Micro-UFOs? Why Not?

An interesting article at

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2020/05/the-weird-world-of-robotic-insect-drones/

concerns the subject of micro-drones.  These are very tiny drones, about the size of insects, which are in development for both civilian and military usage.

Among their chief characteristics is that, due to their tiny size, they can be used for surveillance and espionage, or even sabotage, while not being noticed by the targeted persons.

The existence of such drones brings us to the question of UFOs.  If UFOs (or UAPs, as they are now known) are possibly examples of advanced technology that come from faraway planets, then we should expect that technology to have produced micro-drones. 

This speculation then leads even further, to the possibility that alien technology has produced even smaller versions of drones, using nano-technology.    Such drones could be too small to be seen without a microscope.  Worse yet, they could be equipped with stealth devices that could distort their appearance, even under a microscope.

It gets more weird.  Nano-drones would be a form of nano-bots, molecular-sized robots.  Such things can be self-replicating.  Therefore, they could be present in vast numbers.  At some point, enormous swarms of micro or nano drones could overwhelm our civilizations.

Let’s face it, if any of this is possible, it has likely already happened, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

If instead, micro-drone and nano-bot technologies are being developed on earth, then the prospects for disaster remain enormous.  One knows not where to begin listing the possible ramifications.

One certainty looms ominously before us.  As technology advances, it becomes ever more unpredictable, and therefore, ever more dangerous.  We are already aware of the destructive potential of nuclear warfare, but many more (and fatal) threats exist, while others are on the drawing boards and in the laboratories.

Is our self-destruction inevitable?  It is, if one believes the Bible, especially its final portion, The Book of the Revelation.

As that book tells us, there is only one salvation:  God.  Otherwise, we are already doomed.

.

Are there Glitches in Reality?

The first time I ever heard of a so-called “hole in reality,” was when I heard the following, plausible anecdote.  A fellow walked into a small convenience store to pick up a couple of food items.  He noticed that there was no one else in the store besides him, except for the cashier.  He soon had the items in his hands and turned to pay for them, when suddenly he noticed that there were several other customers in line, waiting to pay for their purchases.  He was astonished.  How could so many people have arrived unseen, done their shopping, and formed a line, in so short a time?  It seemed impossible, yet there it was.

Upon hearing such a story, or even having a similar experience oneself, the first thing one does is to consider ordinary explanations.  There must be one, one assures himself.  After all, people cannot just appear suddenly out of nowhere.  Therefore, something mundane must have happened.  Numerous reasons can be proposed.  Did the customer who told the story become distracted, lose track of time, and then regain his focus minutes later, without realizing it?

Yes, something like that must surely have happened.  End of story.

But wait. 

One can explain a single event in ordinary terms.  It is more difficult to explain such events when they begin to accumulate.  It is even more difficult to explain such events when groups of people report having shared such an experience, especially when there are large numbers of witnesses.  Such things are reported—for example, the Mandela Effect.

The question then becomes, what is the threshold?  How many such experiences, and/or how many witnesses, are required, before the ordinary explanations no longer are plausible?  Is there a point at which we come to believe that there is something extraordinary at work, not imaginary, not illusory, but physically real?  Is it worth investigating, researching, analyzing?

As preposterous as it seems, we must seriously ask the following questions:  can people actually appear out of nowhere, or at least, could the witness himself have experienced a discontinuity in reality?  Could he, not them, be the anomaly?

It is possible that each and every one of us has experienced what we think of as a lapse in our attention to our surroundings.  Certainly, it is commonplace, and ordinary explanations are probably valid in most of them.   But if we were to pay constant attention, would we discover that some of our own experiences, which we dismissed as ordinary lapses, could not possibly be explained in ordinary terms? 

There is, it turns out, a scientific basis for thinking so.  Let us hasten to recognize that quantum physics is too often the whipping boy for crazy ideas.  Let us avoid that.  The only point to be made here is that what at first seems impossible may later be found to be ordinary, even if it violates our accepted rules of common sense.  The sudden appearance and disappearance of quarks in seemingly empty space does not conform to our experience, because we are not tiny enough to live at that level of reality.  Quantum physics is not magic.  It is science.  It is as real as the transistors which quantum physicists invented.

Having said that, let’s stick to the facts.  The fact is not, that people (or other large things) can spontaneously appear or vanish, but rather, that we all experience events which seem impossible if we take them at face value.  The question is, are any of these experiences what they seem to be, experiences of events for which there is presently (or evermore) no scientific explanation?

If even one such event ever happens in all the universe, then that one event is a violation of what we think is natural law.  As far as we know, nature never has any exceptions to its rules.  If something is impossible, then it can never happen.  If something happens even once, then it is not only possible, it also tells us that there is an underlying principle which makes it possible.  As scientists, or as laymen interested in science, we seek to discover and understand those rare events, and to incorporate them into our larger view of reality.

Premier scientists are not bashful about proposing ideas that seem ridiculous to ordinary people, at least at first.  A very respected theory in cosmology is the many universes theory.  It is based in mathematics, and (here we go) in quantum physics.  If one follows the line of reasoning that led to the formulation of the many universes theory, the idea seems entirely plausible. 

At first.

Not all scientists find the many universes theory to be plausible.  Some even scorn it as unscientific.  How did this disagreement arise?

It arose when science found evidence of a theory of the universe that did not fit their philosophical basis of science.  Let’s be careful here not to disparage the proponents of multi-verse theory.  At the same time, we can criticize the theory itself as being wrong.

The physical observations of the universe overwhelmingly suggest, very strongly suggest, that the universe is intelligently designed.  Even those who disagree with the theory of Intelligent Design admit that the chances of our universe having the properties it does, are so small as to be infinitesimal.  Scientists deem it unreasonable to assume that our life-sustaining universe is random—unless, there are so many universes, so many chances, that eventually, our one in a mega-trillion-kazillion universes becomes probable.  Problem solved.

But no.  Elsewhere, I have demonstrated that, even if there are many universes, this only increases the case for Intelligent Design.  How did the multi-verse get the properties it has?

The scientists who scorn the many universes theory as unscientific point to the fact that there is, quite literally, no direct physical evidence for it, but only an extension of mathematical models, hardly what we would call scientific proof.  (Yes, I know, science has no proofs, but I am speaking colloquially.)

The point is, again, that even premier scientists can propose weird theories.  They may or may not be correct.

For now, let’s focus on the question of glitches in reality.

Much has been said and written about holes in reality, and as one might expect, many of the people who pontificate on them have no clue.  Too many of them are overly eager to believe—to believe in nearly anything, it seems, but not rigorous and disciplined in their thinking.  Money is a big factor for some of them.

One of the more popular hypotheses concerning glitches in reality is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation.  There are so many reasons to oppose this idea that one hardly knows where to begin, but it is useful to ask, why do people find it plausible?

Part of the reason is that we live in an age of electronic computers and other devices.  Computer glitches are annoyingly common.  Let’s blame them on quantum physics.  I say that half-jokingly, because actually, in some cases, the random fluctuations in electrons can actually have an effect in the kinds of micro-circuits that are numerous in computers. 

Our experience with computer glitches is that, once in a while, a computer can error out, that is, make a simple error in arithmetic that cascades across the many calculations the computer makes, resulting in such error conditions as for example, division by zero, a mathematical violation.  This can send the computer into a repetitive logic loop, causing what we call, locking up, or freezing.

The idea that we are living in a computer simulation supposes that, in whatever computer we reside, there will be errors.  Furthermore, we should be able to detect those errors.  However, the error itself might generate errors in our thinking that prevent us from noticing that an error (or discontinuity) had occurred.

However, the computer simulation theory cannot address the question of who built the computer, who programmed it, and whether or not the computer itself (and its operators) are themselves part of an even larger simulation, extending upward infinitely.  Many other problems abound.

Modifications of the computer simulation theory include the idea that physical reality itself operates on the same principles that computers do, including information theory, information integration, and many more.  These ideas, when applied to the topic in question, are too vague to lend themselves to rigorous analysis.  They could mean anything to anybody, and are therefore not useful in forming a solid theory.

Other theories of glitches in reality include such ideas as travel between universes, travel between dimensions beyond our three spatial dimensions, and time travelers.  These are almost entirely speculative at best, and prove unproductive in the end.

Perhaps the most bizarre theory is that reality itself has no hard and fast rules.  Literally anything, it says, can happen at any time.  Our existence only seems to obey rules, either by random chance, or because our minds impose a sensation of order where there is none, such as for example, when we look at clouds and think we see an image of a horse.

To conclude this portion of our discussion (which may be the last portion) we must acknowledge that there are mysteries of the universe that remain unsolved, and which perhaps can never be solved, at least not in terms of our ordinary thinking.  Indeed, our thinking itself is one of those mysteries.  I am referring to the famous maxim by Renee Descartes who, when asked how could he prove to himself that he exists, replied, “I think, therefore I am.”

Life, consciousness and free will are ultimate mysteries, which I address in my book, The God Paradigm. 

If we cannot solve those mysteries, we have not much hope of solving the paradoxes of glitches in reality.  We can study them, we can catalog them, and who knows, doing so may lead us to somewhere useful.  But along the way, let’s not go nuts.  Let us remain reasonable and disciplined.

Some mysteries, we should acknowledge, should simply be enjoyed.

.

.

Why Intelligent Design is Science’s Necessary Default Theory

. 

Whenever science attempts to understand and explain an observed, natural phenomenon, it must always begin with certain assumptions.  For example, scientists assume, as a default paradigm, that nature is orderly, that it acts according to underlying principles which can be elucidated by research.  If the default assumption were that natural principles are purely random and capricious, then science would be deemed a futile endeavor.  There would be no point in attempting to understand the physical world.  Therefore, we accept the idea that the universe is, as Einstein put it, “comprehensible.”

Default assumptions, however, are not always correct.  For example, it was once thought by scientists that lightning was due to the explosion of atmospheric gases, and that the sun burned due to chemical reactions.  These initial assumptions were proved wrong.  Lightning is an electrical phenomenon, and the sun’s radiant heat is due to thermonuclear fusion.

But the point is that, in order to correct a false assumption, one requires compelling evidence, what nonscientists refer to as proof, that the assumption was wrong.  This usually means that the old assumption has been replaced by a better model, one that more accurately and more fully explains what is seen.

Default scientific assumptions are not arrived at frivolously.  One might attribute certain events to leprechauns, but while some people may fervently believe that, the idea does not meet the requirements of science.  A scientific assumption must be a plausible explanation of observed events, and more than that, it must be the most plausible explanation available at the time.

We can apply all of the foregoing to the assumption that physical reality (the universe) is intelligently designed.  The theory is abbreviated as ID.

The arguments for that theory may not rise to the level of proof, but they do establish, quite firmly, the most plausible and most explanatory paradigm for the structure, order, and behavior of physical reality.

ID does not invalidate science.  Physics, chemistry and biology continue to be among the rock-solid foundations of understanding the particulars of nature.  Relativity and quantum physics (despite their problems of coherence with each other) remain necessary to modern technology.

What ID does, is to challenge the underlying paradigm which many scientists use as their default assumption.  ID explains the big picture.  Most scientists, however, accept the physicalist paradigm, also known by such names as natural materialism.  Described briefly, physicalism asserts that there is nothing other than the physical, or if there is, it never impinges on physical nature.  That paradigm is not a scientific one, but a philosophical assumption, an unproved metaphysical explanation of the physical.

Physicalists will argue otherwise, but there are many important questions which physicalism fails to properly address.  It attributes the observed order and consistency of natural law to purely random fluctuations in an unseen, greater reality that some call the multi-verse.

Furthermore, physicalism fails on many fronts.  It has no explanation for consciousness, which by the way, is the only observed phenomenon which observes itself.  One of the common dismissals of consciousness, according to many physicalists, is the circular (and silly) idea that consciousness is an illusion.  What is it that has the illusion?  Can an illusion have an illusion?  Can we explain to the proverbial little man that isn’t there, that he isn’t there?

Another major problem for physicalism is that it is incompatible with the notion that we have free will.  If we have no free will, then we can never be scientific about anything, because we would never have any choice in anything, including what we think.  A whole host of absurdities arise from such a notion.

However, all that having been said, we can abandon the foregoing arguments, on the basis that the burden of proof is not on those who dispute physicalism; it is on those who dispute ID.

ID has been criticized by physicalists as a dishonest “wedge,” a pseudoscientific way of trying to insert God into science, and to do so in a way that circumvents the legal theory of separation of church and state.  How dare you try to teach science students that the God of Abraham is of any consequence to science?

Guilty as charged, except for the “dishonest” and “pseudo” accusations.  The law does not forbid the teaching of religious principles, it simply forbids their being forced on people who have other principles protected by law.  See the First Amendment.  It restricts only the government.

But physicalists are even more guilty.  Physicalism is no more scientific than ID.  On the contrary, ID is clearly in evidence, so much so, that to reject it requires extraordinary alternate theories, such as the multi-verse theory, now proposed by premier scientists.  Ironically, if one follows the reasoning of multi-verse theory to its conclusion, it actually reinforces ID theory.  In attempting to explain how one universe arises without intent and purpose, it then fails to address the even more difficult question of how myriads of universes (perhaps infinite numbers of them) arise, and do so without intent or purpose.

A common answer of physicalists is that multi-verse theory accounts for vast numbers of metaphoric dice rolls, so that eventually, one of them produces life.  They ignore the more fundamental principle that, in order for randomness to operate, there must be nonrandom parameters that define the probabilities.  If the universe is the product of metaphorical dice rolls, then what produces (and defines) the dice?

Physicalists will continue to struggle to reject the idea that physical reality is the result of divine creation.  They will do so on unscientific grounds that propose the improbable, while dismissing the obvious, the more probable, and doing so without any compelling reason.

We are not happenstance byproducts of a mindless nature.  That is the more reasonable paradigm, and one which motivates us to a purposeful, and accountable, existence.

.

Can Something Both Exist and Not Exist? Mathematical Models of Reality.

.

The question posed in the title of this commentary may seem absurd at first, but keep reading.

Most scientific discoveries begin by trying to explain something that was physically seen, or observed.  For example, lightning, was seen long before it was explained as an electrical phenomenon.  But not every scientific discovery begins with an observation.  For example, black holes, collapsed stars that do not emit light, but swallow it, were supposed to exist long before their presence was ever confirmed by seeing their effects.  They were inferred, so to speak, by physicists devising mathematical models.  They used the law of gravity, expressed in formulas, and extrapolated, or extended, the numbers, to predict the existence of black holes.

Subsequent observations confirmed the mathematical prediction.  Black holes do indeed exist.

However, there are mathematical predictions that turn out to be incorrect in physical fact.  We know this because some of these theories contradict each other; therefore, one or both of them must be wrong.

Finally, there are mathematical predictions that have never been verified.  Indeed, some of them may forever remain unverifiable.  This will bring us to our opening question.

One of the predictions is the hypothesis called the many universes theory.  This theory arises from quantum mechanics, an established science that has resulted in technologies that we use commonly, and upon which we depend for such things as computers and cell phones.

More to the point, quantum theory depends heavily on the mathematical expressions of probability and the inherent uncertainty involved in the measurement of quantum effects.  It is beyond the scope of this commentary to explain the many and varied interpretations of quantum theory, but we will focus on the part that is relevant to this discussion.  (Since I am not a physicist, I am not qualified to delve into that realm.)

Physical theories describe the universe as being an unintended structure brought about by physical laws of nature.  Observation, however, strongly suggests that the universe is intentionally designed to host life.  It seems plausibly designed to support not merely life, but life that gave rise to conscious, intelligent creatures.  Those creatures produced civilization, and its associated activities of science, technology, philosophy, art, and much more.  All of these are extraordinarily unlikely, to the extreme, characteristics of an unintended universe.

Intelligent design theory enjoys support from mathematics.  This is because the universe has many and precise mathematical properties which, if they were to be changed even slightly, would result in a universe that does not support life.  Indeed, such a universe might collapse into a fireball, or else, spray into a mist.

Many scientists cannot accept the idea of Intelligent Design (of the universe).  They turned to quantum mathematical models for alternate theories.  They reasoned that, while the chances of our universe producing life and civilization are vanishingly small, this minuscule chance could be overcome if there were enough universes, enough so-called rolls of the dice, to make it more likely, even probable, that our universe could exist by chance alone.

The result is the Many Universes model of physical reality.  While it is derived from accepted science (quantum physics), there is no direct physical evidence that there are other universes.  Moreover, even if there are other universes, their existence would not disprove Intelligent Design, but in fact, bolster it.  Why?  Because if science cannot explain our one universe in terms of probability, it has even greater difficulty in explaining why a multi-universe could produce our universe without itself having the intended capacity to do so.  If universes are produced by so-called rolls of dice, then we are forced to ask, what produces the dice?

The central question being addressed here is whether mathematical models can explain reality without physical corroboration.  Must something exist if it fits a mathematical theory?  Can something exist only mathematically?  Can something exist that we can surmise, but never prove?

This is what is meant by the rhetorical question, can something both exist (in mathematics), but not exist in physical reality?

.

What Happens if Two Universes Collide?

. 

While there is no compelling evidence to suggest that there is more than one universe, there are premier physicists who plausibly suggest that there are.  These suggestions (they might be called hypotheses) are based primarily in mathematical interpretations, or extensions, of accepted physical theories, most notably, of quantum mechanics.  Collectively, these extensions are known by such names as the Many Universes Theory, or, Multi-Verse Proposal, among others.

Some of the projections from the Many Universes Proposal include the idea that, among an infinite number of universes, “Everything that can happen, must happen, and must happen an infinite number of times.”  While that idea has some glaring problems, the fact that it is spoken by premier physicists indicates that the theory enjoys great intellectual repute.

One of the open questions arising from the proposal is the question, can universes collide, and if so, what is the result?

The significance of the question is vastly more than at first meets the eye.  It is not as simple as if two ships were colliding, or even two continents.  A more apt analogy would be that of two volatile, dissimilar molecules colliding, or perhaps even more dramatically, the collision of a particle with its anti-particle counterpart.

In order to better appreciate this significance, we should remember that an important part of cosmological theory involves the randomness of the physical constants which define a universe.  All the properties of our universe are expressible in the mathematical values of such constants as the speed of light, the strength of gravity, the nuclear forces and so forth.  Alterations of any of these, particularly the most sensitive of them, would radically affect the stability of the universe.

Therefore, if two universes collide, and if they have large enough differences in their constants, the result could be the destruction of both universes—or at least changes in them that would result in chaotic disruptions.

Even more peculiar results could occur if the two universes have not only different values of their constants, but actually different constants entirely.  While our universe is said to have twenty-seven fundamental constants, what would happen if we collide with a universe that has more than that, or fewer?  What if the other universe has no gravity?  Or if it has forces that do not exist in our universe?

Finally, there are questions which may have no discernible meaning, such as, what exists (if anything) between universes?

Do we even have a framework for considering such questions?

.

Yet Another Proof That You are NOT Conscious (???)

Here is the link to yet another physicalist attempt to explain consciousness without understanding what it is trying to explain.

https://www.themandarin.com.au/128731-scientists-just-proved-these-two-brain-networks-are-key-to-consciousness/

 

To my frustration, the piece repeats the same omissions that are at the core of all physicalist analyses of consciousness that I have read so far.

 

As I mentioned in a previous post: 

In any attempt to achieve any possibility of a materialistic explanation of consciousness,

even in principle, one must take into account the singular property of consciousness, which is
that:  it is the only known observable phenomenon which observes itself. 
Without making that fact a prominent feature of the discussion, a necessary foundation of it,
one stumbles about in the darkness.

The article also repeats what I call "The Illusion Fallacy."

This fallacy involves a futile attempt to ascribe an illusion to itself,
that is to say, it claims that our consciousness is an illusion having an illusion.

This fallacy is so obviously absurd on the face of it, that for years I have tended to

skip over its mention, for that very reason.  No one, I thought, could take it seriously.

But they do.

Why do intelligent people commit this error so persistently?

The kindest answer I can think of is that, some people, actually are not conscious!

They are biological robots, zombies, computers, whatever words you wish, but they
do not posses INWARD consciousness, the kind that observes itself from within itself.

How else can one explain the kind of circular reasoning that describes an illusion as being

an illusion of an illusion?

It's like telling the little man who wasn't there, that he wasn't there.

Imagine some alien robots coming to earth from a galaxy far, far away, and without

encountering any people, the first thing they find is an automobile.
They study the automobile from front to back, top to bottom and left to right,
until they thoroughly understand all its workings, except for one part of the car.

The steering wheel.

The alien robots cannot imagine that the car was designed for use by a living,

conscious, purposeful creature.

The game of chess, likewise, has been analyzed for over a century by experts,

but there is one question that mystifies all analysts.  Why do people play it?

This is why I keep saying that, consciousness cannot be understood without

understanding life (not the biological description), and free will.

The three are a triunity in humans.

In my view, consciousness (and life, and free will) are not emanations of any physical process, but manifestations of a spiritual reality that overlays physical reality.

This is the core of the God paradigm.
.
.

Can There Ever Be a Material Explanation of Consciousness?

.

In any attempt to achieve any possibility of a materialistic explanation of consciousness, even in principle, one must take into account the singular property of consciousness, which is that:  it is the only known observable phenomenon which observes itself.  Without making that fact a prominent feature of the discussion, a necessary foundation of it, one stumbles about in the darkness.

 

Furthermore, no attempt to understand consciousness can make progress without accounting for two other indefinable, fundamental observed facts.  One of these is life, and the other is free will (volition, intent, purpose).

 

Materialism defines life as the emergent property of atoms and forces of nature.  However, there must be a principle of nature that organizes those atoms, and those forces, into the extraordinary phenomenon of life.  Is that principle, randomness?  The universe itself seems to be governed by intentional design.  Were we to leave it there, the materialist argument would be strong; but there is a further layer of fact, one that discredits random design.

 

Free will, that is, volition and intent, is so anathema to materialism (physicalism) that the two are utterly incompatible with each other.  If ever, in all the universe, there were to be even a single instance of a volitional choice being made, that single instance would completely invalidate the myth of physicalism.  

 

The materialist relegates free will to being an illusion, but what is it that is having the illusion?  Can a robot have the illusion that it is making an independent choice?  Can a living being be conscious, and yet relegate itself to the status of an algorithm?  If so, then what would be the value of life?  Of thought?  Of justice?

 

Of course all of this is subject to dispute, but in my view, there is no utility in regarding reality as merely physical, and great utility in viewing ourselves as morally accountable, spiritual beings inhabiting a physical world.
.