.  (ISBN 0-89526-065-4)[2]

      As we can see, then, the existence of human life in its present form is either the result of divine miracles, or else, the result of so many unlikely coincidences that science has had to devise a hypothesis like MUH to even hope for an alternative to the miracle proposal.

      We are not done.  Perhaps the greatest miracle of all is needed to explain life.

      Science has discovered a molecule at the heart of physical life, a chemical called DNA.  DNA has the seemingly miraculous ability to make exact copies of itself.  It is this ability that allows living creatures to reproduce.  Even more miraculously, a single molecular contingent of human DNA contains all the information needed to construct and operate the human body from conception, through every stage of life, and then to produce another human individual to repeat the process.

      This tiny molecule contains all that information, and yet it fits into a single, tiny cell, in a part of the cell called the nucleus.  Nearly every type of cell in the body contains a full set of DNA.

      Physically speaking, DNA is only a molecule, and yet it has remarkable similarities to a complex computer program, the type of coded instruction written by humans.  The sequences of DNA partitions are closely comparable to a written language, complete with an alphabet, punctuation marks, words, and paragraphs.

      Proponents of the theory of ID (Intelligent Design) of the universe point to DNA as one of the most potent evidences of divine intent in creating the universe for human life. Opponents of ID say that it is all a coincidence, and rely upon hypotheses such as MUH to support that claim.

      While this book cannot empirically prove that God designed and created the universe for human life and civilization, the long list of evidences for that claim has at least forced the natural-materialist to concede the existence of higher orders of reality beyond our own universe, and to adopt a hypothesis (MUH) that has more flaws in it, and less evidence for it, than does ID.

 

---

[1] DNA is the well-known acronym which stands for deoxyribose-nucleic-acid

[2] Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2004. 

 
 
 

 
 

  

The Technological Singularity

V

ernor Vinge, in 1993, predicted:

“Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.”

      That is a very provocative prediction!  Might it be accurate?  Will we wake up one morning to find that computers have taken control?  Will we suddenly find ourselves overtaken by a technological singularity?  Or is this all merely scare-mongering?

      What is a technological singularity?

      To answer that, we must consider that all the previous phases of social change have been gradual. Nothing happened overnight. Centuries of overlap occurred as one phase slowly ended while another slowly began.  Today, however, change has come more swiftly with each passing year.  Sudden and dramatic changes could well occur, and take us all by surprise.  Things could quickly get out of control, and there might be no way to reverse course.

      Technology is not only advancing rapidly, its speed is increasing.  It is already foreseeable that very soon, automobiles will not be driven by humans, but by autopilot. Some already can be.  Factories will run on their own.  Some already do.  Aircraft will fly military missions without a human pilot on board.  This futuristic development has already occurred, and all this is just the beginning.

      Much of the technological advance is driven by computer technology, a technology that is increasingly becoming a mystery to more and more people.  How many times have you heard a phrase something like this:  we cannot do anything about this problem, it’s under computer control?

      As of this writing, most of the actual decision-making rests in the hands of humans. We can override a computer decision. But as technology becomes ever more complicated, it is inevitable that more and more decision-making will be turned over to computers. Humans will no longer be able to handle the information overload associated with such decision-making.  We cannot react quickly enough in emergency situations.  We already depend on computers to do that for us.

      One example is that computers on aircraft often handle more than a dozen decisions per second, continuously over long periods of time.  No human pilot could do such a thing, and certainly not without making critical errors.  We have no choice but to hand such tasks over to computers.

      It is by no means far-fetched to predict that children now already alive will live out their lives in a social infrastructure that is completely operated by computers, in a system that we can no more understand than we can fathom our present tax code.  Children born today might never need to learn to drive, because automobiles may have become self-driving in the near future.

      It also is already a fact that computers are designed largely by other computers. It has been suggested that this might result in ever faster advances in computers, until finally, the advances are so fast that no human can understand or control them.  This might result in a sudden event in which we will awaken one morning to discover that computers have (whether literally or figuratively), taken over society.

      This predicted, sudden, transformative event is called by the name, “Technological Singularity.” Remember that in an earlier chapter, we addressed the concept of a singularity as being one in which none of the familiar rules apply anymore.  If we find ourselves in a technological singularity, all the rules may have changed, and we might become helpless to understand those rules.

      We cannot hope to be able to predict what will happen when and if we suddenly reach the predicted technological singularity.  According to some people, the computers may destroy us.[1]  According to others, the computers will treat us like pets, or like cattle grazing in the field.  And according to still others, we will implant computer chips into our own brains, making of ourselves the very computers that we ourselves invented.

      None of those scenarios is particularly pleasing.

      As humans, we have a need to be free, to exercise our intellect, and to make our own decisions.  We can do that, but only as beings that are as much of spirit as we are of substance.

      Society has developed an explosion of knowledge.[2]  But can we match that knowledge with an equal advance in wisdom?

      In the preceding chapter, the question was raised, how long can a civilization last once it has developed advanced technology?  How far advanced can technology get before we destroy ourselves with it?  Is this an empty question, or is it like so many other seemingly exotic subjects, founded in a principle of nature?  (See the chapter on Penrose tiling.)  Fractal geometry was once considered a mere idle amusement until it was found to have practical applications in science and engineering.

     

One can, without exhaustive effort, devise a general framework for the calculation of an inevitable doomsday for a technological society.  Doomsday might mean total destruction, but it might instead mean total transformation, from say a technological society to something else.

. . . a computer chip implanted in the brain can provide enormous benefits to individuals and their society.  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?

---

[1] an amusing song, The Humans Are Dead, by Flight of the Conchords, is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1BdQcJ2ZYY

[2] See the Old Testament Book of Daniel, 12:4 … even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

What do Games Reveal About the Universe?

It seems that human nature involves the playing of games. They can be a lot of fun, but they are so much more than that.  Is there something inherent in nature that games reveal to us?

 

Two games in particular have been the subject of much computer study, and while they are complex, this commentary is simple.  Readers of this forum are very thoughtful and intelligent, but even they, need not be chess masters to appreciate how games, including chess, teach us about the grand scheme of cosmology.

 

Because they have been studied extensively by computer programmers, the two games we will discuss (and we could have discussed others instead, even tic-tac-toe) are chess and Go.  The game of Go is wildly popular in the orient.

 

When I first was exposed to chess, I actually thought (please don’t laugh) that I could master the game.

 

Now, why would I think such a thing?  But look at it.  The game of chess is played on a small board, eight squares by eight.  It has only a few pieces on each side.  The types of moves are narrowly restricted.  To win the game, one needs only capture (checkmate) the opponent king.  The rules can be learned by a child, in just a few minutes.

 

There is no guessing in chess.  All the pieces are kept in plain view of both players.  One never has to wonder what the opponent can do.

 

What could possibly be difficult?  Chess is not rocket science.

 

Actually, rocket science is easier.  Chess has never been solved.  A game is considered solved when one can prove a winning or tying strategy, one that always works.  Tic-tac-toe is a solved game, because it can be shown that X can always win or tie the game, no matter what O does.

Computer programmers have pitted their chess-playing programs against the very best world class grandmasters, and beaten them.  But, they still have not solved the game.  It has been estimated that, to prove a solution to chess, it would require a computer the size of a galaxy.

How can this be?

The game of Go has only nine rules, which an adolescent can quickly learn.  It is a very different game from chess, and computer programmers had to devise an entirely different type of strategy before they could finally beat a Go master.  Whereas chess has been called a game of linear analysis, Go is holistic.  The game board is larger, 19 by 19 spaces. but there is only one kind of piece, called a stone.  Victory in Go is achieved not by attacking an opponent king, but rather, by surrounding more territory than the opponent does. 

 

My first foray into the game, against an average player, resulted in my getting trounced very early into the game.  There are many more nuances to this seemingly simple game than I imagined could be the case.  Whereas in chess one must think ahead at least a few moves, in Go this strategy is futile.  Instead, one must develop a “feel,” an intuitive sense of what are considered to be unseen forces in the game.  Go masters themselves do not claim to take into account every possible move of their opponent, but instead, to just somehow know when a particular line of play will improve their position.

 

Again, while computer programs have been able to beat the best human Go players (but not always), the game of Go remains unsolved.  The programmers are not even trying to solve it.  The task would be too massive.

 

Now then, where have these comments got us?

 

Scientists and philosophers are attempting to solve a game called by such names as cosmology, life, metaphysics and so forth.  Unlike in chess and Go, the rules remain unknown.  We have developed strategies to try to unravel those rules, but we cannot even be sure whether those strategies are the best, or will even work.  JBS Haldane pointed out that our science can be neurologically correct, but that correctness could be illusory, a feature of how our brains work, not how the universe works.  We could be totally wrong and not know it.

 

I no longer believe that I can ever master chess.  I play it for fun.  Of course, the stakes in the game of life are much higher, but even so, while playing it (I have no choice but to do so), I make sure not to take myself too seriously.  If I do, then no one else will.

 

Have fun.

.

Are Good and Evil Merely our Opinions ?

Some Excerpts from the Book

A significant failure of natural-materialism is that it not only provides no basis for morality, it replaces the concept of absolute right and wrong with concepts founded only in the changing whims of human opinion.  In the godless nature proposed by natural-materialism and its close cousins, such as secular humanism, there is neither good nor evil, no right and no wrong, and neither courage nor cowardice.  There is only force.

The godless universe has no free will, no intent, and no purpose, even though its human creatures experience them. It has no compassion; it is utterly indifferent to our suffering and to our fates.  It has no moral absolutes; love and hate are mere conditions of our chemistry, and are neither virtues nor vices.  Likewise, there is no preference in physics between courage and cowardice.  In that universe, there is neither good nor evil, but only one’s opinion.

In the godless universe, humanity is but an unlikely happenstance, the outcome of physical and chemical processes. 

By the exercise of free will, we can choose between good and evil, truth and falsehood.  We can choose to use science to investigate the laws of nature, and we can choose to use our scientific knowledge for good.

Having free will makes us accountable for our actions, and responsible for the choices we make.  Free will makes us participants in our own lives, not passive observers.

Free will enables us to break the chain of causation in nature. 

[When it comes to] questions of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and immorality. . . . science cannot answer those without God.  Scientists have opinionated views on these things, but no mathematical formulas.  Natural-materialism does not address those views.

Is anything truly good or evil?  Is there an absolute standard of morality, or do we just make it up as we go along?

-

 

 

Multiverse Theory Reinforces Intelligent Design Theory

.
The Multi-verse Theory was (I suspect) intended to do away with the theory of Intelligent Design.  But instead, it actually reinforces it.  Let’s take a look at that.

Current theory in cosmology includes the idea that the observed physical universe began in a sort of explosion of space-time, and will eventually end (kazillions of years from now) with an expansion that tears it apart, atom from atom, and even quark from quark.

The current theory also includes the idea that the universe has randomly determined parameters (27 of them at least) which, by coincidence, make it suitable for the generation and support of life, civilization and technology on our planet (and perhaps on others).  Change these parameters, and the entire universe changes.  One of these parameters is so precise that changing it by even an unimaginably small amount, would cause the universe to either vaporize or become a fireball, or otherwise become entirely unsuitable for life.

The problem with that idea is that it makes our universe so unlikely that it is unreasonable to attribute its structure to chance alone.  Intelligent Design seems to be the only reasonable way to explain it.

But wait.  The material paradigm rejects the notion of Intelligent Design, and therefore, something must be done to explain how the universe’s properties could have come about by chance alone.

The materialists offer the idea that there are so many universes, perhaps infinities of them, that no matter how small is the chance that ours could arise randomly, nevertheless, the vast number of chances makes it certain that it would.  The multi-verse is proposed to be where “bubble” universes exist.  Ours is supposed to be one of those bubble universes, with each bubble being random.

Think of how tiny is the chance that 100 coin flips could, by chance alone, all land as heads.  Then, consider that if you flip a set of 100 coins repeatedly for billions of years, that the likelihood increases.  Eventually, they will indeed, all land as heads.

Likewise, if you have infinities of universes, that is to say, a multi-verse, one of those “bubble” universes within it, must eventually, by chance alone be like ours.  This is the argument that the materialists make, and if it went only that far, they would have made a reasonable case.

But wait.  If our one universe became structured by chance alone, then what explains the structure of the multi-verse?  How did it come into being?  Were its properties determined at random?  If so, then is the multi-verse part of an even larger assortment of more multi-verses?  And if so, then how were the properties of THAT assortment of multi-verses determined?  By chance?  As you can see, there is no end to this.

Being that there is no physical evidence for the multi-verse, it is not really a scientific theory, but only a proposed model, and only because our universe SEEMS to be intelligently designed.  But the model fails to do away with Intelligent Design theory in any reasonable way.

There are other factors as well that discredit the idea of a multi-verse, including the assertion by materialist physicists that, “Anything that can happen, must happen, and must happen an infinite number of times.”

Materialist physics also asserts that there can be no free will, which of course renders futile all human activity, including materialist physics.

In the end, we can neither prove nor disprove Multiverse Theory nor Intelligent Design Theory.  We are left with deciding which theory is the most reasonable, and which is the most useful in ordering our personal lives.

Choose.

Is Philosophical Curiosity a Curse?

Among my earliest memories, is that I was plagued by questions that no one else seemed to ask.  At about age four or five, I clearly remember looking at a wall clock, analog, and contemplating the passage of time.  The red hand, which marks seconds, was on the ten, moving toward the twelve.  I remember thinking to myself, the twelve is in the future.  Then, as the second hand reached the twelve, I said, the twelve is in the present.  But just as I said that, I then said, the twelve is in the past, and it will never again be in the present or future.  I wondered about this.  I still do.

 

When I learned about atoms and electrons, I was told that all electrons are exactly alike.  They have the same mass and charge, with no variation.  I asked, then how can you say that electrons are different from each other?  If two things are alike in every way, then they have the same identity.  The very word, “identical,” refers to identity, and therefore all electrons must be the same electron, and an electron can be in more than one place at the same time—whatever time is.

 

As you can see, from a very early age I was already in over my head.  Worse yet, not being an Einstein, my average intellect imposed strict limits on how far my musings could go.

When I first encountered Hinduism / Buddhism, one of the first concepts I found was that of the unknowable essence, about which nothing can be said.  It is not here, but it is not elsewhere.  It is untrue to say either of these things about essence.  Nor can one say both of these are true, nor can one say that neither of these are true, nor can one say that they are true and not true.  No matter what one says about the essence, it is not true, not even this.

I began writing down my reflections and contemplations in a diary.  One of my relatives found the diary and gave it to my parents, with the advice that they should seek a psychiatrist for me, since I was clearly crazy.

 

Eventually I did find people with whom I could discuss such matters.  Some very long-lasting friendships developed, but after some years, we lost contact.  Then, recently, I re-encountered one of my old friends, and I hoped to resume some of our “weighty” discussions.  To my dismay, he told me that he was no longer interested.  When, in disbelief I asked why, he insisted that I not ask, and so of course I abandoned my hope of rekindling our talks.

 

More commonly, I frequently find that most people seem to be utterly disinterested in discussing anything beyond what they deem to be the immediate, practical concerns of everyday life.  They may momentarily show some slight interest, but basically, they want to know how such a discussion will help them make more money, or whatever.

 

One person said to me, okay, so when you discover the ultimate truth, what good will it do you?  You still have to eat.

 

Another said, so if I sacrifice my life to save all of humanity, what good will it do me?  I’ll be dead.

 

Another said, okay, so eventually we all die, but while I’m alive, I’m going to have as much fun as I can.

 

To be honest, there were times when I envied such people.  How nice it is not to wonder what consciousness is, what is the smallest particle of space, what is the largest finite number?

 

But I have come to the conclusion that, for some of us, it is in our DNA to ask, to wonder, to struggle to better understand, even if we know we can never understand it all.

 

I don’t wish to understand it all.  I just wish to understand enough, just enough, so that while I still have curiosity, I no longer strain to find the answers to the unanswerable.

 

Just enough food, just enough water and air, love, knowledge—but not more than that.

-

-

-