A Diagram of Reality

.

Can reality be diagrammed?

 

Most of us are familiar with the diagram of the atom.  It consists of a large, central dot, around which are drawn ovals or circles.  Simple.  The large central dot represents the nucleus.  The outer circles also have one small dot each, representing the electrons.

 

The diagram is simple, easy to understand, and gives the novice a beginning idea how to think of the atom.  Of course, as we learn more about the atom, we learn that the diagram is too simple.  The nucleus is not a dot, but a complicated structure of quarks and forces.  Nor are the electrons dots, but rather, clouds, which are not separate from their orbits.  Even so, the diagram of the atom is a useful starting point toward understanding—only toward understanding, because we may never arrive at a full understanding.

 

Likewise, a diagram of reality is not to be taken literally as a full understanding.  It is not.  Even so, it provides a useful starting point, an anchor to which one can always refer, when his understanding begins to drift into a maze of complications.  Like a map of a large city, or of a continent, it helps to orient us, even though the map is but a symbol.

 

The diagram of reality is simply two circles, one inside the other, with a dot at the center.  How simple can it get?

 

Of course, that is too simple, even for the novice, so we have to point out some landmarks.  The two circles form a doughnut shape, an outer band which we can color in for clarity.  That outer band represents the material world that we experience through our senses.  It is the part of reality that we can see, touch, hear and so forth.  It is where we find atoms, rocks, cars and trees, and even our physical bodies.

 

Inside the doughnut shape is a circular disc, like a dinner plate.  This represents the part of reality that we cannot see or touch.  It is the abstract reality of mathematics, of the properties of physical things, and of even greater realities, such as life and consciousness.  This inner disc of abstractions is what governs the physical world.  Without it, there would be only chaos in the physical world.

 

Finally, our diagram of reality contains a central dot, but this dot is nothing like the nucleus of the atom.  The central dot of reality, if we can call it that for now, is the unknowable essence.  Really?  What good can come of discussing the unknowable?  Let’s see.

 

Just as the inner disc of abstract reality governs the outer physical reality, so also does the unknowable essence govern the entire diagram.  It not only governs it, but gives rise to it.  It provides plan, purpose and meaning to all of existence.

 

While we can never know the unknowable—of course—we can learn some things about it. 

 

In the diagram, the dot cannot be drawn small enough, because the center of a circle is an infinitely small point.  Its size is zero.  As we can quickly see, zero is not, “nothing.”  The center is unquestionably there.  It is unquestionably real.  We cannot, however, fully comprehend it.  Never.  It is unknowable.

 

If we wish to think of this in terms of the Trinity of Christian faith, we could say that the central dot represents (and we must tread very carefully here,) the Holy Spirit of God.  We could also say that the inner disc represents the Creator.  Finally, we could say that the outer band of the diagram represents Jesus, the physical incarnation of God.

 

We must hasten to clarify that God cannot be diagrammed.  The diagram does, however, give us a reference point on several challenges to God.  First, there are not three Gods, but only one, with three aspects (persons).  Also, God has no beginning, no more so than the center has a center.

 

Just as a map of a continent is not the continent itself, but only a tool for navigation, so also, the diagram of reality is only a symbol, one which helps us navigate through life.

 

The diagram also helps us to address the question of monism versus dualism.  The monist side of the question is answered by the fact that the diagram is one, a unified whole.  The dualist side is that while the physical is part of the hierarchy, it does exist.  Then there is the hierarchical argument, that reality can be understood in terms of Creator, Creation, Creature:  God, the Universe, Us.

.

Does Consciousness Reconcile Quantum Physics with General Relativity?

Sir Roger Penrose, during a taped interview, said something that has intrigued me for a long time.  He said that, eventually, the answer to the mystery of consciousness, will be found in the gap between General Relativity and Quantum Physics.

 

Such a gap does exist, and the Holy Grail of physics, of its Standard Model, is to fill that gap, to reconcile the two main theories of physics.  Those two theories clash with each other, and thus far, no one has been able to bring them together.  Both are considered to be valid branches of physics, and yet, they seem to exclude each other.

 

There might, however, be a way, an approach, albeit as radically different from the conventional paradigm as was Relativity to physics.  I will present a conceptual approach to the problem that might move us closer to a solution.  I cannot call it a theory, not even properly a hypothesis, so I will timidly refer to it as a provisional hypothesis, more a way of thinking about the problem, than a final answer. 

 

Before explaining this provisional hypothesis of the reconciliation, of relativity and quantum mechanics, let us first set the stage by briefly glancing at the paradigm leap that brought General Relativity into the picture.

 

Before General Relativity was formulated by Einstein, the view of physics was much different than it is now.  Space and time were considered distinctly separate from each other, gravity was considered to be a “force acting at a distance,” and matter was thought to be entirely separate from energy.

 

All of that changed dramatically with Einstein’s theory.  One of his equations, perhaps the most famous equation in history, is, E=MC².  What that equation does, is to unify, or reconcile, matter and energy with each other.  In practice, relativity theory has proven to be wildly successful.

 

The “E” in the equation stands, of course, for Energy, and M for Matter (or Mass).  But the equation would not reconcile anything were it simply to say, E = M.  If they already equal each other, then no reconciliation is necessary.

 

The equation contains the letter, C.  C is the physical, mathematical constant for the speed of light, with a value of about 300,000 meters per second.  The exact value is not what concerns us here; it is the principle of reconciliation between two things that were once thought to be totally separate from each other, that is germane.

 

To complete the reconciliation of energy and matter, any value of E is equal to the value obtained by multiplying the value of the mass, M, and multiplying that times C times C (or C-squared).

 

E=MC². 

 

Let us use the foregoing as a template for predicting what the final reconciliation of relativity with quantum physics will look like.

We can begin with the incomplete equation, R = Q.  The R symbolizes relativity, and the Q is used as a symbol for Quantum (quantum physics).  Of course, neither R nor Q is a number.  They are place-holders for the eventual reconciliation equation.  R will be the side of the equation involving Relativity, and then of course, Q is the other side of the equation, involving Quantum Physics.

 

Just as in the equation, E=MC², where E = M would be incomplete, so also is R = Q incomplete.  We need a reconciling value, or set of values, such as a universal constant in some shape or form.

 

Therefore, to move the equation closer toward its final form, let us write it as, R = Q x C.  This is still incomplete, of course, but we are following the template, E=MC².   So, R=QC².

 

In this new equation, C is not the speed of light, but rather, a universal constant.  It is written here as C – squared, but that is only for symbolic purposes.  It is unlikely that the final equation will contain C².  We now have a new template, which is, R=QC².  Bear in mind this is a provisional template only.

 

Of course, were matters this simple, someone by now would have moved much closer to a solution than in fact has been the case.  It becomes apparent that, while the template (E=MC²) got us started, it needs to be changed quite radically, and this is where the provisional hypothesis takes off in a new direction.

 

The part of the template that needs to be changed next, is not the R, nor the Q, nor the C.  It is the equal sign (=).

 

When the left side of an equation is equal to, or interchangeable with, the right side, then of course the equal sign denotes this.  That is what makes it an equation.  When the two sides are not equal, then we have an “inequation,” and the equal sign is replaced by another symbol.  If the equal sign has a diagonal line through it, this indicates inequality, but with no indication as to which side is greater than the other.  If it is known which side is greater, then either the “greater than” sign (>) or the “less than” sign (<), is used, for example to denote that A > B (A is greater than B) or A < B (A is less), or some combination which may include the equal sign, as in A is greater than or equal to B.

 

There are also modifications to the equal sign that indicate that, while the two sides are not equal, they are a close approximation of each other.  A “wavy” equal sign can indicate this.

 

What there is not a “sign” for, is quantum uncertainty.  In this commentary, we will suggest such a sign, and because of printer limitations, let us design it as, [?], a bracketed question mark.

 

With this innovation, we can now further modify our template to look like, R [?] QC².

 

The quantum uncertainty sign [?] indicates not only that it is unknown which side of the inequation is greater, but more importantly, it indicates oscillation.  One side can be greater, then become less.  For example, the spin of an electron may be plus one (+1) or minus one (-1) in one instant, and may reverse in the next instant.  The exact value of the spin is indeterminate, until it is measured, and this is what the uncertainty sign [?] signifies.

 

Now then, is there anything more that will direct the reconciliation?  Yes.  The symbol C, in the equation, stands not for the speed of light, but for Consciousness.

 

Unlike the speed of light, consciousness does not have a mathematical value, yet it is very likely a factor in quantum mechanics, which is why it is placed on the Q side of the inequation.

 

Here, we have radically changed the template of E=MC².   The new template is hardly recognizable, but the old template did help us to form the new one, which is, R [?] QC².

 

R [?] QC².

 

We should now get rid of the 2 super-script, and replace it with an indeterminate symbol, X.

 

R [?] QC^x. 

 

The X is not necessarily a power to which C is raised, but rather, a place-holder for a further modification yet to be devised. 

 

As you see, this is all murky, possibly with none of the mathematical precision that the Standard Model of physics demands.  What else, however, can we expect?  We are in unexplored territory, trying to peer through the fog in search of a path forward.  Such a search cannot be restricted to methods that, so far, have not borne fruit.  At the same time, we wish not to stray any further from conventional searches than is necessary.

 

This new template may be somewhat along the lines of what Penrose was suggesting in the opening paragraph of this commentary, with quantum uncertainty filling the gap. 

 

Whatever the final reconciliation between Relativity and Quantum Physics will be, it probably will not follow the template of E=MC².  What will be needed is new physics, perhaps a new innovation in mathematics, and a new paradigm in which consciousness is not an outcome of physics, but a fundamental reality that underlies physics, both relativistic and quantum.

 

If the new paradigm includes spiritual influences, why should that be a problem, if the solution turns out to be useful?

 

There is also, the possibility that the final description of reality will be something for which the human brain may be inherently and forever inadequate to sort out.  This does not necessarily mean, however, that the human mind, apart from the brain, cannot make sense of it all, at least enough sense to fulfill its needs, and its purpose, in the grand scheme of things.

-

Can the Universe Have Arisen from Nothing?

.

Sometimes it happens that, just as I begin to think that I am smarter than I really am, I get reminded otherwise.  Here is an exchange between two people, both of whom are smarter than me.  They were discussing the question of whether the universe could have spontaneously arisen from nothing.  The deeper question, of course, involves what nothingness is, and what “somethingness” is.  Here is what Nicholas and Simon had to say about the matter:

 

https://www.freethoughtforum.org/blog/did-the-universe-come-from-nothing

[Begin Quote by Nicholas Burk, Executive Board Member © 2019 Free Thought Initiative]

When I run into religious arguments against mainstream science, I often hear a line that goes something like this: “And what about the Big Bang? Now scientists would have us believe that something came from nothing. How absurd! Something is something and nothing is nothing and to think otherwise is nonsense! Besides, we never ever see something come out of nothing do we?”

Do we? Here is this common misconception in a nutshell: “The universe couldn’t have possibly popped into existence out of nothing.”

[Skip to next segment]

[Resume quotes by Nicholas—bolding by me]

Through mathematics and indirect observation of quantum fluctuations, scientists can now make the case that our universe did indeed come into existence out of what people call, “nothing.”

Now most people’s problem with this astonishing discovery comes from the use of this word, “nothing.” In everyday language, when we say nothing, we mean the opposite of something. We mean absolute emptiness, an unambiguous void. This pure, theoretical, and definition-based abstract doesn’t really exist. This idea isn’t exactly what cosmologists and quantum physicists mean.

[End quote, Let's turn to Simon]

[Response segment by “Simon”]

Hi Nick

Having once been an atheist, I find it interesting that when I now talk to atheists, I realise how powerful “confirmation bias” is on both sides in these discussions. Previously the idea of positing god as an explanation for the big bang was a bit like the atheist Stephen Hawkins famous description of never ending turtles on top of turtles - if god caused the big bang then who caused god etc. Quantum fluctuations underpinning spacetime, seething with ‘zero point’ energy seemed a far better hint at what could become a clearer, tangible answer.

Now my view of god is very different, and whilst I fully appreciate that science by definition must avoid untestable theories such as “god did it” from the process, I find that atheists are working with turtles. Ignoring for now the questions about the nature of quantum fluctuations, and how these manifest in a ‘universe’ that has neither space nor time, the god I believe in is absolute, not created and underpins everything. All energy ultimately comes from him and all time, space and quantum phenomena sit within him.

[End response segment]

[Now, for my comments] 

Nicholas has made a flawed argument, and Simon recognizes that.  The universe could have come from “nothing,” but only if you carefully re-define “nothing” as “something.”  Net zero is not “nothing.”  Plus one minus one equals zero, but in this case, that “zero” contains plus one and minus one, which clearly are not zero, and not “nothing.”  Even the vaunted Stephen Hawking stumbled on that matter.

Many atheists, having concluded that there is no God, cut their feet to fit their shoes.  Likewise, some of my fellow Christians make the most bone-headed arguments FOR God.

IMO, when we argue for or against (you name it, Idealism, God, atheism, physicalism) we should recognize that when it comes to ultimates and absolutes, human reason is inadequate to define them, much less to prove/disprove them.

We can at best only say WHY we believe as we do.

Thereafter, any further discussion should center as much on learning as it does on persuading.

.

Is Science Becoming a Religion?

Science, as an ideal, is very far from religion, but SOME of the INSTITUTIONS of science

take on a decidedly episcopal, very unscientific, structure.  Those institutions

are run by money rather than the search for scientific facts, and the competition

can be fierce.  Scientists can troll each other at a very sophisticated level.

Science depends largely on government funding, which means that you and I

have our money confiscated for "the good" of science.  Indeed, researchers

openly solicit "grant-writers" to apply for funding, because they know that a

good grant-writer can secure lots of money to research the mating habits of

the purple-breasted sap-sucker, whereas an unskilled grant-writer might not secure

modest funding to develop a high probability cure for cancer. 

Political connections also dominate science.  Some scientists have suddenly found

themselves locked out of research because they asked too many embarrassing questions.

For example, any climatologist who even innocently questions some of the data

concerning the IPCC will be quickly silenced, threatened with loss of livelihood,

which explains why "ALL" climatologists affirm that manmade global warming is on the rise,

no matter what the fluctuations in the weather are.  Money.

AIDS research was corrupted from the beginning, when US researchers plagiarized the

research of less well-connected French researchers.  Thereafter, if a patient died of

AIDS, it was because he had not followed the protocol, and if he survived, it was

because he had (even if he had not).  African governments quickly began diagnosing

malaria patients as HIV-infected, because large amounts of money quickly poured

in when they so reported.  The clinical definition of AIDS was changed when it was

discovered that not enough women were diagnosed as HIV-positive, so as to satisfy the

feminist activists.  Money.

These are just two examples.  There are many more.

It is the institutions of science, and the people who run them, not science itself, that is corrupt.
 

All bow before the priests of so-called science, or lose your funding.

Quantum Travel (A Science Fiction Story)

Quantum Travel (A Science Fiction Story)

--by Robert Arvay

We finally did it!  We managed to achieve instantaneous space-travel across vast cosmic distances.  We got from our planet, Earth, to a galaxy so far away that its light can never reach us.  Now, we’re back, and do we ever have a story to tell.

Don’t worry, we are not going to get deep into the physics, but only into the fun part of science (I promise you’ll like it).  Instead of hard physics, there is a different field of science that we explored on our trip, but let’s not even get into that, just yet.  By the end of the story, you will have figured it out for yourself.

There we were, in our space ship, which was named, Queen Elizabeth.  At first, it had been named, Quantum Entanglement, and this had been abbreviated to QE, and then some people mistakenly thought—well, you get the idea.  So, we just changed the name, and everyone was happy.

In all the vastness of the universe, our telescopes had never detected an earth-duplicate planet, what is called a twin earth.  This was very disappointing.  All the fans of Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Captain Kirk and Luke Skywalker, had hoped that great adventures lay before us.  That hope seemed to have been dashed.

Wait.  There was still a chance.  Telescopes can see only so much, and it takes light millions of years to reach us from deep space.  Billions of planets remained to be detected.  What if there were a better way to find a Twin Earth (TE)?

There is.  It goes by the fancy name of Quantum Entanglement, which simply put, means that everything is connected to everything else, tangled up, in such a way, that under some conditions, two things can just change places with each other, instantaneously, without travelling through the intervening distance.  This means that we can, as we already said, travel across vast cosmic distances in an instant.

At first, the idea was just speculation, but science has a strange way of turning speculation into technology.  That’s what happened with Dick Tracy’s fictional two-way, wrist-radio, which became the cell phone of today.  It’s what happened with Robbie the Robot, from Forbidden Planet, which became—well, Robbie the Robot.

At first, only unmanned drones, powered by quantum entanglement, were sent into our galaxy, in search of Earth-like planets.  They found plenty of them, but none of them was a Twin Earth (TE).  That was a huge disappointment.  There were thousands of planets very similar to earth, but none of them were similar enough.  It seems that the planet Earth has millions upon millions of things that make it hospitable enough for us to live on.  Scientists had hoped that, just by chance alone, at least one of the billions of planets in the galaxy would be earth-like enough for us to inhabit and prosper.

When that did not turn out to be the case, scientists were incredulous.  How could this be?  It turns out that, mathematically, the chances of getting a hundred coin flips to come out all heads (on the first try) is as close to zero as any gambler ever gets—unimaginably close to zero.  To get millions of dice rolls to come out all sevens (on the first try) is even less likely, and—well, you get the idea.  Try finding the two proverbial snowflakes that look exactly the same.  That was what it was like trying to find a planet that, just by chance, happened to be a twin of Earth.  It was not happening.

We did not give up.  If we could not find an Earth twin in our own galaxy, well, there are plenty of other galaxies, a hundred billion of them, each with hundreds of billions of planets in them.  Surely, our quantum space drones would find what we were looking for.  We looked forward to finding many thousands of twin Earths.  The odds seemed to favor it.

The nice thing about quantum entanglement is that distance is no obstacle.  We were quickly able to send drones to galaxy after galaxy, and report back on what they found.  And yes, they did find planets that were remarkably like earth.  Remarkably.  But remarkably close is not close enough.  It’s like finding the almost perfect spouse for yourself, a spouse who has only one flaw, only one—that of being a serial axe-murderer.

Every planet we found had at least one flaw, but it was always a fatal one, one which made it impossible for that planet to sustain a prosperous colony that humans would wish to live on.

Just as things seemed too dismal to continue, someone came up with a brilliant idea.  Why not quantum travel to a planet beyond the light horizon—to a planet so far away, that the light from its galaxy can never reach us?  The very thought seemed scary, like crossing a vast ocean in a raft with no knowledge of what might be on the other side.

We decided to try it, and sure enough, after an exhausting search, one of the drones reported back a finding that seemed too good to be true.  It reported finding a planet so similar to present-day earth that it was all but an exact copy.  And the news got even better.  Further analysis showed that the planet showed signs of being inhabited—by human-like people.  One photograph showed what was unmistakably a modern city. 

After that, however, there were no further signs of life.  There were no radio transmissions, no television signals, and nothing that seemed to be artificial communications of any kind.

Speculation abounded.  How could we explain a planet that seemed to have cities, but no people?  Some said that a catastrophe had killed the population, perhaps a plague, or radiation from a nearby star that had exploded.  Others said that maybe everyone had just left for another galaxy.  Others said that maybe they had invented a technology that allowed them to take spiritual form, and abandon the need for physical bodies.  There was no end to the speculation.  We needed facts.

To get those facts, we sent more drones, but for technical reasons, they could not provide any additional, helpful information.  Nothing.  The planet seemed to be a twin earth, a place to which we could send humans and establish a thriving colony, but there was one overriding worry:  was it an axe-murderer?  What had removed the population, and would it strike again?

Was it a forbidden planet?  Dared we go there?

We decided to risk it.  It was just too good to pass up.  A number of us volunteered to get aboard an experimental quantum-travelling space ship.  It was an amazing technological advance, something straight out of a science fiction story.

We named it the QE, and others named it the Queen Elizabeth, and the name stuck.

The QE space ship was by no means a luxury liner.  Compared to the ocean-going vessel of the same name, our QE was more like an out-rigger canoe, but then hey, the Polynesians did amazing things with their out-rigger canoes, and we felt the pioneer spirit.  We were eager to risk our lives to be the first to personally explore TE (Twin Earth), although I confess, we were more enthusiastic about the explore part than the risk our lives part.  Even so, given the choice, we went.

The big day finally came.  Well, actually, it was not so big.  There was no fanfare, no adoring crowds, no speeches or musical bands, no breaking of champagne bottles, none of that.  The people who had approved the mission had a strong suspicion that we were all doomed, and they needed plausible deniability if things went terribly wrong.

We boarded the QE, closed the hatches, and well, pushed a button or two, and for the few people who witnessed the launch, we just disappeared for a second, then reappeared.  They thought something had gone wrong, but it hadn’t.  We returned with an amazing report.

During that one second of earth time that we had been gone, our mission had actually taken several days.  We first knew that we had succeeded in reaching TE (Twin Earth), when we found ourselves in orbit around the planet.  Not being exactly an out-rigger canoe (okay, I am prone to exaggeration at times), our sensors displayed to us an awesome planet-scape.  It looked just like earth, except for the layout of the continents and oceans—but there were indeed, continents and oceans, and water-vapor clouds, and greenery!  The atmosphere registered as earth-like, with oxygen and carbon-dioxide and nitrogen in earth-like proportions.

The next step was to board our landing module, a small space-craft that could safely take us to the surface of the planet—we hoped.  How would we be received, if anyone still inhabited the planet?  All kinds of thoughts ran through our heads, but still, this was the chance of a lifetime, and we threw caution to the winds.  At least that’s what we say now.  At the time—well, never mind.

We boarded the landing module, and departed from the QE.

When the landing module reached the surface, we felt a small thud, and then the doors opened.  Then, just like in the movie, Galaxy Quest (it’s amazing how similar fiction can be to, okay, fiction), we all screamed, at the guy who opened the door, hey you idiot, what if the atmosphere is poison or something, but it was just like earth’s atmosphere.  Yeah, we already knew that.

So, throwing caution to the winds, because we had to, we stepped out of the landing module and onto Twin Earth.  It was a great moment.  We should have said something historic, like one small step for a man, but the first one out was a woman.  So instead, we just said, wow, look at that.

We had landed near a city that looked just like any big city on Earth, with tall buildings, and overpasses and stuff.  Instead of being in the city, we were in a suburb, a nice residential neighborhood.  Again, it could have been any nice residential neighborhood on Earth.  It had one and two-story houses, paved roads that ended in cul-de-sacs, trees and shrubs—just like on earth.

Nobody had seen us land, and we wondered when we would meet up with the first Twin-Earther alien.  Actually, we were the aliens, and we hoped we wouldn’t get arrested.

And so, there ends our story.  We didn’t find anyone, but we knew that whoever had lived in those houses looked a lot like us, because we found vehicles that we could comfortably sit in, although we did not know how to drive them.

Oh, there is one more part to the story. 

After traveling about in our landing module, touring the planet, we started finding things that looked crazy.  We found houses with no doors or windows.  We found roads that began in a tree trunk, and ended in another tree trunk.  We found an office building that was sitting in the middle of a pond, half submerged.  The farther we got from the city we had seen from orbit, the less sense things made.  We found buildings that were half-completed, it seemed, but they looked more like piles of rubble that had been scooped together by a giant hand, sort of like toy building blocks haphazardly arranged by a child.

We put all our observations—photographs, spectrographs and other measurements of every kind—into our onboard computer, trying to understand who or what might have built such a city, and then abandoned it.  Was it some sort of game?  A movie set?  An experiment?  Bait for a trap?

Finally, between us and the computer, we came to the most likely conclusion:  it was all chance.

What?  What kind of answer is that?

But, think about it.  In the vastness of the cosmos, there are millions of chances for nature to accidentally arrange things that look like they were purposely made, but were not.  There used to be a rock formation in New Hampshire, USA, called, the Old Man of the Mountain, because it looked amazingly as if the rocks which composed it had been intentionally arranged to look like, well, an old man of the mountain.

In an infinite universe, there will be an infinite variety of regions, each of which is subject to the rules of chance.  The city we found was just that, but even chance has its limits, and so, the planet and its city had been the unlikely outcome of chance—but the farther we got from the city, the more random the buildings became, until finally, there was only wilderness.

There remains only one question unanswered.  It involves the science that we promised would be fun.  What is chance? 

Chance says that if I roll two dice, there is one chance in six that the total of the dice-roll will be seven.  But whereas dice-rolls are governed by chance, the dice themselves are not random.  Dice are not made by chance.  They do not have random numbers of sides.  They can have as few as four sides, or more than four, many more, but somebody designed them. 

Dice are purposefully designed, and only after that can they be used in games of chance.  What is it that purposefully designed the universe?

Randomness, then, can operate only within non-random parameters.

So, as you have guessed for yourself by now, even if the universe is governed by chance, the laws of chance (call them the dice) are themselves not random.  Things inside the universe may be random, so that even the most unlikely combinations of events can happen.  Entire cities can come together due to random chance.

The universe, however, like dice, is not random.  It is intentionally designed.

.

 

Can the Human Brain ever understand Quantum Physics?

.

For years, I have tried to follow the back-and-forth debates between physicists regarding "quantum theory" and "local realism."  I remain a bystander in these debates.

Someone named Patel drew my attention to the link, https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-the-quantum-so-strange

This article, along with others, makes me think that physics, and quantum physics in particular, is not a natural "fit" for the human brain (apart from consideration of the mind.)

The Nobel-prize-winning physicist, Leon Lederman, speculated that the human brain may not yet have "evolved" (his word), to the point where it can understand physics.

Lederman's statement (here I go, criticizing my betters) is very contrary to Darwinism, which states that evolution has no direction, no purpose, no goal.  It is purely driven by random changes in the genome which sometimes enhance survivability.

Therefore, the human brain (apart from the mind!) can never "evolve" an understanding of physics unless two things occur:  random mutation and increased survivability.

Neither of these seem to operate in the brain's understanding of physics.

They do operate in intelligence, but quantum physicists do not seem to procreate in large numbers and then selectively enhance their survival by making advances in physics.  (That is almost a parody, is it not?)

The mind, however, is a different matter.  It can guide evolution, and it operates the brain as a musician operates his violin.  My violin is not a Stradivarius, so I will never understand even basic quantum theory.

The inability of physicists, after more than a hundred years of intense study by geniuses, to agree on quantum physics, and to reconcile it with Relativity Theory, is a profound demonstration that the human brain is not structured in a way that enables it to achieve these goals.

I still continue to be fascinated, and baffled, by the debates between those who promote the Copenhagen Interpretation, and those who reject it, because it not only humbles me, but I think it reveals something profound about both the universe and the human condition.

Quantum Theory needs its own Einstein:  someone who can go where no man has gone before, and lead others to a new paradigm in physics.

Will he be welcomed?

 

 

Seeking and Finding

.

One of the few advantages of metaphysics over physics is freedom.  We are free to explore ideas that physicists are not free to explore, at least not within their domain as physicists.

This freedom, however, is not a valid excuse for sloppy thinking.  Precisely because we rely more on thinking than on experimentation, our thinking is required to be careful, methodical and rigorously disciplined.  These are attributes that are not commonly assigned to philosophy, but they should be.

Now for the main point:

In our assertions, there are varying degrees of certainty which we can claim.  In descending order, these are:

Absolute certainty (I think; therefore I am).

Certainty beyond a reasonable doubt:  Dissenting views are implausible, even foolish.  Flying unicorns may exist, but I assert that they do not.

Strongly probable:  The world will still be here tomorrow.  It could end, but I’m still going to plant the crop.

Possible:  World War 3 may break out this year or next, or in our lifetime.  I can’t prevent it, and I’m not going to build a bomb shelter, but perhaps I could keep my pantry stocked.

Unlikely:  My book may sell well this year.  I’ll try to promote it, but I’m not mortgaging the farm to finance a marketing campaign.

Very unlikely:  The world may end tomorrow, so I will spend all my money on a party tonight.

Impossible:  I will invent a perpetual motion machine.

The standard of scientific proof is to be able to persuade a reasonable skeptic.

The standard in metaphysics is to persuade a reasonable skeptic of where your assertions fit on the scale of degrees of certainty, listed above.

If you correctly identify where your metaphysical assertions (or speculations) fit on such a scale, then you are much better equipped to discuss them, and to know how strongly to defend them.

It also helps you to identify the strengths and weaknesses of other peoples’ assertions, and to engage in fruitful discussions about them, and to learn from those assertions, whether or not you dispute them.

I think that it is strongly probable that my statements in regard to all this are correct.

.