I was recently asked about a theory from ten years ago, or so. That is, the theory about the holographic Shroud of Turin. All I have to say is: Holy holograms, Batman.

The theory is the brainchild of one Isabel Piczek, a Hungarian theoretical physicist, who is now deceased. Piczek believed that the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin (assuming that it is even Jesus) was a quantum holographic projection as Jesus was undergoing the process of the Resurrection. As Piczek put it, “The entire Resurrection process is akin to the Big Bang creation of the universe when something was created from nothing.” Ergo, there was no gravity, no time, no space. In other words, the laws of physics did not apply.

So, can this theory possibly be true?  Well, one can’t completely rule it out because there isn’t any scientific way to disprove it, or prove it either for that matter. Yes, if one believes that Jesus was a real person, and yes, if you believe that the Shroud of Turin was the actual burial cloth that Jesus was wrapped in and, yes, if you believe that Jesus was resurrected and, yes, if you buy into Piczek’s science…then, maybe.

The problem is that Piczek tries to support her theory with science that, while interesting,  is far from proven and her explanation is incomplete, at best.  The larger truth is that we may exist in a holographic universe. As Michael Talbot explained in his book, The Holographic Universe,  “Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time:  The brain is a hologram folded in a holographic universe!”

Piczek’s conclusion is a real leap of faith; that is, the holographic Shroud proves that Jesus rose from the dead! Piczek really needs to incorporate the fact that the Shroud, if it’s holographic, is folded in a holographic universe.  That is, everything is holographic, including us!  And holograms are not real, at least not in the way that we perceive the universe around us.  That’s because holographic theory suggests that we exist in a simulated reality.

What’s more, death does not exist in a holographic universe.  As Einstein famously said, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” So, death is simply the process of energy changing from a physical form to a non-physical form.  You still exist; just not in this three-dimensional universe.

So, there you have it: the good, the bad and the holographic.  Under these circumstances, does it really matter if Jesus was resurrected or not? Perhaps he was rather a time traveler from the future or perhaps someone just beamed him up (like Scotty).  Only God knows for sure and I haven’t seen any tweets from him in over three thousand years.

 

“Man experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.”  – Albert Einstein

 

 

Advertisements

So, I’ve had a plethora of questions about my recent post, “ Dr. Einstein, Reality and Schrodinger’s Cat.” It’s a tricky question about Schrodinger’s cat.  Was it alive or dead? Before I give you the answer, though, a little background is probably in order.

The universe is made up of atoms, right? Then there are electrons and quarks which are the basic building blocks of the atom (i.e. sub-atomic particles). However, scientists say that even with the electrons and quarks, the atom is essentially empty space. So, what does the universe consist of if everything is empty space?  The thing is, though, that empty space isn’t really empty. You see, empty space is teeming with life.  Teeming. It is a hotbed of constant creation and destruction which is the very fabric of reality (and all matter).

Let’s backtrack, though, for a second. Science is fundamentally a process of observation and measurement. In that regard, science has what some scientists refer to as a measurement problem. It’s all the fault of the atom. You see, the atom is the most mysterious object in all of creation.  That is, it only appears after it has first been observed and measured!!!

Aside: You might recall that an observation and measurement were at the heart of the Double-Slit Experiment that I mentioned in “Dr. Einstein, Reality and Schrodinger’s Cat” which prompted many of your questions.

Here’s the conundrum. An atom does not exist, as an atom, until an observer looks at it.  That is, the act of observation and measurement creates the atom, and by extension the whole universe. As physicist John Wheeler put it, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”

So, how does it all work, then?  Putting aside all the theories, the fancy formulae scribbled on chalkboards and the myriad of science textbooks, what exactly is reality? Well, physicist David Bohm says that the quantum field is the true source of our reality. However, according to this theory, our physical world is a projection from another realm, a deeper source of reality which is beyond space and time.  A projection you understand.  Holographic no doubt.  As John Horgan explained though in his book The End of Science, it is not possible to observe what exists beyond space and time by simply observing nature. Ah, yes, there’s the rub. The really scary thing is that scientists will never be able to prove what lies beyond space and time since they can’t observe beyond space and time.

Since science has reached it’s physical limitations, we live in a time when the great geniuses of science are, by necessity, theoretical physicists. That inevitably will probably lead to a philosophical discussion about God. However, at the moment, scientists typically avoid addressing the God question, especially since many scientists are atheists, though it does come up if only through some oblique references. Here’s a few examples:

  • “Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms  have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” – Martin Rees, astrophysicist (and an atheist)Aside: That’s exactly what we all have been doing since at least the time of the great Greek philosophers. Pondering our existence.  Needless to say, it takes intelligence to ponder one’s own existence.  That’s what sets man apart from all the other species.
  • “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” – Carl Sagan, astronomer (and an atheist) Aside: How does the universe know itself without intelligence?
  • “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” – Antony Flew, a former atheist

So, one does not have to mention God (or even believe in God apparently) in order to understand that Creation could only have been facilitated through intelligence.

 

Epilogue

Back to Schrodinger’s cat. Actually, quantum mechanics says that Schrodinger’s cat was both alive and dead.  Both, you understand.  That’s because unobserved phenomenon can exist in dual states, or, as I would prefer to say, in an intricate web of infinite possibilities. That is, an atom is merely a possibility until it, the atom, is observed.  Pretty cool world, right? Of course, quantum mechanics also has the “many worlds” interpretation but that may be a bridge too far.

In the end, Schrodinger’s cat is all about choices since, as John Wheeler said, we are the observer. You have to choose.  You can either choose the blue pill or the red pill, but either way, it’s your choice.  As Morpheus said, “But I can only show you the door.  You’re the one who has to walk through it.”

 

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”  – Bernard d’Espagnat, physicist

 

 

If you’re familiar with the Schrodinger’s Cat paradox, then you know that science grapples with the question of what reality is and, therefore, whether anything that you believe in is real.

In that regard, Einstein said that reality was an illusion. Philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that time and space were not inherent qualities of the physical world but rather a reflection of the way the mind operates. In other words, time is a function of consciousness. Astronomer, physicist Arthur Eddington summed it up pretty well when he wrote that, “In the world of physics…the shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper…the frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadow…”

Despite this, people think that they can discern reality with their physical senses, or at least they only acknowledge that which they physically experience. I guess that they never read Lincoln Barnett who wrote, in The Universe and Dr. Einstein, “Along with philosophers’ reduction of all objective reality to a shadow-world of perceptions, scientists have become aware of the alarming limitations of man’s senses.” People simply ignore what science has been trying to tell them and focus only on what their physical senses experience. They think that their physical senses can tell the difference between what is real and what is an illusion. Never mind that the brain cannot tell the difference between what is ”real” and what is vividly imagined.

So to better understand what the average person thinks about the world around him, I asked a number of people what a desk was made of. They generally answered wood. So, I asked where did the wood come from and they answered that it came from a tree. So, I inquired what a tree was composed of and a few said molecules… and the molecules were composed of atoms. Now, here’s where thinks get a little murky.

Science says that atoms are 99.99999999% empty space! So, what is a desk really made of? The answer is almost exclusively empty space.  Your senses cannot cannot tell you that the desk is really empty space. Well, almost-empty space since there is no such thing as empty space.

Aside: It is the quantum field that physicist David Bohm said is the true source of our reality. Our physical world, according to Bohm, is projected from another realm which is beyond space and time. A projection you understand.

It is said that perception is reality. That’s somewhat true but woefully incomplete. Perception is what we use to define that which we “think” is real. However, we cannot perceive the true reality (the quantum field) and so our beliefs are based upon an illusion as Einstein would have it, an illusion created by our physical senses. Theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg elaborated on our inability to perceive reality in his now-famous Uncertainty Principle for which he received the Nobel Prize in physics. However, why would people want to study Heisenberg when they believe that they understand what is real (based on their own personal sensory experience). In fact, the smarter that a person is the less likely that they will question their own physical senses.

The famous Double-Slit Experiment forever changed the way that science viewed the way that things work. Prior to the experiment, objects were deemed to be separate from human consciousness. Afterwards, it was clearly understood that the observer was an integral part of the experiment and affected the outcome. As physicist John Wheeler put it, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.” Try understanding that with your physical senses.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”  – Albert Einstein

 

Everything in the world is faith-based. Everything. Even if you think you know, you really don’t. It’s what Einstein referred to as the optical illusion of consciousness.

I know a lot of you are in search of answers, in search of the truth. For example, many are in search of God. Some of you believe in the Christian god, Allah or Buddha. Some of you, not finding evidence of a god, become atheists. What you all have in common with one another is that you all believe that your belief system, above all other belief systems, is true. You all believe that you, and you alone, possess the truth.

When it comes to understanding creation, everything is a belief system. The “truth” is simply what you tell yourself is the truth or what you’ve been brainwashed to believe (e.g. religion and atheism). There is no evidence. So, stop demanding that people show you the evidence to prove their belief system. Even if you were to be shown the evidence, you still wouldn’t believe. For as Stuart Chase said, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”

Therefore, the next time you feel compelled to ask someone to show you the evidence….don’t. Why should they show you the proof, if you’re just going to reject it anyway? After all, people don’t want to know the truth, they just want to believe that they are right so they can continue to live in their own little bubble.

 

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”   – Voltaire

 

 

 

 

This is kind of an old topic, but it is one that seems to never die. That is, does God exist? The debate between deists and atheists typically is centered around the Christian god with atheists rejecting God simply because they reject Christianity.  To be fair, though, there are some 4,200 religions in the world and the Christian god, therefore, is just one of 4,200 gods .

So, I pose these questions: In order to be intellectually honest, do atheists need to reject all 4,200 gods before declaring themselves to be atheists? And exactly what makes Christians feel that their god, amongst all of the 4,200 gods, is the one and only?

While my interest in this debate wanes by the day, I feel that it’s still worth a mention. To begin with, religious beliefs are claims rather than the truth. Holy books, however, may be considered to be the truth by a believer, even if it’s based solely on their faith. On the other hand atheism, is a religion too.  Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, admitted that, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

Scientists of all stripes have weighed in on this debate. Here’s a few thoughts from some of the great minds of science:

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

– Albert Einstein

Note: According to Wikipedia, Spinoza believed that “…everything is a derivative of God,  interconnected with all of existence.” Further, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that Spinoza’s God is an “infinite intellect.”

 

“The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”

– John Wheeler, physicist

“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”

– Carl Sagan, astronomer

Note: Of course, Sagan was admitting that there is super- intelligence in the cosmos, an intelligence which can think, extrapolate… and “know itself”.

 

“Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time….”

– Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe

 

“Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.”

– Martin Rees, astrophysicist

 

“The secret of DNA’s success is that it carries information like that of a computer program, but far more advanced. Since experience shows that intelligence is the only presently acting cause of information, we can infer that intelligence is the best explanation for the information in DNA.”

Jonathan Wells, molecular biologist

 

“To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

– Michio Kaku, physicist

 

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”

– Arno Penzias, physicist

 

“It is easy to understand why many scientists like Sir Fred Hoyle changed their minds in the past thirty years. They now agree that the universe, as we know it, cannot reasonably be explained as a cosmic accident.”

– Frederic B. Burnham, historian of science

 

and philosophers:

 

“Beyond all finite experiences and secondary causes, all laws, ideas and principles, there is an Intelligence or Mind, the first principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea on which all other ideas are grounded.”

– Plato

 

and atheists:

 

“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.”

– George Wald

“Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.”

– Antony Flew

 

These gentlemen hardly referred to God at all in explaining the origins of life. Therefore, I would suggest that the vast majority of concepts/perspectives about God (both pro and con) are incomplete, at best. Since the word God is generally associated with religion, I believe that it would be preferable to use the term “creator” instead.

 

Of course if there is a creator, he doesn’t have to be the god of any religion, now does he? So, if any of you are hung up over the illogic of religion, especially Christianity, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no God. It may simply mean that you have been looking for him in all the wrong places and calling him by the wrong name.

 

 

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.”

Joseph Campbell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is Reality Real?

04/18/2016

Everybody I talk to is so certain of just about everything. It certainly gives the impression that no one is wrong about anything.  So, here’s a little pop quiz for those who think that they know everything.

What is a table made out of? If you answered wood, that’s fine. If so, then what is the wood made out of? In other words, what is the essence of matter? For those of you who answered the atom, very good. So what, then, does the atom mostly consist of?

Answer: Its 99.9% empty space. Show of hands. How many got that right?

Back to the original question: What is a table made out of? Best answer: Mostly empty space.

Then, what is reality you might ask. Good question. Karl Pribram, a neurophysiologist and physicist, says that we exist in a virtual reality matrix where our brains construct reality by interpreting frequencies that are projections from beyond space and time. In other words, the physical world is a projection from the quantum world. With regards to how we actually view our reality, science says that 2-D optical impulses are sent to the brain where they are converted into 3-D holographic images. So, where is it that we actually “see” an object? Perhaps, you can now see where I am going with this (no pun intended).

Sleep studies show that we roll over in bed at night, sometimes a lot. After all, we wake up in a different position than when we fell asleep. Since we’re asleep, who tells our body to roll over and why don’t we ever fall out of bed? For that matter, how would we even know where the edge of the bed is, since our eyes are closed? Obviously, we don’t understand what consciousness is and therefore we lack an understanding of who and what we really are.

Then there’s the curious case of our belief systems. Given what was just said, do we even have an accurate view of life? How can one make enough sense out of our perception of reality (since that’s all that it is) in order to make proper decisions (e.g. in order to be able to differentiate between right and wrong). Consider this: science has discovered that decisions are made in our mind even before we are consciously aware of them! So, who really made the decision?  Who are we?

One of the wisest men in history was the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates understood that no matter how much he knew, his knowledge would be dwarfed by what he did not know. Today, science has confirmed what Socrates knew intuitively. That is, reality is not understandable. As Einstein said, man will never be able to grasp the magnitude of the Universe and we now can appreciate why that is. The source of matter, and therefore the origins of reality, can be traced to the quantum world. It’s a world that we cannot penetrate. We can only theorize what it is like and what kind of natural laws might operate therein.

So you can probably see why I am a little skeptical when people tell me with absolute confidence that they know an answer to a particular question. As a Greek philosopher once said, “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion” – and now we know that atoms are basically empty space as well.

Aside: Of course, there is no such thing as empty space as what we’re really talking about here is a quantum field.

Life is truly an enigma which scientists are still trying to figure out. As astrophysicist Martin Rees noted, “Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” However, because we have a very limited understanding of reality, we can ponder our existence all we want but I believe that our opinions are just that – they are opinions, and not facts. After all, how can you prove something, indeed anything, that you do not understand in the first place? If you believe otherwise, please enlighten me.

 

“In the world of physics…the shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper…the frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadow…”

   – Arthur Eddington, astronomer, physicist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Mind Of God

03/14/2016

Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku says that he understands the mind of God! In an interview, he said that, “The mind of God that Einstein eloquently wrote about…would be cosmic music resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace.” So, the question is this: Exactly what kind of a god would that be?

Without really defining God, Kaku said that the laws of physics can give us an idea about what God is like. That is, God would not be a personal god or a god of intervention, a god who parts the waters.  However, a universe created by God would be a universe of order, beauty, harmony and simplicity.  In short, Kaku believes in the god of Einstein and Spinoza. No doubt, Kaku’s perspective won’t make either religious leaders or atheists very happy.

So, let’s take a look at the beliefs of Einstein and Spinoza.  Einstein said that, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” While most people are familiar with Einstein, not too many people know about Spinoza. Baruch Spinoza was a famous 17th century Dutch philosopher.  According to Wikipedia, Spinoza believed that “…everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence.” Further, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that Spinoza’s God is an “infinite intellect.”

While some might disagree, it appears that both Einstein and Spinoza believed in Intelligent Design. However, there’s not much doubt that neither Einstein nor Spinoza believed in the god of the Bible, the god of intervention. So, who exactly, then, was the god of the Bible?  Well, let’s just say that the god of Genesis was an interloper of sorts. He definitely had a big ego since he told man that there were no other gods besides him, even though the Bible says that he was not the god Most High.  In any event, he certainly would not qualify as the god of either Einstein or Spinoza, that’s for sure.

“Beyond all finite experiences and secondary causes, all laws, ideas and principles, there is an Intelligence or Mind, the first principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea on which all other ideas are grounded.”

    – Plato

In his book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking said that, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” The first question that comes to mind is how can something be created out of nothing? However, in addition, this statement raises other questions while providing no real answers. Let’s break it down.

How can you create something out of nothing (and from nowhere)?

In science, it’s impossible to create something out of nothing. Mathematically speaking, 0+0 will always equal zero.

The universe can and will create

So, exactly what kind of life force is this, anyway, that can create? After all, creation implies intelligence.

How is it that a Natural Law allows the universe to create?

Natural laws determine the process. They are predictive (only), but they do not create anything themselves. Besides, as Einstein said, “If there is a law there is a lawgiver.” Interestingly enough, theoretical physicist S. James Gates, Jr. says that his research indicates that the Natural Laws of the Universe contain embedded computer codes. If not a lawgiver, then, there must have been a super-intelligent computer programmer instead.

 

Theories, fossils and reverse engineering

So, what we really have here is an attempt to provide a quasi-scientific explanation for an ideology. How did we ever get to this point?  Well, to begin with, some scientific theories have been reverse engineered, so to speak. That is, scientists first started with a theory and then the framework for scientific enquiry was constructed on top of that, in order to hopefully provide the necessary observations to prove the theory; such was Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for example. Darwin realized that the fossil record did not, at that time, support evolution but he assumed that future examination of the fossil record would eventually produce the necessary observations of transitional fossil forms required to prove his theory. However, it was none other than Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist himself, who later admitted that those fossils couldn’t be found.

Aside: Of course, Darwin didn’t know anything about DNA (how could he have known?) and, if he had, I seriously doubt that he would have ever promulgated such a theory in the first place.

 

Where did time, space and matter come from?

Here’s the problem facing scientists on the issue of the origins of life in the universe. According to scientific theory, time, space and matter were all created simultaneously out of nothing (and from nowhere). The universe (poof) just popped into existence. Just poof.

Of course, science now admits that the universe had a beginning (The Big Bang). It was Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, who observed, “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.” It follows, then, that since the Big Bang had a match there must also have been a match lighter (i.e. a cause). In this case, the cause could only have come from beyond space and time.

As for “creation out of nothing,” it’s just a euphemism for the unknown, a way for science to claim that it understands something that can’t really be understood scientifically.  As the ancient Greek philosophers noted, the only thing that can be created from nothing is nothing.

 

Epilogue

In his book The End of Science, John Horgan raised the issue that there is a limit to knowledge as science attempts to push beyond what’s observable, since it is not possible to observe what exists beyond space and time simply by observing Nature. Yet, scientists do it everyday, with no thought about using the scientific method. Robert Lanza explained it thusly, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.” Stephen Hawking, of all people, should know better.

 

“Reality is not confined to space and time. The psyche is not under obligation to space and time alone.”

     – Carl Jung

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dueling Delusions

11/16/2015

One of the recurring themes in society today is the ongoing debate between creationists (with Christianity as their advocate) and evolutionists (with atheists as their advocate). The problem is that ideology, on both sides, is driving the discussion. As physicist David Bohm succinctly put it, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” As a result, the diatribe rages on with no realistic chance of ever ending. I, myself, fall somewhere in the middle since I believe that they are both wrong.

Interestingly enough, both sides do agree on one thing. They both believe that the universe was created out of nothing, and from nowhere! Christianity believes that God created the heavens and earth (in six days no less) because a holy book said so and the atheists believe that we all evolved from a bunch of dead chemicals. So this, then, is the ultimate question of creation. That is, exactly how do you create something out of nothing? For me, it just doesn’t pass the smell test. That is, the only thing that can be made out of nothing…is nothing. The fact that both sides use the very same absurd argument is an indication that there is no proof. Therefore, we’re dealing with blind ideology. In fact, we not only have one religion, we have two – belief in God and the belief in materialism.

 

The God Delusion

Religious texts are not truths. They are simply claims, the word of man about God if you will. After all, how could man possibly understand the Infinite with his finite mind? As the Pascal Wager states, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible.”

Religious texts only become “the truth” when a believer takes a leap of faith and adopts such a belief system. Then, and only then, texts are referred to (by the believer) as the Word of God. That’s not to say that God doesn’t exist, only that man’s idea of God is faith-based.

With respect to the Bible’s creation story, there is no evidence that the Garden of Eden was a real place, complete with talking snakes. The story was written by Jewish holy men who considered Genesis to be allegorical; even Origen, a prominent early Christian theologian, believed that to be the case. So, why then does Christianity insist on their Creation story being the Word of God? I hate being redundant and, since I’ve covered this topic in great detail in prior posts, I won’t burden you with having to read it again here as the explanation is quite lengthy.

So, let’s just say that Christianity has deluded itself with respect to its God. They worship an angry, vengeful and violent God (of the Old Testament). And why? Well, because they are joined at the hip with the Old Testament since they adopted it and its creation story. Is there really even one Christian out there who really wants to worship an angry, vengeful and violent God? Probably not, especially since almost all Christians consider God to be all-loving and good.

Bottom line: If there is a God and he created the universe (out of something), then Christianity doesn’t understand their own Creator. As Voltaire said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” And so they did – invent him, that is.

 

The Hawking Delusion

Stephen Hawking says that, “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but science makes God unnecessary.” The reverse, of course, is also true. That is if there is a God, then he would make science unnecessary. Since science can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, then science may (unbeknownst to everyone) already be somewhat irrelevant. After all, science wants us to believe that somehow the cosmos, with no intelligence behind it whatsoever, was able to (poof) materialize out of mindless nothingness. Just poof.

Atheists do not believe in God so they need an explanation as to how, and why, man came into existence without the help of a Creator. Thus, a belief in materialism. Geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained just how that thought process works: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” As a result, ideology, not science, rules the day.

As Lewontin said, materialism is absolute. So, the atheist having accepted materialism, will embrace evolution. The attraction of evolution, according to neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky, an atheist himself, is that since evolution doesn’t require a blue print, it doesn’t require a blue print maker either. The end result is a worldview that life began, as physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias noted, as the result of an absurdly improbable cosmic accident.

Bottom line: Science has deluded itself that it understands the cosmos, in direct opposition to what Einstein said that the human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. However, who needs proof when you have Stephen Hawking?

“The difference between science and philosophy is that the scientist learns more and more about less and less until she knows everything about nothing, whereas a philosopher learns less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything.”

– Dorion Sagan

A Question of Time

11/09/2015

Life is somewhat a question of time. That is, between birth and death all you have is time. It’s such a mysterious and elusive thing that no one seems to know exactly what to make of it.

Nevertheless, almost everyone seems to have weighed in on the subject. In the eighteenth century, the philosopher Immanuel Kant described space and time as a priori notions that allow us to experience the world around us. Then, Einstein came along with his theory of relativity and said that space and time (space-time) were mathematical constructs. So, does time really exist? That’s the $64,000 question. Apparently, physicists aren’t sure. Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, had this to say about the subject, “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics. The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”

In the field of cosmology, there is another factor apparently in play.  In an article in Nature, two prominent researchers called out the scientific community for breaking away from science’s mandate of experimental confirmation in the development of new theories. This comes directly on the heels of exotic theories such as String Theory, the Multiverse and supersymmetry. The two researchers who wrote the article, George Ellis, professor emeritus of applied mathematics at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and Joe Silk, professor of physics at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics and at Johns Hopkins University, stated that “a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.”

Yes, falsifiable, just as science philosopher Sir Karl Popper stated in his groundbreaking work Conjectures and Refutations.  Accordingly with respect to the Multiverse theory (for example), the additional universes of the multiverse would lie beyond man’s powers of observation, as they would be beyond space and time and, therefore, could never be directly investigated. So, a theory like the Multiverse Theory could only ever be, at best, an approximation of reality. At worst…well, let’s just say that it might make good science fiction.

As John Horgan discussed in his book, The End of Science, the conundrum for theoretical scientists is whether or not they can remain relevant. After all, there is a limit to knowledge as science attempts to push beyond what’s observable (beyond space and time). Theoretical science is almost by definition limited in that regard regardless of what scientists like Stephen Hawking might say. Quoting Stephen Hawking might make good press but it doesn’t necessarily make good science. For example, Hawking, in his book The Grand Design, said that, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” This is not a fact, but rather an unproven theory and, I would argue, tantamount to a declaration of faith (in an ideology). After all, Hawking has gone on record as saying that science makes God unnecessary.

So, from my perspective, scientific theory is a moving target and it’s only a matter of time before many of the current scientific theories get replaced with new ones. That’s why we have previously moved on from theories like the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Since some current scientific theories are incompatible with each other (e.g. the rules of general relativity seem incompatible with those of quantum physics), it’s only a matter of time before the next shoe falls, or as Adam Frank said in his book About Time, “In an era in which the search for quantum gravity has multiplied dimensions and the discovery of dark energy has sent cosmologists back to their blackboards, all the fundamentals seem up for grabs.”

Despite all of the research, time is still an enigma and that may not be changing any time soon. Great minds like Einstein and Planck concur that the fundamental laws of nature are beyond man’s ability to comprehend them. Despite that, scientists claim to understand the cosmos – that things called dark matter and dark energy make up most of the known universe. However, they have yet to find either. Perhaps, it has something to do with what Confucius once said, “The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat.”

 

“What a life in science really teaches you is the vastness of our ignorance.”

– David Eagleman, neuroscientist