Haldane’s Cosmic Paradox

 

Haldane’s Cosmic Paradox

Why Physical Reality Cannot be Explained in Physical Terms

 

SECTION ONE

  

Haldane’s Cosmic Paradox

Why Physical Reality Cannot be Explained in Physical Terms

Introduction: the foundation

From the following quotation, we get Haldane’s cosmic paradox:

 

“If materialism is true, it seems to me we cannot know that it is true. If my opinions are the result of the chemical processes going on in my brain, they are determined by chemistry, not the laws of logic.” –JBS Haldane (1892 – 1964)

 

The question which Haldane addressed in his musing is fundamental.  Are we in control of our own thoughts?  Do we make our own decisions, or are they made for us by the cold, indifferent forces of nature?  Everything depends on the answer.  If we have the power to choose our actions, then we are responsible for them.  If we have no such power, then we are biological robots, puppets on a cosmic string.

 

If we can choose, then we have a power for which physical science has no explanation.  If we can choose, then we can break free of the chain of causation, at least as it would otherwise govern our moral decisions.  If we can choose, then there must be something more to physical nature than itself.  That “something more” must be a higher reality.  There must be a plan and a purpose for which nature exists.

 

Physical reality cannot be purely physical.  It must exist in a larger context.  Physicalism, also called materialism, is a philosophy that struggles to deny that.  It is not science, but rather, a misinterpretation of science.  Physicalism is riddled with errors, defects and illogic to an astounding degree, so much so that they fill this book, as the reader will see.

 

A better philosophy exists.  It states that the larger context of physical reality includes a creative force.  That force is the reason why physical reality (the universe) exists, and why it takes the form it does.  Physicalism, according to its adherents (called physicalists), depends entirely on random chance, and on the inevitable outcome of blind, indifferent, deterministic forces. 

 

There is an alternative philosophy.  It is based on the will and intent of the creative force.

 

Those of us whose lives are guided by that creative force instinctively recognize it as the God of the Bible.  Belief in God does not arise from reason, but from a faith that empowers reason.  Without that faith, the physicalist embarks on a quest in which he explores a universe that, beforehand, he already believes has no conscious plan, or purpose.  That plan, for the physicalist, plays no role in his explanations of physical reality, and therefore, he is starved of understanding.

 

There is a great deal which the God paradigm cannot explain.  There is a great deal more of which the physicalist paradigm is incapable of explaining.

 

The basis of physicalist thinking rests on a paradox, a cosmic paradox, the one which JBS Haldane correctly pointed out, but then abandoned without further elaboration.  This book takes up where Haldane left off.

 

Can independent reasoning exist in a purely cause-and-effect universe?  If so, then would that be a cosmic paradox?  Well, yes, (we must say), it would.  That is what this book is about.

 

Let’s do a bit of a thought experiment to expand and clarify the principle upon which Haldane touched.  When we run a computer program with the same inputs, we always get the same outputs, within quantum parameters.  That is due to cause and effect:  same cause, same effect.  There is no reason why a purely physical reality should be any different.  The mathematics of physics depends upon that. 

 

For example, if we were to run a program that simulated a computer scientist, that “scientist” could never independently discover that he is a pre-programmed simulation, could he?  He might be programmed to reach that conclusion, or its opposite, but not independently of the program.  His every thought, word and deed would be decided for him, not by him.  Were we purely physical beings, we would be like him.  As Haldane pointed out, our thoughts would be imposed on us by our brain chemistry.

 

This is what Haldane was expressing.  He was spot-on correct, although ironically, he was talked out of it. 

 

Nature could not have come into existence by natural means, because until nature existed, there were no natural means.  The counter-argument, that nature has always existed, runs into some mathematical difficulties involving infinities, as we shall demonstrate in this book.  

 

The late great physicist, Sir Stephen Hawking, apparently a physicalist himself, confronted the question of origin with one of his own.  Referring to physics, he said, profoundly,

 

“…[physics] is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”― Sir Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time 

    

There must be something which “breathes fire” into the universe. This book will detail much of that.  It will show that the physical-material explanation of reality has serious defects.  It will show that Haldane, even though he later recanted his cosmic paradox, was right when he first stated it.

 

We are not helplessly programmed entities. We can know that we are not.  We are aware of our own awareness.

 

What, then, is this “materialism” of which Haldane spoke?  It is a false philosophy, and to understand why it is false, we must describe it in further detail.

 

Materialism is the name of one of a group of philosophies which go by such other names as physicalism, naturalism, humanism and realism.  The basic idea is that nature is completely explained by the laws of physics.  Nothing else is needed.  Nothing else exists.  Nature is all that there is.  It is its own context.  Materialism denies spirit.  It denies that spiritual reality exists.  It rejects notions of the supernatural.  It regards as foolishness any belief in the God of the Bible, in souls, or eternal life after death.  It denies that Jesus was physically resurrected, raised from death.  It denies that we have (or even can have) free will.

 

That is quite a catalog of beliefs.  There are individual variations and degrees, but on the whole, the description just given is what physicalists believe.

 

In fact, however, physicalism itself is not science; it is a philosophy.  Advances in science are increasingly supporting the notion that there is more to physical reality than itself.  We do indeed have free will.  Religious faith does provide insights into reality that are necessary for understanding nature, not as the arbitrary happenstance portrayed by physicalism, but as the orderly, purposeful construction of a divine Creator.

 

To reject these facts simply by labeling them as religious or superstition is unscientific.  But if we reject physicalism, then with what philosophy can we scientifically replace it?

 

Here is a brief summary of a better approach to science.

 

1.       There is a creative force which gives rise to physical reality, and shapes it. 

2.       There is a life force which assembles atoms into the molecules of living creatures. 

3.       There is a principle of conscious experience.  It is the only observed phenomenon which observes itself, and which perceives what is outside itself.  Consciousness resides both in the brain and beyond it.  The brain does not give rise to it.  The brain is its tool.

4.       And there is “free will.”  It is a power of independent agency, which supersedes both physical determinism and quantum randomness.  This power allows humans to make moral decisions which can, in some instances, override what otherwise would be a purely deterministic, cause-and-effect, physical nature.

 

If our thoughts are governed by something more than merely brain chemistry, then there must be something more than physical reality.

 

Another quote from Haldane is appropriate here:

 

“. . . the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”

 

The Grand Hierarchy of Nature

 

In order to credibly challenge the physicalist paradigm, we must first appreciate the grandeur of physical creation.  Can anyone really believe in this many random coincidences?

 

As any scientist can tell you, the universe is larger beyond anything we can imagine.  It is made of components smaller than we can envision.  The parts are organized ingeniously to produce the whole.  Instead of disjointed parts loosely thrown together, it is comprised of the systematic levels of a hierarchy.  Each level is meticulously constructed so that in every minute detail, it is compatible with every other level. 

 

From the tiniest subatomic particle, to the most gigantic array of galactic clusters, each part is precisely integrated into the whole.  Were it not so, were any level to be much different than what it is, the entire universe would be unfit for life.  It would either collapse into a fireball, or spray outward into a frigid mist.

 

The smallest component of physical reality was once thought to be the atom, but now it is known that the atom is composed of even tinier parts, each of which not only fits exactly into the atom, but also, fulfills various functions that make the atom form molecules, planets, stars and galaxies.

 

To form an atom, there are a multitude of particles and forces, each of which fits exactly with the others, in such a way as to give the atom its wondrous properties and features.  Several different varieties of particles called quarks join together to form a proton.  The proton is held together by nuclear forces of two kinds, each of which make the proton able to have the necessary balance of stability and instability.  The proton is surrounded by layers of electron clouds.  The proton and the electron each have an electric charge of equal strength, but opposite polarity, even though the proton weighs 1800 times as much as the electron.  Were the strengths unequal, the atom could not form.

 

Those electron layers (or shells) interact with the electrons of other atoms to produce chemical molecules.  Those reactions produce the entire science of chemistry, a science still not fully explored.  Moreover, biological life forms all use those vast numbers of chemical reactions to construct their protoplasm, that is, the enormously complex structures inside their cells.

 

The words describing this are too simple to convey the enormous intricacy of how atoms form molecules and how molecules form the astoundingly organized parts of cells, parts which are more organized than any city.

 

It does not end there.  Outside the cell wall is an environment that supports the cell, providing it with just the right materials and conditions that promote biological life.  The planet Earth with its atmosphere and oceans not only make life possible, but allows it to thrive.  The planet orbits a star, the sun, which provides light and warmth to energize life.  A moon orbits the planet to provide stability and seasons, tides and weather.  The solar system shields the planet from galactic radiation.  Billions of stars form our galaxy.

 

The galaxy is one of many trillions of galaxies spread across an unimaginable distance.  The cosmos is composed of space-time and energy-mass, of forces, and of mathematical properties that are still not fully understood.

 

All of this works together to provide not only a habitation for life, but also, one in which life, civilization and technology can flourish.  If this were all by chance, humanity would more likely never have survived, and even if it did, to survive only on a planet with so few available resources that we would struggle to eke out the bare necessities, and nothing more.  Instead, we have a planet with cities and hospitals and universities, and much more.

 

We, the creatures who benefit from all this, are not only alive, but conscious, even conscious of our consciousness.  We are not merely life forms, we possess the supernatural power of free will, able to choose between right and wrong, to struggle to do good, to resist evil.

 

We are aware that the universe in which we live was created perfect, but which is now a fallen world, despoiled by our own freely made decision to disobey God.  We know this not through our own intellect, but from divine revelation.

 

Our journey through darkness, through “the valley of the shadow of death,” is guided by that divine revelation, by truths which empower our intellect to read from nature God’s divine will and purpose.

 

This book is intended to assist in that journey, to encourage the belief that physical reality is not a random place without purpose or meaning, but created by God, intentionally designed for us.

 

Of course, you will decide for yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

There is a creative force which gives rise to physical reality. 

 

The following two questions have baffled scientists and philosophers throughout history:  why is there something instead of nothing, and why are things the way they are instead of some other way?

 

Many scientists, but not all of them, offer purely physical answers to these questions.  Their answers tend to involve random chance.  A later chapter in this book explains why random chance cannot operate except in a designed, nonrandom context, but for now, let’s examine the physicalist argument. 

 

The so-called Big Bang Theory is an attempt to explain how the universe began, but it misses the entire point of the question of origin.  It may explain how the universe began from something that already existed, but it fails to even attempt to explain how the beginning began before anything existed. The Big Bang Theory does not, as some say it does, say that everything started from nothing.  It does not address that idea, one way or the other.

 

It is impossible to explain how something can arise from nothing.  To begin with, the concept of nothingness is itself impossible for the mind to comprehend.  We cannot imagine what it would be like without anything existing.  Is it even possible for nothingness, for nothing at all, to exist?  (Would that be a self-contradiction—the existence of nonexistence?)

 

Even if somehow, it were possible, there is no possibility that this “nothingness” could give rise to anything, to “somethingness.”  For one thing, nothingness cannot have any potential.  If it did, then it would not be nothing, it would be something.  Without the potential to give rise to something, then, there is no way for physical reality to have arisen from nothing.  The only way for “something” to exist is if there was already “something” beforehand.

 

The Bible contains two verses which offer to physical science an explanation.  One of these is the well-known first verse, Genesis 1:1, In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. 

 

Less well known is the verse which follows it, Genesis 1:2, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

Verse 1 explains why there is something.  God is the Creator, the creative force which produced something from nothing.  The preexisting, eternal reality is God Himself.  He was not created. He is. He always has been, and always will be.

 

Verse 2 explains why things are the way they are.  It sounds remarkably like quantum physics.  Having created a formless, physical reality, which in and of itself could take perhaps infinite forms, God chose to give it the form it now has.  (This bears some resemblance to what in quantum physics is referred to as the collapse of a wave-function.)

 

Of course, physicalists will point out that these verses do not meet the criteria of the scientific method.  There is no way to perform any experiment to test, nor to mathematically formulate a proof of, God.  Therefore, physicalists leave open the question of ultimate origins, or else, they say that the physical universe has always existed, and that therefore there was no origin.

 

Certainly, the scientific method is indispensable to understanding physical reality, but it is useful only when exploring reality after the fact of its existence—only reality as it already is.  It is utterly unable to explain the origin of physical reality.  There is no physical explanation for physics.

 

The Biblical explanation offers something that physicalism cannot.  The Bible urges scientists to approach science with the understanding that physical reality has a plan and a purpose.  Without that understanding, science leads to techno-barbarism.

 

While science does not, per se, disavow the existence of God, many modern scientists are also physicalists, and are highly skeptical of God’s existence.  Their position seems to be that there is no evidence that God plays any detectable role in nature, including its origin or design.

 

When the Big Bang Theory was first proposed, there was strenuous rejection of it, among many scientists.  They believed that the universe was infinitely old, with no beginning, and therefore, with no Creator.  This was called, the Steady State Theory.  It was, in essence, a theory of “There is no God,” or at least no need for a God to explain physical reality.

 

When the Big Bang Theory was supported by astronomical observation, it became obvious that the Steady State Theory is wrong.  Science now says that the universe did indeed have a beginning.  At the time, this finding was perceived as evidence that there is indeed a Creator.  The theory was opposed on religious grounds, or should we say, anti-religious grounds, despite the science.

 

Since then, however, scientists have returned to various forms of the Steady State Theory.  Instead of claiming that the universe is unchanging, they admit that it has undergone radical changes—but they continue to claim that those changes are part of an infinitely old cycle.  Therefore, they claim, there is no need to explain nature as having been created, and that therefore, there is no evidence of a Creator.

 

What this means is that, the universe is considered to have no objective meaning, and no intentional plan or purpose. To quote Shakespeare, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5)

 

That is a very dismal basis upon which to propose that science should rest.  While a dismal basis is not necessarily a false one, there are other, better, and more scientific options.  When faced with two alternatives, one of which is futile, and the other of which is useful, it certainly makes no sense to prefer futility over utility, unless there is a compelling reason to do so.  There is not.

 

The idea that the universe has a purpose is supported by the fact that life, consciousness and free will not only exist, but that they are foundational to physical reality.  Let’s look into that in the next three chapters.

 

Chapter 2

There is a life force which assembles atoms into the molecules of living creatures. 

 

A biologist was dismayed to discover, as he put it, that the more he studied living things, the less life he found in them.  What he seems to have meant was that, he could not look into a living creature, and find something to which he could point, and say, there it is—life.  Instead, what he found were the components of living things, from tissues and organs, to cells and molecules, none of which in themselves are life.

 

As a result of this inability, biologists have come to the mistaken conclusion that life is not its own thing, not a fundamental reality, but an abstraction.  They define it as a process, a complex continuum of chemical reactions.  They say that life is an “emergent” phenomenon, that it somehow “emerges” from the complexity and organization of atoms and molecules, which form themselves into amino acids, proteins, and the grand hierarchy of organic chemistry.  It is a process, they say, a chain of physical events, not unlike other processes, such as a swinging pendulum, a burning fire, or an ocean wave.  Granted, it is beautiful, complex, and seemingly miraculous, but in the end, they say, it is only a chemical reaction after all.

 

This view of life has a number of flaws.  Let’s begin with the basic concept.  In order for life to “emerge” from nonliving atoms, there first has to be something that will emerge.  Life cannot emerge unless first there is life.  Life already exists before it emerges.  It takes the form of a potential that, what Henri Bergson and others before him termed, Élan vital.   It is the force, the cosmic principle, that organizes atoms and biochemicals into the physical structures of living things. 

 

That is why living things are distinctly different from nonliving things.  There is something more to life than chemical actions.  Living creatures maintain themselves as organized entities.  They even reproduce themselves. They react to their environments in a purposeful way.  Most importantly, only living creatures can be conscious. 

 

In purely physicalist terms, there is no principle which explains why life exists at all, except in terms of pure chance.  Physicalism would be content (so to speak) in a universe without life, where there is no consciousness, and no purposeful action.  Physicalism does not contain these things, nor can it explain them.  Physicalism must deny that life, consciousness and free will are necessary to the existence of physical reality.

 

It cannot be satisfactorily explained how nonliving material can become “alive,” conscious and purposeful, unless there is a life principle, a life impetus of some kind.   Physicalists may argue that chance alone brings life into being, but that chance must include a supporting universe, an unimaginably unlikely circumstance, indeed, an impossible one.

 

This brings to mind the question of how did life begin?  Any scientific theory of the origin of life, depends, as we said, entirely upon chance, according to physicalists.  The more that is discovered about life, and its astounding complexity, the smaller those chances get, until they approach zero.  In order to avoid that zero, scientists have had to prop up their theories of life with many other, even less likely theories (such as infinite universes, discussed later in this book).  Their struggle is doomed to failure—until and unless they begin to seriously consider that perhaps there is something more to life than its physical appearance, more than its chemistry.  But what could that “something more,” be?

 

We can move toward an answer to that question by beginning with one of the major concepts in physics.  It is that of a fundamental particle or force.  For example, an electron is not reducible to any components.  You cannot take an electron apart into smaller pieces.  The smallest piece of an electron is the electron itself.  It is a fundamental particle.

 

(Side note:  String theory holds that the most fundamental physical material is something called a string, but the concept remains the same, that of a fundamental particle, not reducible to component parts.)

 

Life itself is a fundamental.  It is not composed of smaller parts.  It is its own thing.  This is not so radical or new a theory.  Élan vital was a leading theory of life until it was replaced by the modern concept.  Élan vital was thought to have been discredited by biologists, but more recent, indirect, evidence has forced a new look at it.  Élan vital is a principle of nature which guides the chemical formation of life.  One might loosely compare it to a sort of gravity.  The unseen force of gravity causes planets to form from dispersed matter in space.  Gravity is what organizes, so to speak, the planets to circle the sun, and galaxies to swirl around a center.  The life force organizes atoms into biochemicals, into living cells, and into larger living creatures.  That force is conscious and purposeful.  It is divine.

 

(In later sections of this book, we will make the case that consciousness and free will are also fundamental realities.  They do not emerge from matter.  They are mentioned here along with life, because they form a hierarchy, a triunity of LCV [life, consciousness and volition].  The three are not entirely separable.)

 

Élan vital is not a blind, indifferent force.  It is the product of a conscious God, who has willful intent, that is, divine will. Life is purposeful.

 

What is being proposed in this context is obviously not the material, physical paradigm of natural reality, but more of a spiritual overlay of that physical reality—its creation and sustainment.  We are saying that nature cannot have come about by natural means, because until nature existed, there were no natural means.  In other words, nature itself is supernatural.  Since that is what we are proposing, physicalist scientists will dismiss it as “junk science,” religion, superstition, or at best, metaphysics.

 

One should understand, however, that physical-materialism is itself a metaphysical philosophy.  It states that the only reality is physical (material).  Nothing else exists.  Even if it does, it says that there is nothing outside of physical reality that affects physical reality. 

 

This philosophy is not itself science, but many physicalist scientists operate on it as an assumption.  They do so, for much the same reason that the biologist, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, was dismayed:  he could not find life in the chemicals of life.

 

To be sure, any theory which challenges the accepted paradigm, bears the burden of proof.  At present, we have not found the types and degree of proof which will persuade committed skeptics, but the preponderance of evidence is tending (and trending) strongly in the direction of the new paradigm, the God Paradigm.

 

It is disingenuous to dismiss a theory out of hand, based on the accusation, often made, that the new theory is motivated by religious, philosophical, or other unscientific agendas.  Rather, any new theory must be evaluated on its merits, by evidence and reason.  Whether the new theory is relativity, dark matter or unicorns, the standard is the same.  Again, those proposing to replace the old paradigm with a new one, must prove their case.

 

For now, even if we cannot prove conclusively, at this point, to reasoning skeptics, that there is a life force, we can demonstrate, as we proceed through this book, that the God paradigm provides a better explanation of nature than does physicalism.

 

Is Life a Necessary Feature of Reality?

 

When we examine the physicalist paradigm, it soon becomes obvious that there is no imperative in it, for life to exist.  According to some of the proponents of materialism, life is sort of a happenstance, an add-on to the universe.  In that view, the universe could exist simply as a lifeless, barren wasteland, with no living beings to perceive it.

 

If that were the case, it would be hollow, not only devoid of life, but unable to accommodate it.

 

Why does life exist?  We could dig deeper and ask why anything exists.  What if there were nothing?  It is beyond the ability of the greatest minds to conceive. 

 

For example, the late Stephen Hawking, among the greatest scientists to ever have lived, famously asked a question that, whether he intended it or not, addressed that concept.  He asked, “What is it that breathes fire into the [mathematical] equations [of physics] and makes a universe for them to describe?” 

 

In other words, Hawking had mastered, to an astonishing degree, the math and the science of physical reality, and yet he apparently found it empty, devoid of soul, unless there is something more, a fire of some mystical sort.  The very wording of his question brings to mind the Biblical account of Adam’s creation.

 

(Genesis 2:7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

There you have it, the answer to one of the most profound questions in all of physics.  Our minds are not the product of our physical brains.  Our conscious minds are infused into us by the same creative force that brought into being the entirety of physical reality.

 

One of the supposedly great mysteries of science involves the question of “emergence.”  How does order emerge from disorder?  How does life emerge from nonliving atoms and molecules?  How does consciousness arise from the brain?

 

In their attempt to explain these things, scientists tend to work from the bottom up.  To explain life, they begin with atoms, then proceed to molecules, and then—and then they can go no further than that.  There is a huge gap between inert molecules and life, and then to consciousness. 

 

To bridge that gap, scientists have proposed that life is not a thing unto itself, but an emergent phenomenon.  They define life as merely a complex arrangement of molecules that react with each other in the ways that we regard as life.  They assert that it is a grand set of arbitrary coincidences that brings this about, not a fundamental life force, and not intentional design.  They do recognize the fact that, from the subatomic structures of molecules, to the vast arrangement of the cosmos, and everything in between, it all works together to enable life, civilization and technology.  They assert, however, that this need not inevitably have happened, and that physical reality could just as well have existed without us, without life or consciousness or free will—and without these three having any fundamental role, neither causative nor caused.

 

There is no room for free will in physicalism.  It is excluded from possibility, even though lack of free will would render science impossible.  The Haldane cosmic paradox strongly implies that.

 

The physicalist paradigm is so deeply embedded into the thinking of many scientists, that rarely do any of its adherents seem to deeply question it.  They seem not to notice its circular reasoning.  Hawking (as we mentioned earlier) did.

 

The recent history of biophysics involves a process in which we start by going downward from animals to cells, to molecules, to atoms, and even into subatomic particles, some of which we cannot be sure whether they even exist (for example, in string theory).  Along the way we must resort to claims of astounding coincidences.  For example, why do the unequal parts of the atom fit so perfectly together?  Why are the electric charges of the proton and the electron opposite, but perfectly balanced—even though the proton weighs 1800 times the weight of the electron?  Why is the proton made of quarks?  Why do the quarks fit so precisely to form protons?  Why are there strong nuclear forces that bind the protons together in the atomic nucleus?  In other words, why are atoms even possible?

 

Subatomic particles form atoms, and those particles amazingly fit together, in a precise way that makes the resulting atoms then form molecules, and the molecules to form amino acids, then proteins, and then upward to all the many components of the living cell.  At no point is there found any fundamental thing as life itself.  According to physicalism, life simply, somehow, emerges, not as the entire purpose of the project, but as some sort of abstract concept, a sort of byproduct, that is only called life, but is no such thing, because life is said to be only part of a spectrum of physical phenomena, which includes such things as crystals, which exhibit some of the properties of life.

 

Another, more reasonable hypothesis starts at the top, and works downward, to explain physical phenomena in terms of design and purpose.  For whatever reason, this concept has become anathema to physicalist scientists, and so they must dismiss this book as “junk science,” superstition and religion.

 

The top of this hypothetical universal structure is the unknowable creative force, which of course is God.  God, the Creator, planned and designed the physical universe.  That is why all its parts fit together so precisely.  He brought it forth from what physics can describe only as “nothing,” but then, since there is no adequate concept of absolute nothingness, we might instead say that the universe is created from divine essence, the ultimate primary, which cannot be dissected, no more so than can the fundamental electron, and no more comprehensible than is a singularity in physics.

 

In creating physical reality according to His plan and purpose, God then imbued His creation with all the physical forces, but also, with three forces, so to speak, that rise above them all:  life, consciousness and free will (where free will equals volition, independent agency).

 

These three forces reflect God’s attributes as the living God, who is alive, conscious, and exercises divine will.  We humans are designed and created in that image, with life, consciousness and free will.

 

This God paradigm explains why the entire universe, in all its vastness, fits together with the unimaginable precision required of it to support life, humanity and civilization.  No physicalist explanation comes closer than this.

 

Why, then, do so many scientists dismiss any scientific theory which explains physics in terms of divine creation?  Many atheist scientists aver that they would believe in God, if only they could see sufficient scientific evidence that He exists.  My suspicion is that few of them would.

 

Biochemistry Emerges from Life, Not the Other Way Around

 

Life does not emerge from biochemicals.  Biochemistry emerges from life.  Life itself is not a product of physical processes; those processes are a product of life.  Similar things can be said about consciousness and free will.

 

The creative force which created the universe is a living, conscious, and volitional entity which we cannot understand.  It is God.

 

The divine force of life orchestrates the atoms and molecules of biochemistry to carry on the functions which they do.

 

Consciousness does not arise from the brain.  It uses the brain as a tool of consciousness, somewhat as a musician employs a musical instrument to express his music.

 

God shares with us His attribute of divine will, giving to us the power of free will.

 

 

Chapter 3

There is a principle of consciousness, which uses the brain to compose thought. 

 

We must make a distinction between the outward appearance of consciousness, and its inward reality.  The outward appearance is used by medical practitioners to determine to what degree a patient is responsive to his surroundings.  It can be defined and measured. 

 

The inward experience of consciousness, by contrast, can neither be defined nor measured in medical terms.  You know that you are conscious.  You experience that consciousness.  You have the experience of experience, which is self-referential, yet, you can no more communicate your inward experience of consciousness than you could describe the color, “blue,” to someone who has been blind all his life.

 

Consciousness is the only observed phenomenon in the physical universe which observes itself.  That fact sets consciousness apart from all other observed phenomena.

 

It should therefore be no surprise, although it is certainly an amazement, that consciousness cannot be adequately defined.  The dictionary definition of consciousness is, “the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.”  But, the word “awareness” is another word for consciousness, and it does no scientific good to define a word by itself.  Likewise with the word, “mind.”

 

Consciousness, then, is what is called, self-referential.  In that, it resembles the identity axiom in mathematics.  Axioms are self-evident facts.  For example, one equals one.  Obvious though this is, there is no formal proof that it is true.  Only when you try to balance your checkbook, or calculate your taxes, will it become obvious that you have to accept the axiom as true.

 

The take-away from all this is that consciousness is distinctly different from all other observed phenomena.  There is no purely physical explanation for it.

 

It has been asked, what would the universe be like, if there were no conscious beings to experience it?  One rejoinder is that, even if such a universe could exist, what would be the point?  (To which a purist physicalist might reply, there need not be any point, and perhaps there isn’t.)  Another answer is that consciousness is at the very foundation of physical reality, and that therefore, without consciousness, the physical universe could not exist at all.

 

As we continue through this book, the subject of consciousness will repeatedly insert itself into the various topics by which we increase the evidence, and the weight of that evidence, to establish the God Paradigm as the most useful of all foundations of understanding science and physical reality.

 

Without life and consciousness, there could be no free will, and therefore, no science.

 

 

 

Chapter 4

Free Will (Volition)

 

Free will is a power which is greater than both physical determinism and quantum randomness.  This power allows humans to make moral decisions which can override what would otherwise be a purely deterministic, cause-and-effect, physical nature.

 

The physicalist must deny that free will can exist.  That is because, in a purely physicalist universe, all events are determined according to natural law.  In a purely physical reality, it is impossible to overcome natural law.  Every event must dictate the next event, in what is called, the chain of causation, or determinism, or cause-and-effect.  The closest that nature can come to violating causation is through quantum randomness, and even that does not involve free will.  It is constrained by physics within narrow limits.

 

Consider this:  if it could be proved that if, even one time, the chain of causation had been broken, then the entire physicalist paradigm would come crashing down.  We do break it, every time we exercise free will.  The physicalist must insist that not only do we have no free will, but that he himself has no free will, and that therefore, neither of us can control what we think.  If so, then Haldane’s statement, the one that we are calling a Cosmic Paradox, the one about our “brain chemistry,” not logic, controlling our thoughts, is a fact.  The physicalist gets stuck.  He is saying that he himself is entirely enslaved by blind, indifferent forces of nature, and that therefore, he can never know that for sure.  Can he really believe that?  Could anyone base his life on such an idea?

 

Free will is neither deterministic nor random, nor any combination of them.  It is a spiritual power.  Free will makes of us, true participants in our own lives.  It makes us accountable for our deeds.

 

Some have misunderstood what free will is, and is not.  Free will does not allow us to levitate, or turn lead to gold, or other such things.  Critics point to neurological studies that show that brain functions determine what we do, or choose to do, by the chain of causation.  This is what Haldane surely meant by brain chemistry.

 

The full extent of the powers of free will may well be limited by physics, but the important power of free will is that it allows us to freely choose between good and evil.  At the minimum, it allows us to seek to do good, and to resist doing evil.  Those decisions affect the physical world in a way that mindless cause-and-effect does not.  Therefore, free will is not a force of nature, but a force of supernature.

 

Free will is inextricably connected to life and consciousness.  It is part of a triunity, the convergence of life, consciousness and volition.  This triunity is the basis and foundation of the physical universe, not an emergent property of it.

 

It must be mentioned that the physicalist argument against free will introduces a paradox, the one which JBS Haldane noticed, and which I have termed, the Haldane Paradox, a term that has already been applied to something else, so I had to find another name for it, like, The Haldane Cosmic Paradox.

 

In different words, it is this:  if we have no free will, we could never know that, nor ever demonstrate it with independent observation or with logic.  Whichever way one might believe, that we do or do not have free will, would be forced on us by inexorable causation, not by evidence or reason.  In physicalism, nothing is optional.  We would have no choice; we would be compelled by the blind, unreasoning forces of nature to believe that we have free will—or to believe that we do not have it.  For that reason, the one who proposes that we have no free will, would have no standing to criticize those who disagree. 

 

Without free will, our lives would truly be, “a sound and fury, signifying nothing,” a futile life, in a futile reality.  A much more useful paradigm exists.

 

Chapter 5

Randomness and Chance can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

 

There are two kinds of randomness:  pseudo-randomness and true randomness.  As their names reveal, pseudo-randomness only appears to be random, whereas true randomness is the real thing.

 

Pseudo, in this context, means fake.  A good illustration of pseudo-randomness is a standard deck of 52 playing-cards (let us say, bridge).  Once the deck has been thoroughly shuffled, there is no practical way of knowing in what order are the cards.  Draw a card, any card, and guess what it is.  You guessed the three of clubs?  The eight of diamonds?  In any case, your chance of guessing correctly is one in fifty-two, since fifty-two is the number of cards in the deck.

 

This may seem to be governed by random chance, but it is not.  The order of the cards, even after thorough shuffling, is not random.  If we were able to closely observe the shuffling, for example by means of a high-speed recording device, or some other technology, we could follow each card as it begins in the unshuffled deck, and follow it as the deck is shuffled.  When the shuffling is finished, we would know exactly where every card is.  They would not be in random order.

 

The only reason our chance of guessing correctly is so low is that, we cannot normally observe the cards at high speed, and track them.  Therefore, we make a blind guess, based on the rules of probability, that is, one chance in fifty-two.

 

True randomness is a concept of mathematics.  If there is any physical reality to it, it occurs in quantum physics.  In quantum physics, the chance of a nuclear decay event (in an atom) can be calculated with something called a half-life.  Let us say that the half-life of a particular kind of atom is one-hundred years.  Let us say that we have a sample of one hundred atoms of that kind. What this means is that, during a hundred-year span of time, half of the atoms in our sample will have decayed, or in this example, fifty of the hundred will have decayed.  (To be clear, the statistical expectation is fifty; the exact amount may vary.)

 

Two factors are important to our understanding of this kind of randomness.  First, we have no way of predicting which fifty atoms will decay.  Second, we cannot point to a specific cause, in a chain of causation, to explain why one particular atom decayed, when another did not. 

 

There seems to be no external source of spontaneous atomic decay.  Einstein proposed that there is what he called, “something more” to quantum physics, something that we have not yet discovered, that will explain it all in terms of determinism, inevitability, rather than chance.  Many quantum physicists disagree, saying that they have demonstrated absolute unpredictability, or, true randomness.

 

It is also important to notice that, in a small sample of one-hundred atoms, one could not expect that exactly fifty atoms would decay, because each atom’s chance of truly random decay would be independent of whether any other atom decays.  Perhaps only forty-nine would decay, or fifty-one.  According to the laws of probability, it is even possible, although extremely unlikely, that all (or conversely none) of the atoms would decay.  The odds are overwhelming that somewhere in the range of forty to sixty atoms would decay.

 

Whew, that may seem complicated, but the take-away is that true randomness does not depend on what we observe.  In true randomness, it is as if each card in a deck of cards could spontaneously change its place in the deck, with or without shuffling, so that even if we tracked the location of each card, we still would have no way of knowing where the card is.

 

There is one more important take-away, an easy one, which is this:  the only reason our chance of guessing what a card is, that is, why our guess has one chance in fifty-two of being correct, is because (obviously) that is the number of cards in the deck.  If there were one-hundred cards, our chance would be one in a hundred.  If there were ten cards, then obviously, our chance would be one in ten.

 

The point being made here, is that the number of cards in a deck is not random.  The deck is designed that way, intentionally.  The reason that the atom has a specific chance of decay is that the half-life is not determined at random.  The atom is designed that way.

 

When we discuss Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, we will find that a core feature of that theory depends on randomness, the random chance that a gene will mutate.  It is that mutation which physicalists say causes creatures to evolve.  Moreover, physicalists say that evolution is unguided, not purposely directed toward any specific outcome.

 

Randomness can operate only when its parameters are not random.  A random chance can be defined only when its parameters are also defined (52 cards to a deck, six-sides to a die-roll, etc.).

 

The physical universe may seem to be random, but a closer look supports the conclusion that it is designed and created according to a purpose.

 

We will see in the next chapters, that it makes more sense to regard evolution as being intentionally guided by the Creative Force, rather than being randomly caused by blind, indifferent chance.

 

Chapter 6

The physical universe is not random.  It is finely tuned.

 

One of the most interesting scientific observations of the universe is that it is “Finely Tuned.”  It is this fine tuning that makes life possible.  Physicalists agree on this point, but they do not agree on why.  They

attempt to attribute even that to random chance.

 

Here is how that works:

 

The physical universe consists of matter, energy, space and time (although these are not entirely separable from each other).  It also consists of various forces, such as the nuclear forces in an atom.  In addition, there are what are called, physical constants, such as the speed of light.  One might ask, why is the universe composed of these things?

 

Let’s focus for now on the physical constants, because it is handy to use them in a discussion of how the universe is finely tuned.

 

There are twenty-seven physical constants that make the universe what it is.  (Some scientists say less, but we won’t quibble about the exact number of them; it might change with new discoveries.)  These constants are expressed as mathematical quantities or equations, but we’ll keep this simple.  The take-away is that, were any one of these constants much different than what they are, the universe would either collapse into a ball of fire, or spray outward into a frigid mist.  Biological life would not be possible.  Therefore, for the universe to support life, each and every one of its constants has to be precise, within a narrow range of values.  How is it, then, that the universe just happens to fit so neatly into all the requirements for life?

 

One of the physical constants, the gravitational constant, defines the force of gravity.  It has a specific number, represented by the letter, G.  For those who may not wish to keep it simple, the exact value is, (6.6743 ± 0.00015) × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.  For the rest of us, let’s just call it, G.

 

Why is not some other value, the gravitational constant?  How did it get to be that exact value, and not some other value?  If it had been some other value, what would be the effect?  Too much gravity, or too little, would make planets impossible to live on.  Stars and galaxies would not form.

 

According to physicalists, the values of the physical constants were determined at random, probably when the Big Bang occurred.  It is, according to them, just by chance that the universe has twenty-seven physical constants that are, all of them, conducive to life.  All of them.

 

Wait, you may say, the chance of that is so vanishingly small as to be unreasonable as a basis for science.  Physicalists agree.  They agree that if there is only one universe, of limited size, the chance is unreasonably small.  Therefore, they posit, there must be more than one universe, each one of them with randomly determined constants.  How many universes?  An unlimited number of them, they say.

 

This idea is referred to as the multi-verse theory.  No matter how small is the chance of a universe such as ours being formed, an unlimited number of rolls of the dice (so to speak) will make it likely that eventually, the right number of constants, with exactly the right values, will result.

 

But they are wrong.  Here is why.

 

If it is unlikely that our one universe could form as it did, how less likely it is that a multi-verse could form, a universe with its own constants, such that these constants make it capable of giving rise to other universes?  Furthermore, how many of those so-called “bubble” universes would have twenty-seven constants?  How many of those universes would have gravity?  Or atoms?

 

What constants would the multi-verse have?  How many?  What kinds?  From where would it get them, from what natural law or principle?

 

It is as if one had a factory that made dice—not just six-sided dice, but dice with any number of sides.  And why just dice?  Why not cards, and any number of other universe-producing features?

 

In other words, the multi-verse theory does not make a universe like ours more probable, but less.  It does not contribute toward affirming physicalism, but discrediting it as a reasonable theory.

 

Multiverse theory seems to be an awkward, and desperate, attempt to avoid the unavoidable conclusion that the universe is intentionally designed.

 

Some thoughts on the infinite possibilities in all the universes:

 

There may be an infinite number of infinitely large universes.  With God, all things are possible.

 

It is said by physicalists that, in an infinite universe, everything that can happen, must happen, and must happen an infinite number of times.

 

Paradoxically, if this is true, if everything happens, then on the whole, nothing happens.  Every coin flip would land both heads and tails. 

 

If indeed there are many universes, each with its own laws of nature, then the question arises, what law of nature governs how natural laws are formed?  That, then, would be a law of supernature, a hierarchy of laws of natures (plural).  How high would this hierarchy go?  Is there any “final turtle?” or is the hierarchy infinite?

 

The reason for considering these types of questions is that they demonstrate to us that we need a sense of humility.  All we can know about anything is what God reveals to us, according to the ability He gives us to understand.

 

Is Randomness the Final Basis of Reality?  Or is it Divine Will?

 

As we have seen, the physicalist paradigm depends heavily on true randomness.  As we saw in Chapter 5, there are two kinds of randomness, pseudo and true.  Pseudo randomness requires a nonrandom context, such as the number of sides on dice, or the number of cards in a deck.  While statistical mathematics may treat the two kinds of randomness as the same, for purposes of calculation, they are fundamentally different for purposes of explaining the basis of physical reality.

 

If we wish to explain “why things are the way they are, instead of some other way,” then we have two options.  One relies upon true randomness, and the other on intentional design.  Intentional design requires a universal creative force.  It requires divine will.  It requires God.

 

Those who propose that physicalism is true, base their science upon true randomness.  They claim that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to believe in God.  They choose true randomness instead.  Yet, there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the paradigm that true randomness is the correct and fundamental basis of physical reality. 

 

The physicalist paradigm concludes that reality has no plan, purpose or meaning.  Such a philosophy must have consequences. 

 

Chapter 7

Evolution

 

The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, is quoted as having said that, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process [of evolution] that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.”

 

Evolution theory is one of the most socially significant theories in science, because it sparked a paradigm shift in the thinking of scientists, most of whom formerly had accepted, generally, the Biblical account regarding the origin of life.  Evolution theory was, and remains, a powerful launching pad for the physicalist paradigm.  In the minds of many scientists, it discredited the God paradigm. 

 

The alternative theories which oppose Simpson’s statement are many, varied and often discordant with each other.  The most significant of them go under the rubric, Creationism.  The various creationist ideas are mostly from the Torah, and from other scriptures of Judaism and Christianity, most notably, the book of Genesis.  According to the most popularized interpretations, God created the universe, with all of its living inhabitants, over a period of six days.  Many, if not most, creationists assert that all species of plant and animal sprang into being spontaneously, fully formed.  They assert that on the sixth day of creation, God created humans.

 

Many Creationists disagree.  They interpret the Bible differently.  There is not enough space in this book to adequately analyze all the various forms of creation theory, (for example, Young Earth versus Old Earth) much less to compare and contrast them with Darwin’s evolution theory.  Likewise, even among Darwinian evolutionists there are disagreements as to how evolution works to produce various species.  So, in accord with the limitations of this book, we will keep it as simple as possible.

 

According to physicalists, the basic idea of evolution is that billions of years ago, the first living creatures on the earth, probably one-celled creatures, were formed by natural processes.  Most of them were destroyed, but those which survived, passed on their genetic material to a subsequent generation.  In each generation, those cells which were best equipped to survive, passed on their genes, while those less equipped died out.  This principle is known as, survival of the fittest, or, natural selection.  Each new generation that survived, inherited the genes of its ancestors, and in some cases, inherited improved genes, genes that had randomly mutated, or changed, into new forms.  Most mutations are harmful, and died out, but a very few of them provided enhanced survivability, and reproduced.  Rinse and repeat for billions of years, and the gradual result was new and improved creatures.  The genetic changes kept accumulating, so that from simple ancestors, there emerged complex plants and animals.  Eventually, a few million years ago, there emerged from this process of evolution, human beings, including our ancestors, and you and me.

 

That is a very condensed summary of evolution.  The scientists who advance this theory have added much detail, and convinced not only other scientists, but even courts of law.

 

Science marches on, however, and recently, more discoveries in the fields of biology, genetics and chemistry have called attention to certain problems that evolutionists have not been able to solve.  Those problems are considered to be temporary, and physicalists have faith (ironically, since they disavow faith in God) that eventually, those problems will be solved, and that physicalism will, as a result, be vindicated and triumphant over the God paradigm.

 

One of the major problems in evolution theory concerns that of genetic mutations, which are the “engine” that drives evolution.  They key factor here is that mutations are said to occur at random.  This is a bedrock principle of evolution theory.  Random chance, not design or intent, causes genes to undergo change.  The principle of natural selection, not conscious planning, decides which mutations will survive, and which will not.  So says evolution theory.

 

The first person to publish the Theory of Evolution was Charles Darwin. He did so in 1859.  His is the name most popularly linked to the theory.  During the twentieth century, evolution theory gained widespread acceptance among scientists. Since 1859, however, many new discoveries have been made. In Darwin’s time, little was known about the chemistry and structure of living cells.  The inner contents of cells were named, protoplasm, which was thought to be a featureless gel-like substance.

 

In more recent decades, improved microscopes and methods have revealed that the inside of living cells consists of an astoundingly complex structure, more complex and better organized than the most advanced factory made by man, more complex and organized than a giant jet airliner.  There are videos online which give a glimpse of how the interior of even the simplest cell resembles, in function, the coordinated workings of a large, modern city.  Astoundingly, these components of the cell are mere molecules, and yet, they act is if they were purposely planned, manufactured and guided, by an intelligent, intentional mind.

 

Inside the cell is a molecule called DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) which, in an amazingly complex manner, reproduces itself.  Not only that, but when damaged, the cell is able to repair it.  DNA does not do this on its own; it is assisted by other molecular structures that arrive at specific locations within the cell, and do specific jobs, for example, including cutting and mending.  DNA is formed from a long sequence of four molecules (abbreviated as A, T, C and G) which form a sort of alphabet.  That alphabet is formed into “messages” which serve as instructions for the assembly of proteins from smaller molecules called amino acids.

 

The complexity of this is enormous.  The process is nothing short of ingenious, indeed, even miraculous.

 

An important misconception about DNA is that it is the blueprint for the entire body, in for example, humans.  It is not.  Its function is to assemble proteins.  How and why those proteins become assembled into an organism, such as the human body, is one of the unsolved mysteries of physicalist science.

 

It has been calculated that the process, for the cell to have evolved into its present, complex form, by random mutations, would have required more time than the age of the universe.

 

Several books by prominent, well-credentialed scientists, have made a very strong case against any physicalist explanation of life, and also made a strong case that the universe, and the life it contains, are the result of a living, conscious and willful designer.  Two of those authors are, Dr. Michael Behe, and Dr. Stephen C. Meyer.  Also, books on cosmology, including The Privileged Planet, provide an expanded context for demonstrating that physicalist evolution is not the best scientific explanation for the phenomenon of life.

 

Finally, we must emphasize that the theory of evolution denies that evolution has any goals.  To explain this, let us use the following analogy:  When humans arrange building materials and tools for the construction of a house, there is already a goal in mind before construction begins.  The workers then begin working toward that goal.  Everything they do, tends to bring about the final construction of the house, the specific house, that was planned all along.

 

Evolution theory must, by its very foundation, insist that evolution does not work like that.  Evolution, according to the theory, has no plan, no purpose, and no goal in mind, because it has no mind at all—no plan, no planner, no purpose.  It is random.  Therefore, it was never inevitable that humans would evolve.  Nor is it inevitable that we will ever evolve further, to any higher form of life.  Indeed, devolution is more probable than further evolution, because even if natural selection operates to favor the fittest, it is random.  Favorable mutations might happen; they might not.  Haldane seems to have insinuated that beetles may be the fittest creatures.  If so, then our supposed evolutionary future may be to become insects.

 

An alternative to random evolution theory is that of “guided evolution.”  If there is a “life force” that organizes atoms into biochemicals, and into living organisms, then it seems to follow that such a life force would also guide evolution. 

 

Two competing Creation theories, then, seek to explain life as we find it, without relying on chance events.  One of them is that all living things came into being spontaneously, already fully formed.  The other theory is that it is the universe, or nature, that came into being, spontaneously, and that nature contains the life force that intentionally brought about the higher forms of life.

 

Since neither of those two theories depend on random chance, but on intentionality, then we should seek to discover facts, and apply reason, to decide on the more plausible explanation.

 

Ironically, the concept of randomness works against physicalist evolution theory, not for it, since randomness, as explained elsewhere in this book, can operate only within nonrandom parameters.  Nonrandom parameters are designed.

 

 

Chapter 8

Right and Wrong, Morality and Immorality

 

We have been discussing mostly the science side of natural-materialism-physicalism.  We have pointed out some of the flaws in that philosophy, the worldview which dominates scientific thinking.

 

There is another side, just as important, if not more so.  We have not said very much about questions of right and wrong, good and evil, morality and immorality.

 

Science cannot answer those without God.  Scientists have opinionated personal views on these things, but no mathematical formulas.  Natural-materialism does not address such matters, except perhaps in terms of survival, practicality—but not in terms of basic moral principles divinely commanded.

 

Instead, natural-materialism defers to another philosophy, that of secular humanism.

 

Secular humanism is the philosophy that says, “Man is the measure of all things.”  In other words, humans decide for themselves what is right or wrong, or indeed, if right and wrong even exist.

 

Most of us have an intuitive understanding of good and evil.  We know that kindness is good, and cruelty is evil.  It is when we get deeper into the subject that complications arise, clouding the issue.  Is it right to kill in self-defense, or should we turn the other cheek?  In war, if the enemy is hiding behind innocent civilians, should we allow them to kill our soldiers because we refuse to endanger their innocent people?

 

Before we can address those questions, however, we must answer the most basic question of all.  Is anything truly good or evil?  Is there an absolute standard of morality, or do we just make it up as we go along?

 

Natural-materialism, as we already said, has no means of answering those questions.  The closest it can come is to propose that “good” is what contributes to the wellbeing of the species, the survival of the gene pool, or the continuation of the environment.  Those may make sense at first, but who has the wisdom to decide? Who has the wisdom to construct a moral code, or to adjust it once it has been constructed?  Circumstances change.  Do right and wrong also change?  Who decides?

 

Of course, it is straightforward to say that matters of good and evil are revealed to us by God.  Whether taken as a matter of faith, or of reason, most of us can agree that murder and stealing are wrong.  Adultery introduces some disagreement.  The commandment to worship God brings in enormous disagreement.

 

It gets worse.  There is a condition that afflicts many humans, a condition called sociopathy.  While there are clinical definitions, this text will use a descriptive one.  In this book, sociopaths will be described as people who have no conscience.  It would seem that they are neurologically incapable of feeling any sympathy or empathy for other people.  It is as if they are missing part of their brain, the part that feels and reacts with sympathy to the suffering of other people.  Sociopaths feel none of that.  No amount of appeal to their sense of mercy, of guilt, of compassion— nothing at all can change their ingrained sociopathy.  Nothing.

 

This is mentioned, not to be morbid, but to illustrate another fatal weakness of natural-materialism, which is that it has no moral authority.  It cannot refute the implied argument made by sociopathy.

 

Were the sociopath to describe his philosophy, it might go something like this:

 

All I care about is myself.  My own desires are all that matter.  I seek to get what I wish to have, by any means that will accomplish my goal.  The cost to anyone else is irrelevant to me.  If getting what I desire costs you your life, I care nothing about that.  If it costs you pain and suffering, no matter how much and for how long, what do I care?  I would casually kill millions of people without a second thought, casually inflict unspeakable pain upon them, simply to achieve my goal.  The only thing that matters to me is that I get what I want.  The only things that restrain me are my limited abilities to avoid punishment.  My only calculations are those of risk and reward.  As thoughtlessly as you might brush a crumb from your sleeve, so also would I slaughter a million innocents, without the slightest qualm of conscience, so long as it is of any benefit to me, however slight.  Why you do not do as I do, why you allow conscience to restrain you, is a mystery to me, one which I do not care to understand, but only to exploit in you as a weakness.  Your kindnesses to me are wasted, for I will take all that you have to give, and yield in return only what I must, if anything.  Call me whatever insulting names you will, I care not.  If you stand in my way, I will either yield to you if I must, or destroy you if I can.

 

This, then, is the creed of the sociopath, the creed by which lived Hitler and Stalin, by which live dictators in various parts of the world including (as of this writing) North Korea, among others.  Criminologists are well familiar with sociopathy.

 

Question:  what argument, what logic, what reason can persuade evil men to cease their evil, and to work for the benefit and betterment of mankind?  They will respond only to bribes, and to the credible threat of punishment.  If we appeal to their conscience, if we read to them from holy scripture, if we lecture them on their moral bankruptcy or their empty souls, we cannot dissuade them from their cold calculations.  Sociopaths are utterly disinterested in such things.

 

As I heard one such person say, if I save the entire world from destruction, but die in the process, it is worthless to me.

 

Clearly, then, there is no manmade argument for morality.  Such arguments are useful only when presented to people who by their natural dispositions have a conscience, have empathy, and who feel rewarded by good feelings when they help others.  Such people can be offered a social contract, a culture, a set of laws which they will willingly obey, even when they might fear no punishment and seek no reward, even when the cost to them is great.

 

If there is only physical nature, then there is no absolute morality, but only human opinion.  If there is only physical nature, then nature finds no fault, no flaw in the sociopath’s argument.  In a spiritless physical nature, there is neither good nor evil, neither virtue nor vice, neither courage nor cowardice.  All of these are nothing more than momentary chemical reactions among fleetingly temporary neural packages that call themselves human.  Brain chemistry.

 

There is no natural-materialist argument against sociopathy.

 

The God Paradigm holds that there is an absolute standard of morality, by which we are obliged to live, to the best of our abilities.  That standard is the same whether we agree with it or not.  Moral law is as absolute as natural law.  Both are authored by God.

 

Euthyphro’s Dilemma

 

There is an argument against Godly morality, which comes to us from the ancient Greeks. It is known as Euthyphro’s dilemma, a sort of paradox which, adapted to modern times, sets up a sort of trap— a question about God— that, no matter how you answer it, makes God seem like a contradiction. The question is this:   Why are certain things wrong, or immoral, or sinful?  Are certain things wrong only because God says they are wrong? Or does God say they are wrong because they already are? 

 

No matter how we answer, we fall into a trap. 

 

If we answer that certain actions are immoral only because God says so, then we have to ask, why would He say so? Why would God declare certain things to be a sin, when He could just as easily have declared them to be moral and righteous? Is God capricious? Did He just pick out a certain number of actions, and arbitrarily declare them to be wrong or perverse?  Why?  Would He do it to see who would obey, and who would not?  Why couldn’t He just say that everything is permitted, and then there would be no sin, and no condemnation?

 

So this answer is clearly unsatisfactory—but what about the other answer?

 

If instead, we answer that God simply identified things that are already wrong, then we have to ask, what made them wrong?  Would this imply that there is some standard of right and wrong that is external to God?  Are there rules which God must obey?  Isn’t God in total control of everything?

 

So, the second answer is as unsatisfactory as the first.  That is the dilemma.  What are we to do?  Is there an answer?

 

While the dilemma is interesting, it completely misses the point about God.  It is, in a sense, a sort of chicken or egg question, asking which came first.

 

To offer an answer to Euthyphro’s question, I will refer to a surrealistic artwork that you have probably seen illustrated elsewhere, an artwork by Maurits Escher (1898-1972). It is a drawing of two hands. Each hand is holding a pencil. And with its pencil, each hand is drawing the other hand.  In other words, the drawing seems to be drawing itself.

 

Of course, the first thing one notices about this drawing is that it poses a paradox. How can each hand be the author of the other hand? Which hand had begun drawing first? What drew the first hand? We cannot trace backward in time, to see how it came about, that we could have two hands, albeit surrealistically, each drawing the other. There seems to be no possible beginning point.

Of course, the entire point of the drawing (in my interpretation) is to present this unanswerable question, perhaps as a symbol of the unanswerable questions that we face both in matters of spirit, and even in matters of scientific inquiry.

 

The answer to Euthyphro’s dilemma is that God is both axiom and paradox.  He is axiom because although He is mathematically unprovable, He is also ultimately undeniable (unless one accepts the absurdities that result from such denial). He is paradoxical in that, God both reveals our moral code, because it is moral, while at the same time, it is moral because God reveals it. Both occur together as a single, shall we say, drawing. The electron is where we see it, because we see it there.  The chicken and the egg are two aspects of the same thing.

 

God is not constrained by our paltry human logic.

 

The point often being made by people who use Euthyphro’s dilemma as an argument against God, is that morality cannot be defined in any absolute terms.  In their view, morality is constructed by the human mind.  In their view, it is we, not God, who decide what is moral or immoral.  And our definitions of right and wrong depend upon the present, temporary state of society.  Our definitions are situational, and as the situation changes, so do the definitions of right and wrong.

 

The problem with that view is that it can be used to justify any atrocity, if not sooner, then later.  Chaos arises when (in society) there are strongly held, opposing views of what is right or wrong, based not on eternal principle, but on personal self-interest, or fleeting opinion.   For example:

 

Is homosexual sodomy a moral wrong? Does it depend on what the Bible says, or on what we say?  Or, if homosexuality is immoral, is it because its acceptance causes harm to society?  Does it?  What if we cannot clearly demonstrate such harm to everyone’s satisfaction?

 

Is abortion immoral?  Is it the murder of an unborn child?  If so, is such a murder a moral good if the pregnant woman desires it?  Who is to say?

 

Are there moral rights and wrongs between which our human wisdom cannot discern?  Are there pernicious social evils that seem harmless at the time, and yet cause great damage that only much later becomes apparent?

 

I recall an argument that once said that children of women who elect to become mothers, but who also elect never to marry, fare as well as other children.  Years later, some proponents of that argument changed their minds, as further facts developed, when the children of these never-married women had grown to maturity.  The children were not doing well at all.^[1]  Human wisdom was (for the most part) insufficient to predict the full (and harmful) consequences of planned, out-of-wedlock motherhood.

 

When we ignore God, when we set ourselves up as the final arbiters of right and wrong, then we make of ourselves, little pseudo-gods. In effect, we deny that there really is any such thing as right or wrong, and elect instead, to replace these notions with laws, with rules, and with the raw power of enforcement.

 

There are terrible consequences which inevitably follow from such folly.

 

Chapter 9

Do we have eternal souls?

 

What could be of more consequence than whether we have eternal souls?  If we do not, then our lives are purely a physical phenomenon that ends with a physical death.  If so, then there is no eternal consequence to our deeds.  Upon death, all conscious experience would cease forever, after which it would be for us, as if never had we existed.  On the one hand, this may be a terrifying prospect, but on the other hand, there is logically nothing to fear in it.  We would literally become the “nothingness” that we discussed in Chapter 1, neither knowing nor caring.  Eventually we all die, and therefore, all of human history would be consigned to the void.  If the universe itself dies the “heat death” of endless expansion, then the universe would be unperceived, bringing up the question, can the universe exist without consciousness?

 

The evidence that we do have eternal souls includes the fact of our consciousness, and with it, the inability of physical science to explain it in physical terms.  Consciousness is unique among all the observed phenomena.  It cannot be adequately defined.  It perceives itself.  It knows that it exists.  It exercises free will, or at the very least, acts on the assumption that we can.  (Even people who believe that they have no free will, consider which alternative they will choose from among those available.) 

 

The most direct explanation for all this is that consciousness is in fact not a product of physics.  Combined with the items in the first four chapters of this book, it is at least a plausible hypothesis that consciousness is a property of the spirit.  It is at least plausible that the physical world was created by something higher than physical nature.  The best explanation is in what is called the God paradigm, the God axiom, or the God hypothesis.

 

These are certainly at least as plausible as the various theories of multiple or infinite universes.

 

Chapter 10

Are Humans the Highest Form of Life?

 

There are many ways in which humans are distinct from animals, not only in degree, but in the core of our nature.  A listing of some of the ways are included in this chapter.

 

Fourteen Hallmarks of Humanity

 

Characterizing humans as being at the center of nature, or even above it, has been scorned by many who see us as, merely, yet another physical phenomenon of the universe.

 

Such scorn is often primarily emotional.  On the other hand, those who regard humans as spiritual beings inhabiting a physical body, often fail to make a persuasive case to skeptics.

 

Were we to discover (or when we do) that on an exoplanet, there exists a civilization comparable to our own, or even much farther advanced than us technologically, our initial impulse might be to declare that, “We are not alone!”  “We,” being humans.

 

But not so fast.  Despite such a discovery, we might yet be alone after all.

 

What if, on further investigation, we discovered that what we had thought to be sentient exo-creatures were instead, merely beings that had none of the inner thought processes that we have, but were instead organisms which were only outwardly similar to us, but otherwise mindless, with no true awareness of the technology they were creating—somewhat like ants building a nest, but on a vastly larger and more complex scale?

 

Although this is extremely unlikely, the question forces us to ask, what quality truly separates us from other creatures? What makes us human?  Are we truly apes which took an unlikely turn in the purposeless path of evolution?  Or are we more than that?

 

Let’s take a look at a few of the most important features, discoveries or inventions, that might, or might not, distinguish us from other biological creatures.

 

1.      Fire

 

2.      Wheel

 

3.      Art

 

4.      Writing

 

5.      Fiction

 

6.      Agriculture

 

7.      Mathematics

 

8.      Worship of God

 

9.      Scientific Method

 

10.    Relativity and Quantum Theories

 

11.    Electric Motors

 

12.    Space Travel

 

13.   Tools

 

14.    Others, such as games, humor, and so forth.   

 

15.    Anti-gravity (?)

 

In each of these categories, there are those who might quibble over this or that similarity to be found in various animals—but in humans, these characteristics are far more definitive of us than they are of any animal.  Moreover, humanity exhibits all of them.

  

1.       Fire

 

There is no known life form apart from humans which can deliberately start and control fires (flames) as a useful tool.  This essential ability both encompasses and enables our technological advance beyond that of, say, the chimpanzee, or any other creature.  (While a chimp may be taught a rudimentary form of this skill, it is at most only a pale imitation, and could quickly turn to disaster for the chimpanzee and others.)  There is much more to fire technology than starting one.

 

2.       Wheel

 

According to some archaeologists, the pre-Columbian natives of Central America managed to build very large stone structures, apparently without using any wheeled devices—not even a simple cart.  This demonstrates that the invention of the wheel was not necessarily inevitable, not even in an advanced society that was skilled in mathematics, astronomy and architecture—not even when necessity might have been its mother. 

 

Despite this, it is all but unthinkable that modern technology could have been developed without the invention of the wheel.  Sorry, chimps; only humans have invented and used the wheel.

 

3.     Art

 

While some purists might dispute the importance of art as a technology, art is not necessarily always for “art’s own sake.”  It has a dual importance.  First, of course, it is expressive of the human spirit in its many dimensions, from the earliest cave paintings onward.  This feature of art should not be underestimated.  Art expresses humanity, both for better and worse.

 

But, very importantly, the ability to interpret the existing world through art, is also connected to the ability to imagine, design, and innovate new technology.  Many artists would not connect their work to that of the engineering draftsman, but his drafting skills would likely never have been developed without the artistic impulse that is unique to humans.  And without this skill, especially before computer assisted design, technology would have remained far less advanced than otherwise was the case.

 

4.      Writing

 

Writing is so common today that we often do not appreciate its truly revolutionary impact.  Writing was the first significant, precise means of mass memory storage external to the brain.  It allows communication across not only vast distances, but across centuries, from generation to generation.  No animal apart from humans has ever developed writing.

 

5.      Fiction

 

Fiction, as in plays and literature, has been called a form of lying, but without the intent to deceive.  Only humans can read or watch fictional portrayals and understand that they are not literally true.  Only humans can practice that “suspension of disbelief” without being deceived.  We can immerse ourselves in a play or a novel, and “care” about the characters, even though we know that they do not exist in real life.  Furthermore, we can detect and understand symbolism in such works, which is yet another hallmark of humanity related to abstract thinking.  Thus, fiction may be more than mere entertainment, but a philosophical tool.  Jesus told parables to convey important truths.

 

6.       Agriculture

 

The ability to grow food and store it, in quantities to last an entire year, freed human society from the need to hunt and gather food each day.  It became a safeguard against short periods when wild food was utterly unavailable, during which time hunger, perhaps starvation, might destroy a clan or tribe.  Although there is a kind of ant (leafcutter) which seems to cultivate fungus for food, this is a far cry from the complex ability of humans to schedule food production.  Society’s customs and laws are largely traceable to the social structure imposed by agriculture.

 

7.       Mathematics

 

Mathematics gives humanity not only the ability to count and calculate, but also, to measure indirectly, in cases where direct measurement is impossible.  For example, the Pythagorean theorem allowed men to calculate the distance across a river, before ever having crossed it.  We were able to calculate the distance to the moon before ever getting there.  Mathematics is so foundational to physical reality that one prominent physicist (Dr. Max Tegmark) has stated that mathematics does not merely describe the universe, it is the universe.

 

8.       Worship of God

 

No creature other than humans has a well-developed sense of the Creator, the Supreme Being, the source and foundation of all justice, mercy and salvation from sin.  While it is fashionable to credit primitive superstitions with the origin of human worship of God, this is an explanation more of convenience than demonstrated fact.  Only in the context of God, does human life have a plan, purpose and meaning.

 

Expressing this in the form of a haiku might give us the following:  Birds Fly, Fish Swim, Humans Worship God.

 

9.      Scientific Method

 

It is likely that few non-scientists understand the critical role of the scientific method in modern civilization.  Introduced late in human history, it imposed strict discipline on human thinking.  Until then, brilliant minds had generated strong advances in science and technology, but they had mistakenly believed that thought and contemplation alone could unravel the mysteries of the universe.  The scientific method is highly structured.  It depends on physical experiment, repeatable by skeptics.  Science is not all-encompassing, and its methods do not always work well in, for example, areas of philosophy and religion, but even so, the scientific method has revolutionized our ability to comprehend and even predict, physical phenomena, with amazing detail and accuracy.

 

10.    Relativity and Quantum Theories

 

These two theories are counter-intuitive, meaning that they defy ordinary commonsense.  Even so, they have proved themselves to be demonstrably accurate and predictive explanations of physical phenomena.  There are of course many other areas of science which might fit this description, but these two in particular reshaped scientific thinking in the early years of the twentieth century, and have prepared the way for many other innovations among scientists.  So there, chimpanzees.

 

11.   Electric Motors

 

Nicola Tesla was the applied scientist’s equal of pure scientist Albert Einstein.  In a figurative sense, Tesla invented the wheel.  Remember we said that the invention of the wheel was not inevitable.  This is also true of Tesla’s electric motor.  Tesla’s motor is at, or near, the heart of modern technology, and had it not yet been invented, we might still be struggling to implement a practical electronics technology.

 

12.   Space Travel

 

Clearly, no creature on earth, other than humans, has ever developed the ability to travel to the moon and back, or to send photo reconnaissance space-ships to Mars, Titan and beyond.

 

13.   Tools

 

Oh no, you might say, we have seen videos of a chimpanzee modifying a stick to poke edible termites out of a nest.  We have even seen a bird using a twig.  All of that is true.  But there is more to toolmaking than just that.  Only humans make tools to be used for making other tools.  For example, we use axes to chop wood to make spears. 

 

14.   Others

 

Others too numerous to mention herein, for example, humor and games and puzzles, among many more, are hallmarks of humanity.  Creatures other than humans exhibit playing, even mischievousness, but nothing on the order of comedy, chess or “slide” puzzles.  We intentionally make problems for ourselves just to solve them.  We form artificial conflicts, such as in chess, or sports, and struggle to win them, after which we shake hands and go home.  We value good sportsmanship.

 

15.   Anti-gravity (?)

 

But wait, you well might say, humanity has not yet developed a true anti-gravity device, something which harnesses an as yet undiscovered law of nature, one that allows us to negate the local effect of gravity, without using the brute force of rocket engines and the like.

 

Indeed, we have not done so, and who knows, may never.  I include this final characteristic in the list, for reasons that are partly symbolic, partly prospective.  Humans have the ability, unique among animals, to imagine doing things that have never been done before, that defy the limitations of the possible—and then to make them possible.

 

 

Chapter 11

Can the brain understand itself?

 

The human brain is said to be the most complicated and amazing item of machinery in the universe.  It has been said to be more complex than the most advanced computers ever made.  Moreover, it is said to be conscious, to think, to imagine, to calculate, to remember, and to do all of the astounding things that are associated with living, conscious human beings.

 

But wait.  The physical evidence does not support those descriptions.  On the contrary, there are strong indications that the brain does not do all of those things.  How could that be?

 

The brain might be compared to the function of, listening to music on a radio.  The radio does not produce music; it receives radio waves from a distant, outside source.  The radio translates (so to speak) those radio waves into sound waves.  The result is that we hear music.  If one looks inside the radio, however, he will not find the musical orchestra or band which plays that music.  Likewise, looking inside a brain will not result in our seeing thoughts, or consciousness, or memories.

 

(Remember the anecdote about the biologist who found no life in living things, but only the activities of life.  Where, then, is the actual life?)

 

In a purely physicalist world, the brain could not be conscious, because as we have seen, consciousness is not a physical thing.  Furthermore, the brain is not a computer, and indeed, there are vast and fundamental differences between what a computer does, and how it does it, when compared to the brain.

 

Let’s start with memory.  The computer has what are called “write” and “read” functions.  The write function enables it to record data into its “memory” locations.  The read function allows the computer to locate that data in its memory, and display it on a screen, for the user.

 

The brain has nothing like that.  No such mechanisms have been found in the brain, and there is no physical explanation as to how the brain actually does remember anything.  It is not known how the brain could record memories, how it could store them, and how it might recall them.  It is true that during brain surgery, an electrode inserted into the brain can spontaneously cause the patient to vividly remember a long-forgotten memory, and for this reason, it is concluded that the brain has stored that memory, and then recalled it—but where is the user?  Where is the perception, the perceiver, of those memories?  That question is vastly more important than it may at first seem.

 

One can pluck a harp string and get an audible note.  Is the electrode inserted into the brain, and getting a random memory, analogous to that?

 

Undoubtedly, there is a connection between the physical brain and memory, but does that mean that consciousness, or memory, is only physical?

 

We mentioned the comparison of the brain to a radio, but a better analogy might be to a musical instrument, let us say a guitar.  Guitars do not produce music, but rather, music is played on the guitar.  There is much more to guitar music than the guitar itself.  There must be a musician who plays the music on the guitar.  There must be someone who wrote the music.  And there must be a listener to whom the music is played, a listener who can receive, understand, appreciate and enjoy the music.

 

Likewise, when the electrode instigated the recall of a memory, it was sort of like plucking one guitar string and producing a musical note.  The brain is the musical instrument, from which the music (or musical note) seems to emanate, but there is much more to memory than the brain.

 

The evidence leads us to conclude that we, our souls, do not reside in the brain.  It might be said that we are not in our bodies, but around them.  Or, it might be that our consciousness is in another realm of existence, not this physical one.

 

It has been said that we are not physical creatures with a spirit, but rather, spiritual creatures inhabiting a physical body in a physical universe.

 

While physicalists may refer to the brain as a biological computer of some sort, it is important to remember that computers require a user, and its programs require a programmer.  That is very important.  Indeed, it tells us much more about the brain than physicalism ever can.

 

The Ship-in-a-Ship Paradox

 

In order for the human brain to understand the human brain, it would have to model that brain inside the brain.  This would present a paradox as follows:

 

There are some artists who have been able to construct a model of a sailing ship in intricate detail.  Imagine then, that you are on board such a ship—the real ship, not a model.  Touring the ship, you find a table bearing the model of that same ship.  The captain proudly states, “This model was specially commissioned at great expense, and it is a miniaturized copy of this ship, accurate in every detail.”

 

“Every detail,” you respond, “except one.”

 

“What?  No!  The model replicates every detail of this ship.  Which detail do you say is missing?”

You answer, “The model.  Since this ship contains a model of itself, then for complete accuracy, the model would also need to contain a model of itself.”

 

“You have a point.  Very well, then, I will have the artist place a model of the model inside the model.”

 

You continue, “And that model inside the model, would also have to contain a model of the model.  Furthermore, every model inside a model would have to contain an even smaller model inside itself.  In other words, you would have to have an infinity of models of the models, each one smaller than the model which contains it.  There would be no end to it.”

 

So also, it is with the brain.  If the brain is to understand itself, it would have to explain how it understands itself.  The brain can understand an airplane, to the extent that it can depict a model of that plane.  But the brain can never understand itself, because it can never contain a conceptual model of itself.  It can never contain a model of the model of the . . . ad infinitum.

 

Likewise, the human brain can never understand the universe, because the brain is part of the universe, a subset of it.  The part can never understand the whole of which it is a part.

 

In a similar manner, we can never understand God, nor can anything in the universe understand Him.  We can only know that much of God which He both reveals to us, and gives us capacity to understand.

 

 

Chapter 12

Do we know anything?  How do we know we know?

 

The question of knowledge is circular, recursive, or perhaps even unanswerable.  Therefore, in keeping with our “keep it simple” approach, let’s take it a step at a time.

 

The physicalist approach to knowledge centers on the brain.  The brain is a highly organized bundle of neurons that receives stimulation from the neurons in the rest of the body, and then somehow processes those stimuli into information.  The brain does this by analyzing the data it receives, applying reason, and drawing a conclusion.

 

Of course, this is an extremely simple description, but science can do little better than that, because the actual physical mechanisms of thought are a mystery to researchers.  There are many expert theories, but none of them are convincing enough to be considered final and complete.

 

Therefore, we must turn to philosophy, and in particular, epistemology.  We then arrive at the model of brain, nerve endings, and external reality.  Simply put, the outside world stimulates the nerve endings, which then stimulate the brain. 

 

For example, your five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell) operate on the principle that nerve endings are stimulated by light, sound waves, and other physical forces.  These trigger a chain of neural reactions that travel along the outer nerve cells to the specialized nerve cells of the brain.  Inside the brain, the nerve cells engage in an enormously complicated network of interactions with each other.  The outcome is that the mind perceives its surroundings.

 

But then, an interesting question arises.  How does the brain know that the nerve cells are sending it accurate data?  How does the brain really know that there is anything outside of it, out there?

 

Renee Descartes pointed out that there is only one thing which one can know with certainty.  His famous maxim is, “I think, therefore I am.”  The only thing that one can consciously know is that he is conscious.  As we say repeatedly when the issue is encountered, consciousness is the only known phenomenon which perceives itself.

 

This fact has led to a number of fanciful theories.  One of them is that there is no actual physical reality, but only consciousness, or thought.

 

Reality is Not What We Think it is

 

Our five senses give us vital information about our surroundings.  With it, we can locate food and avoid dangers.  In addition to all that, our senses let us enjoy music, choose friends, and understand nature.  Because of all these things, and many more, we trust our senses.

 

But sometimes our senses mislead us.  Optical illusions (of course) are not what they appear to be.  Brightly colored fruits in a field of flowers might be harmful.

 

Finally, there are many things which our senses do not detect at all.  Carbon monoxide is invisible and odorless, and deadly.

 

Players of computer games can enjoy looking into an imaginary world where there are people and animals and trees and castles, all of which can make us forget, for a few moments, that they are not real.  What we see on the computer screen are only images, drawn for us by computer programmers.  Behind the images, there are only the so-called “ones and zeroes” of electric charges inside the circuitry of computer components.  They seem utterly unlike the visual images which they cause to appear on the display.

 

The question arises, is reality like that?  Is what we see, really there, in the way that we see it?  Or, is what we see (and hear, etc.) only the appearance of something deeper, something like the ones and zeroes inside a computer?

 

Some very accomplished scientists say that we never see the underlying reality.  The physicist, Max Tegmark, has said that mathematics not only describe the universe we see, but, the universe (physical reality) is, in fact, that math.  The late great scientist, Sir Stephen Hawking, famously said, “. . . it is just a set of rules and equations.”

 

It is useful to ask such questions, but the reality that we see, is the one with which we must deal in our everyday lives.  True, that solid object that seems to us so hard, is in reality mostly space, the space between atomic nuclei and their surrounding electrons.  It is made to seem solid because the electromagnetic forces of those atoms are difficult to penetrate.  Even so, when we bump into that object, we cannot ignore its hardness.  We cannot ignore its reality as a solid object, even if it is mostly space.  Brick walls are hard, period.

 

In that sense, “perception is reality,” (not only as a political statement). Our conscious perception is inseparably intertwined with the underlying reality of the physical world.  It is not created by that world, as physicalists would claim it is, but it is a fundamental reality above the material world.

 

The material world is the creation of God, the Creator, the creative force.  The material world is underlay by spiritual reality.  The physical universe is temporary.  Spiritual reality is eternal.

 

Chapter 13

The Boltzmann Brain

 

In the preceding chapter, we asked, how do we know that we know?  Here is an interesting twist to that question.  It concerns the Boltzmann Brain.

 

The Boltzmann Brain is not a real brain (at least as far as we know!) but rather a thought experiment, a “what if” question.  It’s a fun exercise.

 

The “what if” is this:  what if material things could randomly pop into existence?  In a sense, this is what physicalism proposes.  Physics tells us that in a vacuum, subatomic, virtual particles can be formed spontaneously, and just as quickly, vanish.  This is a random process.  It is happening continuously throughout all of space, kazillions of time per second.  Since the net effect is zero, the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.

 

Does this really happen?  Can large objects also appear at random, and then disappear?

 

If so, then logic tells us that it is more likely for a small, simple object to pop into existence than a large, complicated one.  However, given an infinite amount of time and space, the least likely events will eventually happen, and they will happen infinite numbers of times.  Therefore, it is possible, even likely, for an entire universe to form by chance alone.

 

This sounds preposterous, which is part of the reason why Ludwig Boltzmann suggested the thought experiment which bears his name.  Boltzmann proposed that it is more likely for a brain to form spontaneously than for a galaxy or a universe to do so.  Therefore, in his thought experiment, a brain forms spontaneously, complete with memories of a life never lived.

 

The question is then posed, how do we know whether or not we, ourselves, are Boltzmann brains?

 

 

Chapter 14

Crossing the Barrier:  Can Artificial Intelligence Ever Become Conscious?

 

Few, if any, new advances in technology have ever occurred so suddenly, and with such transformational impact, as artificial intelligence (AI).  While it is still a work in progress, the speed of its development is said by experts to be exponential, that is to say, even its speed is speeding up. The next five years may outpace the previous fifty.  What used to be considered outlandish predictions are now being made routinely by sober-minded technologists.  Indeed, basic forms of AI already have a secure foothold in many fields that are taken for granted.  Your cell phone uses it.

 

One of the most seemingly outlandish predictions is that at some point in the next five to ten years, AI might become conscious.  This has more than merely philosophical implications.  An AI that can design its own improvements can become impenetrable to scrutiny.  It can form its own goals, and embark upon programs that may use humans as means to its ends.  Those ends may be contrary to human ideals and aspirations.  In short, AI may use us, and then discard us.

 

Is this all a dystopian fantasy?

 

The question of AI gaining consciousness forces us to ask, what is consciousness, and from where does it come?  To be sure, there is an enormous barrier between unliving machinery and a living, purposeful intelligence.  The last time that barrier was crossed was when mankind became conscious

 

We have already noted that the late Sir Stephen Hawking, among the greatest scientists to ever have lived, famously asked a question that, whether he intended it or not, addressed that barrier.  He asked, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” 

 

In other words, Hawking had mastered, to an astonishing degree, the math and the science of physical reality, and yet he apparently found it empty, devoid of soul.  The very wording of his question brings to mind the Biblical account of Adam’s creation.

 

(Genesis 2:7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

There you have it, the answer to one of the most profound questions in all of physics.  Our minds are not the product of our physical brains.  Our conscious minds are infused into us by the same creative force that brought into being the entirety of physical reality.

 

Again, this is not merely a philosophical exercise.  It reveals to us the greatest, and arguably the most tragic misstep of human science, the hypothesis that nature is its own explanation, the hypothesis that nature has no plan, purpose or meaning, that it is, to adapt from Shakespeare, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Macbeth Act 5, scene 5).

 

It is this misstep by science that is leading us toward the abyss, toward a catastrophe that we are meticulously engineering for ourselves. 

 

Will artificially intelligent computers become conscious?  That brings us back to the questions, what is consciousness, and from where does it come?  It does not, as physicalists would have us believe, arise from, or “emerge” from, complexity.  The superficial appearance of life, consciousness and volition may indeed be produced by machinery, but that appearance is no more than that, an illusion.  Your life, your consciousness and free will are not illusions, of course, for an illusion cannot have an illusion.  Descartes’ famous axiom, “I think, therefore I am,” might be restated as, “I perceive that I exist, therefore I exist.”

 

At this point, I may get ahead of my skis, admittedly so, but think about this.  There are Biblical prophecies that until the advent of AI were considered so ludicrous as to be merely metaphorical, with no basis in physical reality.  One of them is the prediction that, for five months, people will be in such unbearable agony that they will beg for death, but death will not come.  (Revelation 9:5-6 KJV) They will even be unable to kill themselves. 

 

That is no longer a metaphor.  A brain chip is now in the works that is intended to have medical benefits to people suffering from seizures.  It will prevent them.  This chip can also be integrated into an AI network, by radio transmissions, in which the AI monitors and influences brain waves.  The network will possibly have absolute control over those in whom the brain chip has been implanted, able to send into the brain information and perceptions—including the sensation of unbearable torment.

 

Which gets us to the final question of artificial consciousness:  from where does it come?  We cannot imagine that consciousness in an evil AI comes from God, but what about an impostor of God?  The anti-Christ?  Satan?  Can Satan breathe his own life into an artificially intelligent computerized neural network?

 

Chapter 15

Paranormal Science:  Is it Time?

 

Among the critical factors that caused science to revolutionize human technology, are repeatable experiments.  The process of observation, hypothesis, experimentation and duplication by indifferent skeptics is what makes modern civilization different from medieval superstition.  Science not only democratized technology, it revolutionized our entire way of thinking.  It is no longer enough to apply philosophical analysis to answer questions of science.  We require hard evidence.

 

The success of the scientific method so far is largely due to the existence of what might be called, “low-hanging fruit.”  Physical phenomena provide a fertile field for observation, and they invite experiments.  Once that low hanging fruit has been exhausted, however, science will find the going more difficult.  What is happening now in science is a drift away from the gold standard of repeatable experiment. 

 

For example, relativity and quantum mechanics are truly scientific fields, but they are beyond the abilities of most people to understand, much less investigate.  Hard evidence comes to us through the advanced technology to which they have given rise.  I can question the ideas of Albert Einstein, but not the accuracy of my GPS, which is dependent on his relativity theory. 

 

That, however, is not quite the same as repeatable experiment.  Few of us can really understand the link between relativity theory and our GPS devices.

 

As science advances, we increase the degree of separation between accessible science and the realm which only geniuses can navigate.  Moreover, there are now sciences that have completely blurred the distinction between the scientific method and philosophical analysis.  Exobiology is one.  It creates untestable hypotheses about life on other planets, life which has yet to be shown to exist—if indeed it does exist at all.  Multi-universe theory is even farther afield.  We cannot test for, nor experiment with, other universes—and in fact, for all we know, they may not exist, except in the imaginations of science fiction writers.

 

Is there no way to restore the scientific method to explain common observations of phenomena?  Are there any unexplored, real phenomena to study?

 

There is one field which has long been excluded from serious scientific inquiry, and indeed, is all but “forbidden science.”  It is derided as “junk” science, even as superstition.  Perhaps the time has come for serious scientists to take a new, and more scientific, approach to it.

 

That field is called “paranormal” phenomena, and before you scoff too loudly, allow me to explain my personal reasons for advocating research, despite my expectations of ridicule.  That expectation has kept me silent for decades.

 

The house in which I spent my high school years, and months thereafter, was genuinely haunted.  The phenomena were consistent and extended, and were experienced by everyone in the household, plus by many visitors.  They were definitely not, I repeat not, of the horror movie variety.  Quite the opposite, we in the family grew accustomed to the sounds and other evidences, convincing evidences, of the presence of “unseen residents.”  Even the cats would occasionally interrupt their play, abruptly and simultaneously, to triangulate their gaze on what to us was an invisible object moving through a room.

 

I will not try to convince anyone of all this, and ironically, I am usually very skeptical of reports of hauntings, especially of dramatic ones.  Were it not for my experience, I, too, would scoff.  That said, the phenomena are widespread and well-documented anecdotally, especially (it seems) in Europe.

 

I am not recommending an effort comparable to the government investigation of UFOs.  That program, in my view, is an unserious effort at best, to understand a potentially paradigm-shifting phenomenon.  Government studies of the paranormal have been conducted, but were abandoned when no military applications were found.  (Military incentives seem to dominate much of science research.)

 

Instead, I propose a very modest approach.  It is that statistical methods should be employed with the aim of categorizing various paranormal reports.  Such categorization would serve the purpose of identifying which, if any, reports are worthy of intense study by experts in physics, psychology and other fields.

 

Why would we do such a thing?

 

As I mentioned earlier, the value of scientific studies has been made apparent by advances in technology.  Is there any possible benefit to be gained by breaching the barrier between the normal and the paranormal?  Might there even be unacceptable risks?

 

I remain ignorant.  My six-plus years of personal experience in this matter has yielded me no material benefits, but it did, in subtle ways, change my worldview.

 

Perhaps there has been a similar, under-appreciated product of government reports of UFO sightings:  we have no proof, but there are subtle effects on our psyche, when we contemplate new frontiers of what may be possible.  If we have reason to believe that something “can be done,” we are more likely to do it.

 

If reality is an ocean, our total knowledge of it is less than a drop of water.  Paranormal research may turn out to be a waste of time; on the other hand, there might be an ocean out there.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 16

The Coin-Toss Inevitability Proposition and Cosmology

 

The physical universe cannot be infinitely old.  A paradox prevents that from being the case.  The paradox is that an infinitely old universe would have ended an infinitely long time ago.  Since that would not be possible, the universe must have had a beginning in the finite past.  The following proof requires a lot of words, so you may (of course) skip to the next chapter.  Here is the proof.

 

There are two distinct kinds of infinity: completed and incomplete.  They are easily confused with each other because they sound like each other.  The confusion is due (in part) to their linguistic, etymological definitions, but we shall overcome that confusion in this text.

 

1. Completed infinity refers to the completed number of geometric points along any finite line segment.  Those points cannot be counted one at a time, because geometric points are of zero length each.  They have to be counted all at once. There are an infinite number of geometric points in any finite line segment.  In this text, completed infinity is hereinafter termed simply as infinity.

 

2. Endlessness, or incomplete infinity, on the other hand, while similar to infinity, is different.  Endlessness refers to the countable number of finite line segments along a line that extends without end.  This is usually defined as a line of infinite length, but the line is never completed. Since infinity cannot be reached by counting, in, finite units, we shall refer to it as an endlessly long line.  It is endless without ever reaching infinity.  Counting the finite line segments on an endless line is a process that never ends.  It is always possible to add one more to an endless sequence.

 

The foregoing statements are important to an understanding of the Coin-Toss Inevitability Proposition and its implications to cosmology.

 

The Coin-Toss Inevitability is a mathematical/philosophical proposition that avers that, in any endless series of coin tosses, the bettor must eventually lose all that he has gained in all the preceding tosses, even if the odds per toss are in his favor.

 

This proposition demonstrates that the universe, indeed physical reality, cannot be infinitely old.  At some point, it would already have ended.

 

The proposition is counter-intuitive but valid, given the reasonable circumstances of the proposition.  Those circumstances (rules) are as follows: 

 

Each toss of the coin must randomly result in exactly one of only two possible outcomes, labeled as heads or tails.  Each of the two outcomes has a finite probability greater than zero of occurring.  The coin-tosses are made one at a time in sequence.  Each result of heads results in the bettor winning an amount of money that was determined before each coin-toss, or likewise losing a predetermined amount of money if the result is tails. The only limit to the number of coin-tosses is that they end when the bettor has lost all the finite amount of money that he had available to bet at the beginning of the sequence. 

 

As a result of these circumstances (rules), the total number of coin-tosses will always, by necessity, be a finite integer.

 

The proposition is that at some finite point in the otherwise limitless sequence of coin-tosses, the bettor will have lost all the gains he previously had made.  His final net gain will not be more than zero.

 

For example, let us say that the bettor begins with one hundred dollars available to him for betting.  Each time the coin lands heads, he wins a dollar.  Each time the coin lands tails, he loses a dollar.  Let us further say that the first three coin-flips all land heads, so that his winnings, at that point, total to three dollars.  As the coin continues to be tossed, however, he will eventually lose all three dollars, plus any additional gains he might make.  It is inevitable. 

 

As the sequence of coin-tosses continues, the bettor’s gains may increase beyond three dollars.  In an extraordinary case, his gains may exceed a million dollars, a billion, or even vastly more than that.  But the sequence of coin-flips must continue until eventually, inevitably, the bettor’s gains must fall to zero, at which moment the series of coin tosses ends.  A new series may begin, but this one has ended.

 

The foregoing is true because the odds of losing, that is, losing all previous gains, however small the chances, are always greater than zero.  The chances of the number of tails eventually exceeding the number of heads is always greater than zero. 

 

That is a fairly simple example, but the same outcome applies to any series of coin-tosses, even when the odds seem to favor the bettor.

 

For our second example, let us say that the bettor begins again with one hundred dollars available to him for betting, but this time the odds are changed.  Every result of heads wins for the bettor, two dollars, while each result of tails loses only one dollar.  (Win two, or lose one.)  Let us say further that the first three coin-tosses (as before) are all heads.  The bettor’s total gain is now six dollars at this point.  Let us say that the next coin-toss is tails, reducing the gain by one dollar, so that the net gain falls to five at this point.

 

The bettor is comfortable with this, knowing that, on average, he will continue to win one dollar for every two coin-tosses.  The more tosses that are made, the greater his gain will become (by statistical expectation).  That result would be true, except for one fact.  The series of coin-tosses must continue, and can end only when all of his gains are reduced to zero.  Inevitably, they will.  At any finite point in the sequence, the bettor’s odds are favorable, but the odds of him eventually losing all of his gains are greater than one, and thus, inevitable.  True, the bettor will probably die a wealthy man, since his lifespan is finite, and the series of coin-flips will in all likelihood extend beyond the years of his lifespan.  There is, however, a possible glitch that dooms the bettor to (alas!) losing all his gains before he can spend any of them.  That glitch is to use a super-fast computer to make the coin-tosses electronically (or otherwise super-fast) so that the number of coin-tosses per second is unimaginably large, while still remaining finite.  Here, we are speaking not of practical results, but of the principle of inevitability, regardless of the finite probabilities.

 

No matter how we adjust the odds, the principle remains the same.  The bettor cannot win in the longest-term.  For those who doubt this, it should be clear that the key to the inevitability is that, when the gains fall to zero, the sequence ends.  If it did not end, if the sequence were endless regardless, then at many times during the sequence, the net gains would fall to zero or less.

 

Note also that if the number of coin tosses were to actually reach infinity, there would be an equal number of heads as of tails.  If the payout were more for heads than for tails, the bettor would have gained an infinite amount.  If the payouts were the same, he would break even.

 

Actual infinity, however, can never be reached in any sequence of finite increments.  Infinity can only be approached, never reached by counting (increments).  This is the solution to the seemingly paradoxical question, how many finite integers are there?  There are an endless number of them, but never an infinite number, if one distinguishes between endlessness and infinity.

 

How can this principle apply to the duration of physical reality?

 

In the classical Steady State Theory, the universe is infinitely old.  That cannot be true for several reasons. 

 

=====First, it would require that infinity has incrementally been reached—not merely approached, but actually reached. That is not possible.

 

Indeed, infinity can be said to exist, to have been reached, in a finite context, such as the number of geometric points of zero dimensions along a finite distance.  But such a case does not involve increments.  The distinction is crucial to understanding the principle.

 

Any finite length can be reached by adding to the distance already measured.  An infinite length cannot be reached in this manner.  Without using increments, a finite length consists of an infinite number of geometric points, because those points are infinitely small, that is, zero.

 

That is not the same as measuring the age of the universe in increments of finite time-lengths.  Whether those time-lengths be hours, years or epochs, the only way that the universe could be infinitely old is if it began infinitely old, but that would not involve increments. 

 

If the universe were created to be older than zero—if at its creation or inception, it were already, say, 18-billion years old, it could be of any finite age.   In order for it to now be infinitely old, it would have to have been infinitely old from the start.  But in that case, there was no start—a paradox.

 

Even if we could overcome that paradox, however, we will encounter the concept of something being created from nothing, a concept so strongly connected to divine creation that atheism faces insurmountable obstacles.  Any explanation apart from divine creation will always be far less likely than divine creation.

 

=====Second, the coin-toss proposition applies.  If the universe were to be considered to be infinitely old, but continuing to increment in age by finite time segments, it is inevitable that at some moment, purely by chance, it all would have been irreversibly reset, that is, reduced to a state in which it had no potential to continue in any active state.  Time itself would have ended, and so would any potential for continuation or resurgence.  In other words, an infinitely old universe would already have ceased to exist.  (The bettor would have lost all his available money, so to speak.)

 

This end of existence might, it can be argued, not apply to a universe that has always been infinitely large.  In a universe that has forever been infinitely large, there could have been infinitely many isolated resets, even isolated collapses into nothingness, without ending the entire universe.  Once again, however, one relies upon infinity having been reached a priori, with complete arbitrariness.  That leaves any local probability of existence to equal zero.  For example, in a universe of infinite age and dimensions, our odds of existing here and now are, mathematically, zero.  Only divine creation can overcome that.

 

Other relevant thought experiments involve traveling through an infinitely large universe at infinitely fast speeds.  Those are dealt with elsewhere. 

 

ADDENDUM

 

At the infinite scale, there is no probability.  All becomes certainty.  For example, at the finite scale, there is a chance that the number of coin flips resulting in “heads” (in any finite segment) might exceed the number of tails (or vice versa), but at the infinite scale, there is the certainty that the number of heads will exactly equal the number of tails.  This certainty occurs by definition.  A fifty-percent chance may produce unequal ratios at any finite scale, but at the infinite scale, the very definition of probability requires precisely an equal ratio of one to one.  Chance requires certainty.  Chance at the finite scale requires certainty at the infinite scale.

 

Chapter 17

What is Normal?  What is Abnormal?  Who decides?

 

I

 was reading an old Newsweek magazine, dated June 9, 2008, when on page 13, I came across an article about something called BIID.

 

No, it has nothing to do with auctions. It is a psychological malady called Body Integrity Identity Disorder. Its more fancy medical name is apotemnophilia.

 

This is a rare condition, but one so shocking in its effects that I have to warn you that this may be very disturbing. Very.

 

It is a condition in which those people who have the disorder, feel compelled to amputate one or more of their healthy body parts, and for no outwardly apparent reason.

 

In one extreme case, a young woman in Britain (as I recall) deliberately froze both her legs with dry ice, knowing that this would result in surgical amputation. Then she called an ambulance. (Footnote^[2])

Surgeons removed both legs, which were by then beyond saving. Afterward, the woman said that she felt more comfortable with her “new body.”

 

The disorder is centered in the brain, in the part which “maps,” so to speak, the body, so that you know what and where your limbs are. In some people, the map has gone wrong, and the person may feel, for an example, that his arm or a leg does not “belong” there.

 

The best way I can think to describe it, is to say that some people have an extra finger or toe, and wish to have it surgically removed. Their brain has no “map location” for that extra digit, and indeed, it does not belong there. Usually, it is not even functional. So, when possible, they get it removed.

 

But for apotemnophiliacs, the body part does indeed belong there. It is something in the brain that has gone wrong, not the body.

 

I first learned of this condition when, in an online discussion board, I encountered a male-to-female transsexual, a man who had, as he described it, always felt that he really was a woman. He had surgery to remove certain, shall we say parts, and added others, so as to appear convincingly to be a woman (at least according to him.  I never saw him, nor a photograph, but I take his word for it).

 

I did a bit of research, and as a result, introduced a description of BIID into the discussion in order to prove a basic point, which is that the discomfort that so-called transgendered people feel about their bodies, is a problem of the brain, not of the body. And therefore, the proper treatment would be to find a remedy for whatever it is that ails the brain. It is as wrong to mutilate the body to ease the discomfort of Gender Identity Disorder as it is to amputate healthy legs.

 

But furthermore, in the exchanges of opinions, I raised the ire of others in the discussion, by declaring that Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is indeed a disorder.

 

That upset some of my respondents, because as social liberals, they identify so-called transgendered people as being off limits to criticism for their preferences.  (Of course, they do not place Christians or conservatives into a special, protected class, but I digress.)

 

The discussion was not limited to BIID and GID. I used the same concept to propose the idea that homosexuality is also a dysfunction of the brain, since the brain’s normal function includes being attracted to a mate of the opposite sex.  This idea also upset some of my liberal respondents.

 

I proposed the idea that the human species is composed of two complementary sexes, each with a different (but overlapping) function from the other, but equal in worth. Same-sex pairings are sort of like wearing two left shoes.

 

Oh, but my colleagues would have none of that. Who was I, they demanded to know, to think that I could be so judgmental, to declare that people who were not like me were therefore somehow abnormal?

 

In their view, I was the one who was abnormal. From there, their accusations degenerated into the usual litany. I was a bigot, a hate-monger, pro-slavery, anti-woman, and the rest of the menu that liberals so often use to describe conservatives.

 

Now I must hasten to add, that these discussions involved one or two daily posts over a period of months, and not all was always hostile. Indeed, I had actually begun to develop an affection of sorts for my misguided opponents in these discussions, and I sometimes sensed that they enjoyed the back and forth as well.

 

But this time, I had touched a raw nerve, because I had asked, in a way, a question which put them in a terrible dilemma. I was asking, in effect: should we normalize BIID? Should we applaud it? Should insurance cover the cost of amputation of a perfectly healthy, useful limb, just to make the apotemnophiliac “feel comfortable?” Or should we instead seek a cure in the brain?

 

But— if we seek a cure in the brain, is it possible that when we find it, we might also cure GID? And having done that, is it far-fetched to think that we might someday cure homosexuality?

 

Ah, but that was heresy. If homosexuality is normal, if it is healthy, if it is to be celebrated and applauded in same-sex marriage ceremonies— then a cure would not only be unnecessary, it would even be unethical.

 

For most, it was just too difficult to reconcile these two. Cutting off a healthy limb seemed so shocking, to all of us, that it bordered on the— here’s another word my respondents often felt uncomfortable with— immoral. It seems immoral to amputate a healthy arm or leg. It causes disability. It violates the natural plan of the body. It—

 

But oh my. Doesn’t so-called sex-change surgery do the same? And does not homosexuality violate the male-female duality of the human species?

 

We never got to finish the collision on this subject. As online discussions go, they frequently disband as participants move on. I miss my old opponents. I guess I had indeed developed a sort of (was it abnormal?) affection for them.

 

But I also miss them because, my next question would have led, I think, to this one:

Is nothing at all abnormal anymore?

 

Given the rapid advances in bio-technology, the day is not far off when pre-natal diagnosis in utero will reveal whether a fetus is predisposed toward homosexuality. If (or when) this becomes a reality, a number of options will become available, presumably chosen by the pregnant woman.

     1.  Kill the child pre-delivery (or even post).
     2.  Intervene to change the child's sexual orientation (or predisposition).
     3.  Do nothing, and allow biology to take its course.

 

A bit more background is in order.

 

Some years ago, two deaf lesbian women announced their desire to have a child (via sperm donation). The women were both deaf due to an inherited genetic disorder, and— hold on to your hat— it was their desire that their child-to-be would ALSO inherit this disorder.^[3]

There is apparently a "deaf lifestyle" that the two women thought should be celebrated, not disparaged.   They sought a sperm donor with the deafness gene.  There remained a possibility that the child would not be congenitally deaf, and if so, then the question arose as to how they would react to having a child with normal hearing, contrary to their wishes.

 

As an addendum to this chapter, consider the fact that having six fingers on each hand may be an advantage, and might therefore be considered normal.  There is a genetic condition in which some people have six, fully functional fingers, on each hand.  The sixth finger is not an “extra finger,” as if it were just stuck off to one side.  No, in this case, all six fingers are so fully integrated into the structure of the hand (bones, muscles and sinews), that surgically removing any one of them would disrupt the integrity of the entire hand.  Instead of being considered abnormal, we might just call this an alternate normality, so long as we bear in mind that, in other cases, a sixth finger is not functional, and is indeed abnormal.

 

The question comes up, how is it that the “normal” sixth finger not only integrates with the hand, but also, with the brain?  Of course, just as each of one’s five fingers has a sort of “place” in the brain to sense it and to control it, so also does the functional sixth finger.  I posed this question to a university neurology department, but the answer I got was not satisfactory.  The response was that the brain can “adapt” to certain non-standard conditions.  Well, I’m sure it can, but that does not really explain this particular case.

 

To clarify, I posed the question by comparing the brain to a computer, which I know is incorrect, but it was only to set the stage, so to speak, for the real problem at hand (no pun intended).

 

When main frame (and other) computers were built, the makers added some extra slots, so that later on, additional peripheral parts could be added, including some that had not even b een invented yet.  The makers anticipated that new kinds of printers, memory cards, and other devices would be designed.  They wanted to provide a place where these devices could be plugged in, programmed, and used in the future. Their foresight proved useful.

 

True, the brain does not work like that, but the point is, does the brain already have “locations” that can accommodate extra fingers? Or does the brain rearrange itself, create new neural pathways?  How does it sense that, hey, there’s a sixth finger over there?  That finger has sensory and motor nerves already in it, so let me change or add something to the brain to make use of that.

 

Suppose someone develops biological appendages, say wings, that can be integrated into the human body.  Does the brain already have a (sort of) location for that?  Flying, of course, requires additional skills, such as the ability to use aerodynamic principles.  Birds seem to have them, or develop them early in life.  Would human brains already be able to use implanted biological wings?

 

The answer to that would tell us a lot about brains, and more importantly, about what is normal or abnormal.

 

Chapter 18

Epilogue to Section One

In the first section, we laid down the foundation of a new paradigm that replaces the physicalist assumptions of present-day science.  Key elements of that new paradigm are as follows:

1.  There is a creative force which gives rise to physical reality. 

2.  There is a life force which assembles atoms into the molecules of living creatures. 

3.  There is a principle of consciousness, which uses the brain to compose thought. 

 

The physicalist must deny that free will can exist.  

 

Randomness and Chance can operate only within nonrandom parameters.

Those nonrandom parameters must be intentionally designed.

 

The physical universe is not random.  It is finely tuned.

The many universes theory does not support physicalism, it undermines it, because no matter how many universes there are, there must be one creative force which underlays them all.

 

Evolution theories all rely on random chance.

 

Right and Wrong, Morality and Immorality.

Who decides?  Is there objective morality?

 

Do we have eternal souls?

 

Can the brain understand itself? (The Ship-in-a-Ship Paradox)

 

Do we know anything?  How do we know we know?

(Boltzmann Brain thought experiment.)

 

Can Artificial Intelligence Ever Become Conscious?

 

Paranormal Science:  Is it Time?

 

The Coin-Toss Inevitability Proposition and Cosmology

 

What is Normal?  What is Abnormal?  Who decides?

 

These brief statements were among the topics in Section One, the skeleton.  In each chapter, detail and support were supplied, the flesh.  Much more could be written.  In Section Two, much is.  Section Two will not use chapters, but topics, sometimes flowing from one to the other smoothly, sometimes not so smoothly, but filling in as many gaps as possible.  Here we go.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION TWO

 

RELATED TOPICS

The Fatal Defect in the Drake Equation

 

The problem with searching for alien civilizations (on other planets) is that, while there seem to be lots of reasons to suppose that they exist, the evidence, at least the evidence available to the public, the hardest evidence, is feeble.  Indeed, there are those who make a credible case that no such aliens exist at all.

 

A recent article on Space dot Com states that, “Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens.”  The “rare earth hypothesis” proposes a very similar idea, that only a minuscule portion of planets can sustain life.  If these ideas are correct, the vast size of the universe allows us to assume, nevertheless, that even if alien civilizations are exceedingly rare, they may number in the thousands, even millions.  Is that assumption reasonable?

 

At first, it seems reasonable enough.  Recent discoveries of exoplanets suggest that planets are common, and therefore, planets capable of hosting life may be abundant on the grand scale of things.  If only one planet in a million has an alien civilization, then with many millions of planets in the galaxy, there could be many alien civilizations.  Right?

 

But not so fast.  The number of planets in the galaxy (and in the entire universe) is presumably very large, but even so, there is a limit to that number.  The probability of any given planet meeting all the many, many requirements to support life is exceedingly small.  If there are a kazillion planets, but the odds of life are one in a trillion kazillion, then that leaves us with one chance in a trillion, which is statistically zero for most purposes.  Even if you hate math, you can quickly see the point.

 

Okay, so far, we have established that there may possibly be many alien civilizations, and we have also established that there may not be any.  How do we choose which of those “maybes” is the more reasonable?

 

Many people employ wishful thinking.  Even skeptics admit that the prospect that there may be aliens is an exciting one (or dreadful, if they are hostile), but the idea that we might possibly encounter them would revolutionize human history (or perhaps end it).  Whether we wish they are there, or wish they are not, however, is not a very reliable basis for belief.

 

A less fanciful way is to make what we think are reasonable assumptions.  The very famous “Drake Equation”, for many years, has been used as a “starting point” for estimating how many (if any) alien civilizations are “out there.” 

 

The concept is simple.  Start with the idea that there are many planets.  Then continue with the idea that only a certain fraction (of those planets) has water (or some other necessity for advanced life as we know it).  Of those planets that have water, estimate how many have an atmosphere that can sustain life.  Then ask, what fraction of those planets are close enough to their sun (star) to provide life-sustaining warmth.  The series continues, each time reducing the number of planets that can sustain life.  The more requirements there are, the fewer are the planets that can fulfill all of them.  If there are only ten requirements, one could get a large number of candidate planets.  If there are a hundred requirements, the number diminishes to a tiny amount.  If there are thousands of requirements, the number of planets that can sustain life approaches zero.

 

Then there are factors that preclude life altogether, even if all the requirements are met.  If the host star explodes, that will surely preclude life.  If the host star emits harmful radioactivity, or has wildly fluctuating temperatures, or the planet is bombarded by meteors and comets—you get the idea.  A lot of things could destroy a civilization before it even gets started.

 

The question then is, how likely is each factor in the equation?  We do not know.  Even if each factor is fifty-percent, which is large, even then, multiplying all those fifty-percent factors together, soon results in a very tiny chance of an alien civilization existing.

 

The Drake equation, however, may be making some false assumptions.  For one thing, it assumes that life on any given planet arises (or fails to arise) by chance.  In doing so, it dismisses the idea that life requires something more than the “requirements” of life.  There may be a property of nature that leaves no room for chance when it comes to generating life, or at least for generating intelligent life.  Life may arise, or fail to arise, due to something other than chance.  That “something other” might make life exceedingly common, but it could also limit it to just one planet in the entire universe.

 

In biology, both evidence and theory have merged into the conclusion that life evolved from nonliving matter, and then without conscious guidance, progressed from the simplest forms, to the most complex forms, including humans.  This paradigm is infused into the assumptions of the Drake Equation.

 

Yet, there are other merges of evidence and theory that explain the origin and development of life.  One of these holds that life, consciousness and volition (free will) are three fundamental properties of nature.  In this paradigm, there is a life force (élan vital) which acts in a manner loosely analogous to gravity, or even dark matter, to structure atoms into the molecules associated with biochemistry.  This theory eliminates the dependence on chance, that is, on chances that are so small as to approach zero.  Instead, it posits that the universe appears to be the product of intent and purpose because—because it is that product.

 

If life does not arise by chance, but only by cosmic intent, with a purpose, then the Drake Equation is leading us toward a futile end.  We should consider it, but not rely on it blindly.

 

Does Infinity Exist?

 

While infinity is a valid mathematical concept, that is not the same thing as saying that it is real in the physical sense.

 

How does infinity apply to the physical world?  In the physical sense, it is speculated, by cosmologists, that the universe may extend forever in all directions.  We must ask, is that possible?

 

Consider this thought experiment:  Imagine that you are in a spaceship, traveling in a straight line, in an infinitely large universe.  No matter how far you travel, you will never travel the infinite distance that defines the universe’s reach.  You will never reach the end, because by definition, there is no end.

 

But wait.  What if you travel at an infinitely fast speed?  What would happen then? How far would we travel?  If we travel an infinite distance, in an infinitely large universe, then where would we be?  Some random place?  Back where we started?  Outside the universe?  More than one place at one time?  Everywhere?  Nowhere? Where?

 

To be sure, the idea of infinite speed may be impossible physically, but conceptually, nature itself, if causally linked (for example through quantum entanglement) forces us to consider the questions in the preceding paragraph.

 

What all this tells us is that our intellect is far too limited to understand an infinite reality. 

 

Is there a Proof of God?

 

Whenever I see atheists challenge someone to prove that there is a God, my reflexive answer is to refer them to Descartes’ famous maxim of self-proof, “I think, therefore I am.” 

 

This bit of rhetoric has wider implications than at first it may seem.  More fully expressed, Descartes said that, each of us knows of our own existence because we are conscious of it, even if we cannot technically prove it to others.  Even more fully expressed, we are not only conscious, we are conscious of our consciousness.  We not only perceive, but we perceive that we perceive.  As we repeatedly point out in these pages, consciousness is the only known phenomenon in the universe that perceives itself, and it does so from within itself.

 

Physical science cannot explain this.   That is because consciousness is more than merely a physical thing.  We cannot look at a person and physically “see” into their consciousness. 

 

What has all this to do with proving whether God exists?

 

“Proof,” itself is a misunderstood word.  In English law, proof is subjective, being defined only as persuasion (beyond a reasonable doubt).  In science, there is no such thing as proof, except as it applies to the strict rules of mathematics, geometry and formal logic.  Therefore, by definition, no one can scientifically “prove God.”

 

One can, however, prove to himself beyond any doubt whatsoever, that he exists as a conscious entity.  Critics may quibble about the precise definition and context of those words, but no one can rationally live his life based on the assumption that he does not exist.  It would be as tragic as to disbelieve that gravity exists.

 

Once one ponders the reality of his own consciousness, then that consciousness opens the door to one’s own spiritual reality.  When we perceive (and are persuaded) that we are not purely physical beings, but also spiritual creatures, then we are freed from the notion that we are merely assemblages of atoms, reacting to blind and uncaring forces of nature. 

 

From that point onward, we explore reality by amplifying the powers of reason with meaning and purpose.  Instead of seeking to find God, we allow Him to find us.  After that, no further proof is necessary.

 

= = =

 

We can surmise that other people are conscious, but that is only because they react as if they are conscious.  That appearance of consciousness, however, is not proof that the observed person is truly conscious.  Even a computer program can seem to be conscious, when it is only reacting to inputs.

 

Otherwise, we cannot look into a person and “see” into their consciousness.  Solipsists each believe that he, the solipsist, is the only conscious person in existence.  They cannot be persuaded otherwise.  They do not even believe that other solipsists exist.

 

A rather frightening hypothesis is that there are, in fact, some people who are not conscious at all, but simply biological entities who react to stimuli.  I once had the eerie feeling that a person, with whom I was discussing consciousness, was seemingly unable to understand the concept at all.  It then occurred to me that only a conscious person could understand what it is to experience consciousness.

 

Impossible to Believe

 

The argument is frequently made that it is impossible for a reasonable person, applying his powers of reason, to believe in a God, especially the God of the Bible.  At first, the atheist argument may seem to make sense, especially when one considers whether the many miraculous events recorded in the Bible could really have happened.  Parting the Red Sea?  Jesus rising from death and ascending into heaven?  Preposterous, some may say.

 

But consider that the alternative is even less reasonable, not only that, but dismal as well.

 

First, even a casual look at the world around us, makes it seem impossible to believe that all this came about without an intentional Creator.  If a casual look is not enough, consider that the closer one looks, whether through a telescope or a microscope, the stronger is the implication that intentional design is the best explanation for physical reality.  The evidence for that abounds, and continually increases.

 

Not only that, but a closer look at the world within us, makes a powerful case that reason requires us to believe that the existence of God is far more plausible than His nonexistence.  Nothing physical can adequately explain our consciousness, our ability to be aware of our inward selves, and more than that, to be aware that we are aware.  There is more yet. 

 

To deny that God exists, to assert that only the physical exists, is to deny that we have free will.  This denial leads inevitably to so many absurd conclusions that no reasonable person can, for very long, persist in those delusions.  Indeed, as Haldane strongly implied (but this is not a quote), if we have no free will, then it follows that we have no true reason, but instead, are simply programmed (by nature) to believe what we believe, without regard to reasonableness or truthfulness.

 

Perhaps this implication does not qualify as proof, but it certainly is the beginning of a journey through reason and evidence, a journey that increasingly discredits the idea that there is no divine Creator.

 

That journey includes not only all of science and knowledge, but also, of purpose and meaning in our individual lives.  No longer can matters of right and wrong be consigned to be mere opinions and preferences.  Without the Supreme Law Giver, good and evil have no practical meaning.  With Him, they command our attention and obedience. 

 

Meaningfully acknowledging the existence of God is no comfortable undertaking.  It involves a commitment of such magnitude that it encompasses one’s entire life.  It requires the effort to practice the virtues of humility, forgiveness, generosity and even sacrifice, even self-sacrifice, the like of which are exemplified no more clearly than in the life and teachings of Jesus, the physical embodiment of God.

 

But not all is stricture.  God wills that we should have abundant joy in our lives.  This does not mean only material pleasures, but joyfulness in our love for others, and in our love for the God who loves us with infinite love.  It allows us to bear the mystery of suffering with faith that, suffering is not emptiness, however much it may seem to be so to a faithless world. 

 

It allows us to partake of pleasure without fatal indulgence, but in measured moderation.  We are counseled to eat without overeating, to enjoy sexual pleasure within the confines of heterosexual marriage, to work for our living in an honest, productive endeavor, and to treat others as we would be treated.  We forgive instead of seeking vengeance.  We give to the poor and needy without letting anyone know that we are doing so.  We do not place unfair burdens on others, but offer to lift them up. 

 

We humbly acknowledge our sins instead of claiming to be virtuous.  We admit that we stumble and fall, and that we fail to meet the standard of perfection that is required of us.  We beg God for mercies that we know we do not deserve, and could never earn.  If we must correct another, we do so in private, and when we praise others, we do so in public.

 

These are among the teachings of God.  None of this comes from the teachings of a Godless world, a world which regards us with scorn and contempt at best, and with persecutions at worst.  Yet, we are commanded to be the light for that world, that all who choose to be saved can be led by God to salvation, not later but sooner.

 

The choice is for each of us to make.

 

Can Existence be without Purpose?

 

If we begin with the (obvious) premise that we perceive that we exist, and then conclude (obviously) that we do exist, then the next question that must be asked is, is there a (cosmic) purpose for our existence?

 

While the premise and conclusion (listed above) are obvious (to most people), the next question seems not to have an obvious answer, particularly to physicalists.  To them, the perception of physical existence is proof enough that reality is physical, and only physical.  To the physicalist, everything is material, even perception—but can perception be explained as being purely physical?  Does not the very perception itself, of physical reality, suggest something of a higher order?

 

At its most extreme, the purely physicalist view is that physical nature exists without plan, purpose or meaning, and moreover, that it could exist just as it is, even if there were no conscious beings to perceive it.

 

To them, life is merely a chemical process, a sort of molecular chain reaction, a series of self-regenerating chemicals.  To them, life relies upon physical reality, but physical reality does not rely upon life, nor upon consciousness, nor upon any form of willful intent.

 

Consciousness (and conscious perception) poses a larger problem for physicalists, and they admit (generally) that they have not answered the question of what consciousness is—but they profess to be making progress toward producing a purely physical explanation for it.  (In fact, they will be able to produce such an explanation only if they define consciousness as being something other than our ineffable inward experience of it.)

 

Cosmic purpose involves an entirely higher level of perceived reality, encompassing something that is completely outside the thinking of physicalists.  Indeed, it involves something that is regarded as physically impossible:  the existence of an independent, sovereign, causative agent other than the physical.

 

Yet, purpose is something we all experience in our daily life.  It involves having a desire for something, be it merely air, water and food; or be it comfort and pleasure; or be it prestige, intellectual satisfaction, or heaven.  Having desires, we set out to obtain the objectives.  In the course of doing that, we make plans and exert effort.  All of this encompasses a sense of purpose, be it base or lofty.

 

The personal experience of purpose is not, however, something easily attributed to physical nature, at least not within the physicalist framework.  Things just happen, they say.  One thing leads to another.  Cause and effect, and random chance, are all that is needed to explain every event.

 

Physicalists may assert that they find no evidence, no necessity for any objective purpose in nature.  Yet, such evidence abounds.  It is everywhere.  Its very abundance seems to make it invisible.  If it looks like a duck—you know the saying.  Occam’s Razor.  The universe seems to be intelligently designed, and the most direct explanation for that is, because it is.

 

This leads to the greatest and most vital question of all, is there a God?

 

The question of whether or not there is a God (specifically, as in the Torah) is for many people a purely emotional one, whether pro or con.  The true believer is devotedly unshakeable in his faith, but atheists can be just as attached to their disbelief, or perhaps, to their faith in reason.

 

The question is further encumbered by our inability to define God.  Any such so-called definition must include words such as, unknowable, essence, and transcendent.  It must include concepts such as absolute, ultimate and infinite.  The question cannot be surrounded by reason, nor by intellect, nor even by proof.

 

Why, then, even ask it?

 

The only recourse is to rely on divine revelation, a reliance which physicalists reject, and which others seek, but do not find.  However, if one begins with the proposition that life has plan, purpose and meaning—if we assert that life, consciousness and free will are at the core and foundation of nature—then one’s life can be fulfilling in a way that a physicalist world view can never impart.

 

We can never find God, but we can allow Him to find us.

 

In the end, each individual is free to choose for himself.  Perhaps that is our purpose.

 

Irreconcilable Differences of Opinion

 

No doubt we have all encountered people with whom we disagree.  Moreover, we have, I am sure, all of us encountered people who seem impervious to facts and reason.  In all likelihood, if you and I disagree with each other, on something that we each firmly believe, then each of us will perceive himself to be the one with the correct belief, and the other as the stubborn, errant one, or at best, woefully misled.

 

An excellent example of this (I hope we all agree on this one) is the Flat Earth Theory.  Flat-Earthers adamantly insist that planet Earth is not a sphere, but flat.  They are not to be under-estimated in their ability to argue their position.  If one is not well armed with, not only the facts, but with adequate debating skills, the Flat-Earthers will run roughshod over any minuscule flaw in your presentation.  They are really good at it.

 

Consciousness and Time

 

Two of the greatest mysteries are consciousness and time.  When combined together, they each have a lot to say about the other.  Indeed, in a sense, each is the other.

 

Just as it is impossible for us to imagine having no consciousness, so also is it impossible for us to imagine existing in a universe without time.  Therefore, consciousness of time is arguably at the heart of our sensations, along with consciousness of self, and consciousness of consciousness.

 

Thanks to Einstein, we now understand that space and time are one and the same.  Only our conscious experience separates space-time into two fundamentals.  Also, according to Einstein, energy and matter are one and the same, expressed in the iconic equation, E=MC²

 

Therefore, all of physical reality can be summarized into the apt acronym, STEM (space-time-energy-matter), the fundamental “stem.”

 

What this tells us is that our experience of reality is entirely (or mostly) subjective.  It is very unlike our physicalist mathematical models, such as those formulated by Einstein.  Add quantum mechanics (QM) to the mix, and our ordinary experience of reality makes QM seem the stuff of fairy tales by comparison.

 

Yet, the physicalist models wield enormous authority, thanks not only to abstract mathematics, but also, on the practical level of useful technologies.  Without Relativity and QM, none of our computerized communications systems, upon which modern civilization depends, would function.  That alone is enough to put the swagger into the objectivist, physicalist philosophy.

 

Despite all that, the physicalist models suffer one fatal defect.  They have been utterly unable to explain consciousness.  More specifically, they cannot explain our inward experience of consciousness—not only unable to explain it, but even to define it.  In the physicalist grand scheme, there is no place for inward awareness in the universe.  It is neither necessary nor predicted, and in physicalist science, if a phenomenon is not predictable according to the rules, then its existence is a nonfactor at least, a contradiction at most.

 

Any theory of consciousness must be inextricably intertwined with life and free will (volition).  Without life, consciousness would be static, and without free will, it would be passive, making us witnesses to our own lives, but not participants.

 

Physicalism fails to separate life from its chemical processes, equating them both to each other.  This equation fails to explain why all the physical constants of the universe seem intelligently designed to enable and support life, civilization and advanced technology, relegating this central feature of the universe to mere coincidence, or to an even less likely model, that of infinite universes.

 

More extremely, physicalism requires for itself to rule out any possibility of free will.  In physicalism, every event is strictly determined by cause and effect.  Nothing is optional.  But the existence of free will, without which life and existence itself would be a meaningless farce, demolishes physicalism utterly.  Moreover, the existence of free will imparts accountability to our decisions.  While free will may not always be a factor (for example in reflexes), it is at the least the deciding factor in moral decisions.

Moral decision-making, in turn, requires the existence of moral standards—standards not set by fallible human reasoning, but by the infallible, supreme authority of the living God.

 

Physicalism has utterly nothing whatsoever to say about morality, (right or wrong, good or evil) except to deny that there can be any objective moral standard at all.  While physicalists as individual persons may set moral standards for themselves, or have personal opinions regarding the morality of actions by others, the physicalist paradigm rejects all that as nonfactual.

 

Returning to the topic of consciousness and time, Relativity seems to picture the universe as a static “loaf” of space-time, in which the past, present and future are already established and unchangeable.  This is incompatible with free will, and seems also to be incompatible with QM.

 

With free will, the future is in the realm of uncertainty, and is therefore alterable by our decisions (to however slight a degree).  In QM there is even the strange suggestion that the past itself is uncertain, and therefore, alterable.  An alterable past seems very peculiar, but it may not be entirely impossible.

That is because time and consciousness are closely linked.  Time, as it is experienced by conscious, living, volitional creatures, is not the same as mathematical time.  In mathematical time, the past can be reconstructed according to formulas.  However, until that past is experienced (albeit indirectly by computation), it does not truly exist in the realm of certainty.  It can be compared to an uncollapsed cloud of probability.

 

Therefore, the age of the universe is of two dimensions:  one calculated, and, one experienced (by humans).  The calculated age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years; the humanly experienced age is closer to 6,000 years, more in accord with Biblical texts.

 

Consciousness of time is one of the dominant characteristics of the human experience, and incorporates two profound mysteries.  It is not a mystery we can solve, but we need not solve every mystery.  Some of them are better savored than answered.

 

Crisis in Science

--(submitted to American Thinker website)

--by Robert Arvay

 

Science is on the brink, either of a stunning breakthrough, or the abyss of defeat. 

 

For centuries, science has progressed from superstition to discovery, and current predictions include the promise of solving nature’s greatest mysteries.   New discoveries, it is said, will lead to dramatic advances in technology that will usher in the dawn of the age of Star Trek.  Flying cars, miracle cures, and servant-robots are just some of the astonishing changes that are expected, changes that will revolutionize our lives beyond our present ability to imagine.  For comparison, could the earliest cavemen have imagined the impact that the discovery of fire would portend?  Could they have imagined nuclear power?

 

But not all the predictions include the beaming up of Scotty.  There is a principle of diminishing returns, less additional profit for each additional dollar of investment.  That principle may apply as mercilessly to science as it does to business.  Worse yet, for the hopes and dreams of future Captains Kirk, is the specter of a brick wall, or alternatively, of a vast canyon that cannot be bridged.

 

That brick wall may already have been encountered.  It is something we all know about, and yet, most of us underestimate.  We all take for granted our consciousness, but science can no longer take it for granted.  Science cannot explain consciousness.  It cannot even adequately define our inward experience of it, despite the fact that we all have it.  How do atoms give rise to organisms that can wonder about what an atom is?

 

We do, of course, explain it, but not in scientific terms.  Science struggles with the question, and so far, cannot leap across that grandest of canyons. 

 

Worse yet, for science, is the fact that science itself has made some astounding discoveries that indicate that consciousness may be, not merely a result of atoms, but rather, the foundation of them.  The most popularized example of this is demonstrated in what is called the double-slit experiment, something about which every physicist knows.  Although the conclusions of this experiment are disputed, videos about it are well worth looking up on your web-search-engine, but the main take-away is that atoms seem, according to many scientists, to behave very differently when a conscious observer is watching them.  In other words, consciousness may be, not a happenstance byproduct, without which the universe as we know it could exist, but rather, an underlying principle of the cosmos.  Read that slowly, because science may be flailing (and failing) to avoid the conclusion that consciousness is foundational to physical reality, not a product of it.

 

It is as if we had souls.  It is as if in addition to physical reality, there is a spiritual reality.  To many scientists, this is heresy.

 

Ironically, the acceptance of a new paradigm, a spiritual one, might actually rescue science, not end it.  If science can look upon the human brain, not as the generator of conscious thought, but rather its instrument, then new avenues of research become available.  Who knows what doors may be opened?

 

Who knew what the discovery of fire would bring about?

 

Dark Matter, Life and Consciousness, and How they are Related

 

I sometimes make a bad joke to my poker companions.  In standard poker, the highest possible hand is the royal flush.  Nothing beats it—except, I sometimes say to a newbie, the Big-Foot.  Asked, what the heck is the Big-Foot, I reply, it is a poker hand so rare that some people say it does not even exist.

 

Such is the case with dark matter.  Nobody knows what it is, and some scientists even doubt that it exists—but unlike the Big-Foot in poker, it is not a joke.  It accounts for 95 percent of the gravity in the universe.  Premier physicists around the world are striving to discover what, exactly, dark matter is. 

 

While dark matter may have nothing directly to do with life and consciousness, dark matter may provide an important clue to answering how biochemicals form, and how consciousness arises.  First, let us examine the issue of dark matter.

 

If it is so difficult to prove what dark matter is, then why do so many (but not all) scientists think it exists?  They think so, because it explains a great many observations in science.  Indeed, if it turns out that dark matter really does not exist, science will need a much stranger answer to the anomalies observed in galactic rotation.

 

Briefly stated, dark matter is a gravity field, but unlike ordinary gravity, dark matter is not associated with what we define as matter.  The very name is a misnomer, since dark matter is neither dark nor, as far as we know, matter.  Its existence is presumed, however, because without the gravity field we attribute to dark matter, galaxies would not hold together.  Scientists needed to explain why spinning galaxies do not fly apart, and so they concluded that something like dark matter holds them together.

 

Other than for its gravity, dark matter cannot be detected.  If not for its gravity, there would be the very bizarre possibility that it could exist without its existence ever being suspected.

 

The principle of an unseen force, is not one with which scientists are comfortable.  They accept it only because they have nothing better at present to explain their observations.  (That “nothing better” may be a mathematical property of the universe called MoND, which at present is as speculative as dark matter.)

 

There may, in fact, be other unseen forces, or factors, that cannot be detected other than for their effects.  The existence of those factors might never be suspected until all other explanations for certain scientific observations fail to suffice.

 

One of those observations is life.  Another is consciousness.

 

Under the physicalist paradigm, scientists have defined life as its chemical processes.  Period.  Nothing more is involved, they say. 

 

The question of how and why inert chemicals come together to produce life is attributed to chance.  By pure chance, the most unlikely of unlikely chances, the universe is intricately designed from quarks to cosmos, to enable and support life.   The astoundingly complex array of metabolic actions, the ability of DNA to replicate itself, and perhaps most importantly the phenomenon of civilization, science and technology—all this is said to be due to chance.

 

Chance can be avoided only if one posits that there are uncountable trillions of trillions of universes, a multi-verse, each of them a roll of the dice, so that at least one of them is likely to be like our universe.  Problem:  even if there is a multi-verse, it makes it even less likely that it would have the parameters with which to produce and fine tune any bubble universe.  There would have to be an ever-ascending hierarchy of ever larger, and ever less likely, multi-multi-universes to make that possible.

 

The end result of such a hierarchy would be an order of infinities so high that, as some premier physicists have said, “Everything that can happen, must happen, and happen an infinite number of times.”  The implication of this is clear:  nothing ever happens.  That may not be immediately clear, but if a coin flip must come up both heads and tails, there was really no coin flip.  I will leave the rest of that for contemplation, without elaborating further.

 

If life, civilization and science are said to arise by chance from inert matter, but if chance is an inadequate, unwieldy explanation for this, then what better explanation is there?

 

The answer is similar to dark matter, but instead of gravity, the unseen force is an organizing principle—and that organizing principle is related to the most obvious, and least definable force of all:  consciousness.

 

Life is not merely its chemical process.  It is an unseen force that organizes inert matter into its biochemical forms, guides its metabolic activities, and directs its development.  Moreover, there is an unseen force which directs the entire cosmos toward this end.

 

But “this” end is not “the” end.  There is more.  Science has mis-defined life as being merely its chemical process, but when it comes to consciousness, science is completely baffled, even more baffled than it is by dark matter.

 

In this context, consciousness means the inward experience of being aware of oneself, of one’s surroundings, and more than that, being deeply aware of perceptions both physical and aesthetic.  Consciousness enables one to perceive physical things that cannot be put into words.  For example, the concept of color can be adequately explained in terms of the wavelength of photons, but this is not what one consciously sees.  It cannot be communicated to someone who has been blind from birth.

 

Consciousness enables, and motivates us, to ask such questions as who am I?  It gives rise to metaphysical thinking, to a sense of purpose and meaning. 

 

Physicalists dismiss all of this as subjectivity that does not lead us to an understanding of nature.  They do not recognize life, consciousness and free will as being underlying principles of nature.

 

Scientists are now attempting to understand dark matter as either a force, or as a set of as yet undiscovered physical laws (or refinements of them, such as MoND).  They are doing this, because otherwise they have no explanation for the observed behavior of galaxies.

 

Given that the observed behavior of living, conscious volitional humans—Including the scientists themselves! —has no purely physical explanation, one might suppose that they might be more accepting of the value of research into a new paradigm.

 

What dark force prevents them?

 

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, not to it, because we may never arrive at a full understanding.

 

Likewise, a diagram of reality is not to be taken literally as a full understanding.  Of course 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, with an outer band which we can color in for clarity.  That outer band, the “doughnut,” 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 doughnuts—and even our physical bodies.

 

Inside the doughnut shape, instead of the hole, is an empty circular disc, like a dinner plate, except that it is not empty.  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 understand that reality can best be understood in terms of Creator, Creation, Creature:  God, the Universe, Us.

 

A Very Mysterious Visitor

 

A very elderly lady told this story, many years ago, during a church Sunday school lesson on angels.

The lesson had informed us that angels are nonhuman, spiritual beings.  No angel ever becomes a human, and no human ever becomes an angel.  Angels do, however, on occasion, take on human form.

 

The lady said that, one Friday afternoon, her gas stove stopped working.  She called a repair shop.  It being closing time, the lady was told not to use her stove during the weekend, and a repair man would be sent on Monday.

 

She was very unhappy about not having her stove for an entire week-end, and was trying to concoct some kind of meal without heat, when there was a knock at the front door.  There was a man, in a repairman’s uniform, holding a small toolbox.  I’m here to fix your stove.

 

My, that was fast.  But the shop said you could not be here until Monday.  Even so, she showed the man the stove.  He pulled it away from the wall, and said, there is your problem right there, lady.  Kneeling down, he began working to remove the defective part—I presume it was the gas flow regulator—the lady did not know.  He then reached into his toolbox, took out a new one, and installed it.

 

He pushed the stove back into place, and said, you can use the stove now.

 

How much do I owe you? She asked.

 

Just wait for the bill, he said, and left.

 

The lady used the stove all week-end.  Monday morning there was a knock at the door.  There was a man, in a repairman’s uniform, holding a toolbox.  I’m here to fix your stove.

 

But your shop sent a man out Friday, and he fixed it.

 

No ma’am, we could not get out here until today.  Perhaps thinking that her mental faculties were suspect, the man asked to see the stove.

 

The lady took him to it, and he pulled it out from the wall.  When he saw the old regulator on the floor, and the new one in place, he was puzzled.  Ma’am, this regulator has been out of production for years.  It would take me a month to get a new one, if I even could.

 

Well, the lady said to the man, he had one in his toolbox.

 

How could that be?  Never mind, it’s a good thing he replaced it, because these old things could become dangerous after many years, and had he not been here, your house might have burned down.  But ma’am, do me a favor.  Tell me who fixed this. What company?

 

I don’t know, but he told me to wait for a bill.  Surely it will have a name on it.

 

Okay, when you get the bill, please let me see it.  I want to know who carries around such a very old regulator in his toolbox.

 

I’ll be sure to call you when I get the bill.

 

No bill ever came.

-

 

Men and Women, and the Consequences of Immorality

 

We are told, by many people, that matters of right and wrong are situational.  They change with the times, with cultures, or with other conditions.  They reject the idea that there are eternal, objective standards to which we are all obliged to conform, regardless of our personal opinions or preferences.

 

I recall having seen online, a video-taped debate on this between two teams of participants.  I remember that, throughout the debate, one side of it centered around claims that moral relativism is supported by science, not merely by opinion.

 

Then a curious thing happened.  Near the end of his presentation, one of the supposedly scientific participants launched into a tirade against people who oppose same-sex marriage.  This was one of the same people who had been asserting that questions of morality are entirely subjective, with no basis in science.  Obviously, this esteemed scientific person did not really believe his own pronouncements.  He did not disbelieve in objective standards of morality; he simply believed that his own standards were objective ones.  As do so many, he seemed to believe that his personal standards should be enforced on the rest of us.

 

Judging from this, most people seem intuitively to believe that there really is such a thing as morality.  We just disagree on which standards, if any, to uphold.  So, the question becomes more important:  is there an objective, perhaps scientific, standard of morality, one that is independent of our personal opinions?

 

As we have repeatedly mentioned, modern science is underpinned by a philosophy called by various names, including “physicalism.”  That philosophy says that nothing objectively exists except that which is explained in terms of physics.  It rejects any notions of spirit, soul, or God.  That rejection is well and fine for a philosophy, but it is entirely unscientific.  A purely physicalist view of reality has no place for notions of good or evil, right or wrong, justice or injustice.  It is entirely neutral, neither preferring nor disdaining either side. 

 

Therefore, to assert that there is an objective standard of morality is not unscientific, it is merely non-physicalist. 

 

Is there, then, some way to prove the matter, one way or the other?

 

Yes, there is, but society is so complex, the human mind so inscrutable, that it takes years, even centuries, for a social experiment to produce verifiable results.  Oftentimes, the outcomes of social policies are completely opposite to those that were predicted by the experts.

 

The following bit of recent history provides an example.

 

Up until the 1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate in most segments of society was very small, despite there being no reliable contraceptives available.  One overwhelming reason for the low incidence of premarital pregnancy was, social opprobrium.  For a young, unmarried woman to be known not to be a virgin was considered shameful.  For her to become pregnant was scandalous.  The prospect of being humiliated was a powerful inducement, for women, to delay sexual intercourse until marriage.

 

The advent of the birth-control pill changed all that, and as history shows, the incidence of out-of-wedlock motherhood, which was supposed to have been dramatically reduced, instead increased, and did so intensely.  Why?

 

The birth-control pill helped to reduce the stigma of losing one’s virginity before marriage.  This, in turn, indirectly reduced the stigma of premarital pregnancy.  This, in turn, reduced the perceived need for the birth control pill.  It was what may be called, a vicious cycle, a so-called snowball effect. Once the initial phase of these events had occurred, the flood gates were opened, and what quickly followed was what is called, the sexual revolution.

 

This revolution was supposed to have freed women from the injustice of sexual repression.  Instead, it led to millions of women becoming pregnant and abandoned, left on their own, to raise their fatherless children.  Many of those children were, as a result, raised in poverty and amid crime.  The welfare state sought to correct this mistake by subsidizing single motherhood.  This, in turn, predictably increased what it subsidized.  Another vicious cycle began.  Generations lost their moral anchor, and begat more of the same.  Fatherless children spawned more, each generation less grounded in moral behavior than the preceding one.

 

The experiment was not stopped, but continued.  Those caught up in it were not even aware of what they were doing.

 

Today, the harm wrought by the abandonment of sexual morality has left us with a society that cannot even recognize the good and natural differences between the sexes, even to the point of denying that there are two complementary sexes, and certainly denying that they are a naturally ordained partnership, one without which, society suffers consequences so pervasive that many people call them good.

 

The illusion is now deeply ingrained, that sexual morality is an antiquated notion, and that its violations have no harmful consequence.

 

Worse yet, casual acceptance of homosexuality and transsexuality has morphed from one of mere tolerance, to the present state of enforcement.  Small, confused children can be subjected to the radical procedure of so-called transitioning from their birth sex to the opposite sex.  This can be done (as of this writing) in opposition to the parents’ wishes, as indeed, pregnant teenage girls can have their pregnancies aborted with neither the knowledge nor consent of the girl’s parents.

 

To interfere is to be accused of child abuse.  Even to openly advocate Judeo-Christian standards of morality can bring about significant penalties.

 

We are now at the point where pedophilia itself is gaining traction as a so-called sexual orientation.

 

Where will all this end?  The experts say, a Utopian society.  When have they been right?

 

Is Logic Logical?

 

For centuries, great philosophers have regarded the rules of logic as infallible guides to truth.  If those rules can be applied to a premise, the conclusion can be relied upon as absolutely true.  Conversely, if a proposed conclusion can be shown to violate the rules of logic, then we can be assured that the conclusion (and/or its premise) is false, unprovable, or at least, unproven.

 

Mathematics and geometry are the two premier examples of how logic can be applied in a linear, step-by-step fashion, to arrive at a true conclusion, and/or to show that alternative conclusions are false.

 

Logic is not always simple and straightforward.  Its path can be convoluted and tortuous.  Some mathematical proofs of theorems require entire book-length treatises.  These are then reviewed by other mathematicians, and if anywhere in the labyrinthine exposition there is even the slightest error, then the entire proof is discredited.  Years of effort can go for naught.

 

Some theorems are presumed to be true, despite no proof having been demonstrated.  The theorems can be used in engineering with good result, but there is always a question:  if the theorem is not always true, then an engineering failure could eventually result.

 

In some respects, logic is considered the sacrosanct epitome of human reason.  People who defy it are almost always scorned as “fuzzy” thinkers, ruled more by emotion than by sound judgment.

 

Here then, is a speculative question:  do the rules of logic apply to reality?

 

The Haldane cosmic paradox is taken from the quote cited in Chapter One:

 

“If materialism is true, it seems to me that we cannot know that it is true. If my opinions are the result of the chemical processes going on in my brain, they are determined by the laws of chemistry, not those of logic.”

 

In other words, the rules of logic are a product of our brains.  We assume that they apply to nature, but how can we be sure that that is always the case?

 

One possible example of how those rules might not always apply to nature is that of, what are called in astronomy, “Black Holes.”  The black hole is a collapsed star of extreme proportions.  Its intense gravity emits no light.  The density of the matter which comprises its core, is considered to be infinite, and its volume is presumed to be zero.  This central point of infinite density and zero dimensions is known as a singularity. 

 

Such conditions are unimaginable to the human mind, but moreover, they are beyond the capability of mathematics to describe.  At the point of the singularity, time and space themselves no longer exist in any form that can be adequately modeled by physics or mathematics.  The laws of nature, the laws of logic, seem not to apply.

 

Irony of ironies, black holes (and singularities) were first predicted by applying the rules of mathematics and physics, and logic.

 

In a sense, then, logic itself predicts the breakdown of logic.

 

Of course, one can always resort to “hidden logic.”  It may be that everything in and around the singularity is perfectly logical, but in a way that we cannot at present fathom.  If Haldane’s remarks are to be taken seriously, it may be that the singularity violates only the logic of our brains.  It may be that the logic of our brains is limited, and falls short of ever comprehending the nature of nature.  Our logic might even be fallible.

 

If this is so, then there may be facts of nature which, to our thinking, violate logic.

 

This is especially of concern in the discussion of metaphysics and Monist Idealism.  While of course we strive to discipline our discussions in terms of logic, we must beware of certain traps that can result.  For example, in the study of origins, logic may not apply.  Why is there something instead of nothing?  Did reality come into being from nothing?  Is nature founded upon a never-ending regression of ever more fundamental realities?

 

Science is already infused with unanswered questions.  Some of them may be inherently unanswerable.

 

The Limit of Science

 

Science continues to unfold in very dramatic ways, not only producing new answers, but perhaps more importantly, producing new questions.

 

Because scientific knowledge results in so many technological applications, it is seen as the king of human endeavor, the foundation of human thought, and the pinnacle of human achievement.

 

As with all kings, however, its reign must eventually come to an end.  The technology which has validated science for so many centuries has been a blessing, making life longer, more pleasant, and more productive than it has ever been.  Now, however, technology is becoming less and less a faithful servant, and is beginning to show signs of becoming the cruel master that we somehow always feared it would.

 

While this is happening, the most fundamental theories of science are beginning to show the early signs of disarray.  Scientists themselves disagree, seem unsure, and contradict each other.

 

Moreover, the gap between scientists and nonscientists is swiftly widening.  Our familiar everyday experiences of reality are bearing less and less resemblance to the formulas of physics.  Indeed, matters have become so unsettled that some physicists have actually gone so far as to ask, do we exist?

 

Finally, the formulas of physics have become inaccessible to the vast majority of humans.  We cannot hope to understand them.  The intricate squiggles and symbols that fill up the chalk board of the physics classroom are beyond my intellect, and utterly beyond the ken of most people.  Even people of great intellect, such as Marilyn vos Savant, may have other interests.  Even they simply cannot put in the decade or more of years required for a PhD in physics, and cannot spend the many tens of thousands of dollars it costs.

 

(As an aside, I once met a young lady who had recently graduated college with a degree in physics.  After graduation, she achieved her lifetime career goal, that of being a stay-at-home housewife and mother.  Physics?  She hated it.)

 

According to a physicist who posted at sci.physicsforums.com,

 

Nikola Tesla wrote:  “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

 

Finally, the grand priests of physics do not even agree among themselves on many important aspects of what physics teaches us about the universe.  Is science unraveling?

 

Science cannot answer questions which it cannot ask, and we may be inherently incapable of asking the most important questions.

 

How could it be otherwise?  If humans are the products of nature, then how can the subset comprehend the whole?

 

I maintain that the explanation of physical reality is beyond physics altogether.  The answer is not material, but spiritual, a realm forever beyond the capabilities of material science.

 

Black Hole, Singularity, and Physical Nature

 

Imagine a star so big, and with so much gravity, that it collapses inward on itself.  We do not need to imagine it.  Astronomers have detected such stars, and named them, black holes. As the black hole star collapses into a smaller size, its gravity becomes more concentrated, and therefore, more powerful, causing it to collapse to an even smaller size. The process keeps repeating—smaller size, stronger gravity, even smaller, even stronger. How far can this go?  There are two possibilities.

 

One possibility is that the collapse reaches a limit, beyond which it cannot collapse any further. 

At that point, the black hole stabilizes, and then begins a process called evaporation, reversing its collapse, and eventually reaching a more or less ordinary size and condition.

 

Another possibility is that there is no limit.  The collapse continues until the size of the black hole reaches zero.  The density, therefore, reaches infinity.  This is where physics breaks down, and mathematics fails.  The result is called, a “singularity.”  In a singularity, the known rules no longer apply.  We reach a condition that is unknown, and very possibly, unknowable.

 

One scientist has pointed out that physical nature, that is, space and time, cannot accommodate an infinite density of zero size.  He concludes that such a singularity reaches a point where it is outside of space and time.  It is, therefore, outside of physical reality.  It may continue to exert a gravitational field inside the universe, but it may do so from outside the universe.

 

Can something outside of physical reality influence physical reality?

 

Must one then conclude that physical nature is actually supernatural?

 

 

If Not God, then What?  A Higher Order of Nature?

 

While many people ascribe the existence of nature to the Creative Force known as God, some people reject that proposal.  Instead, they say that nature “just exists,” for no known (or no knowable) reason.  They say that there is no compelling reason to resort to the “God explanation,” and that there are some reasons not to—for example, the suffering of innocent people.

 

One possible alternate explanation for the existence of nature, one that does not resort to God, is that of a Hierarchical Nature.  Simplified, this explanation relies on the observation that nature is ordered from the simplest elements to the highest.  From subatomic particles to atoms, and then to molecules, and then to higher order compounds, and from there to planets, stars, galaxies and finally, the cosmos.

 

Of course that is a bit too simple, because there are other factors that do not neatly fit into a hierarchy.  Natural laws, for example, define how subatomic particles are formed.  No known natural law explains why those particles fit together to form atoms, nor why they should do so.  Nor does any known principle of nature explain why there are strong and weak nuclear forces, electric charges, and gravity.  Finally, they say, the mathematical constants of physics simply exist, with no known reason how they get the specific values that they do.

 

No known natural law (of course) explains why natural law exists.  No principle of nature explains why nature exists.

 

Nevertheless, let us assume for the moment, and for the sake of discussion, that these things can in principle be explained.  That still leaves us with many unexplained mysteries of nature, and with hypotheses that portend even greater mysteries, such as, the inward experience of consciousness, the origin of life, the question of free will (independent volition).  There are also such questions as, how large is the universe?  Can its expanse be infinite?  Are there other universes?  If so, what determines their properties?

 

How does our universe get its properties?  Can they be random, or are they determined by some fixed principle of nature?  If there is a multiverse, what are its properties?  What determines what its

properties are?  Does nature (figuratively) throw dice?  What kinds of dice?

 

What constrains nature and natural law?  What constraints, if any, are there?

 

As we can see, all of this points to some order in nature.  Order suggests a hierarchy.  Can it be, then, that we cannot rely on God as an explanation?  If so, then is the alternative a natural hierarchy, a nature of a higher order than the one we observe?  A supernature?

 

Or is it, inevitably, God, after all?

-

A Statistical Approach to Evolution is Needed.

 

One of the great controversies of modern science involves the theory (or theories) of evolution.  The debate is not only between scientists and religionists, but between scientists themselves.  A related controversy involves theories of the origin of life on Planet Earth, which is important in evaluating whether life has arisen on other planets, life which may conceivably interact with us, whether intelligently (the UFO/UAP hypothesis) or not (the panspermia hypothesis).

 

Both of these (origin and evolution) involve statistical probabilities (chance), but as it concerns evolution, the role of chance is embedded into the theory itself. 

 

In the case of origins, it is rather straightforward to hypothesize that, by chance alone, pre-life chemicals might combine into some form of self-replicating phenomenon, which is then proposed to be a precursor to life and living cells. 

 

By contrast, it is far more difficult to attribute the evolution of existing life (into new species) to “unguided chance.” 

 

The Theory of Evolution requires chance.  Stated in simplified form, that theory holds that genetic changes occur at random.  Those changes are then passed on to the offspring.  Changes which make survival more likely are passed on to subsequent generations, while detrimental changes are less likely to survive.

 

How efficient is this process, and how effective is it in forming new species?  The answer is, far less than theorists seem to assume.  While there seems to be a reasonable likelihood that mutations can occur at random, it is far less likely that changes to the genome can be (a) survivable and (b) functional and (c) an advantageous improvement favoring reproduction through generations.  Evolution theory requires all three.

 

Those three requirements of evolutionary success may at first seem reasonably likely, over billions of years, but given recently discovered facts, even staunch evolutionists must recognize how unlikely they are.  This is not simply a matter of how many chances there are for producing new species, but also, whether the odds of success can overcome the odds of failure, even over those billions of years.

 

Here is an example of that extreme unlikelihood, in a lecture given by a physicalist evolutionist.

 

One prominent scientist presented, online, a theory that the first cell capable of dividing into a multi-cellular organism did so by ingesting (swallowing) a different (from itself) kind of cell, and then instead of digesting it, incorporated it into its system of organelles. This formed a new kind of cell, one that can divide into cooperating, specialized cells, such as bone and brain, all with the same DNA, but performing different functions.  He stated that this is so extremely unlikely to have happened, that it must have happened only once in the entire universe.  Once.  Had it not happened at all, the only life in the universe would be one-celled creatures, or, what he termed, “slime.”  He believes that slime may be common in the universe, but that multi-cellular organisms (including us) are unique, existing only on planet Earth.

 

What he did not say in the video, was that this one single event was not only unlikely in itself, but more unlikely yet, it occurred on one of the rare planets that meets all of the hundreds of conditions for supporting a technological civilization (a Privileged Planet).  Therefore, we may say that this unique event was vastly more likely to have occurred on a resource-poor planet where multi-cellular organisms could never have been able (for example) to mine metals, thereby remaining at most, something like primitive apes or some such.  Planet Earth is resource rich, with metals (for example) being near the surface, making it possible to mine them, thereby enabling technological industries.

 

Had he said this in the video, I think he might have seriously questioned his theory before (or while) presenting it.

 

A thought-experiment might illustrate the problems which random evolution must overcome to produce creatures such as exist on earth.  Suppose that instead of tracing the evolution of a bacterium into a mammal (let’s arbitrarily say an elephant), we instead trace the (fanciful) evolution of a roller skate into a large jet air liner.  Such an evolution would require that, by chance alone, one component of the roller skate be different from its predecessor component.  Most of the time, that change would be a defect, and therefore would cause that roller skate to be discarded, and no more copies of it would be produced.  But on very rare occasions, that chance mutation would provide some advantage, in other words, a better roller skate.  That better roller skate would then be used as a model to produce more of the same.

 

Once the new roller skate is produced, then further changes would be required to continue the evolutionary process.  Each change must be random.  Each change must keep the roller skate functional, that is, not break the skate.  Each change must provide a benefit if it is to be part of the evolutionary process.  At some point, the roller skate must develop additional features that make it no longer a roller skate, but something else, let us say, a tricycle, a bicycle, then a motor cycle, then a glider cycle, and eventually a large jet airliner.  Each one of these steps must keep the resulting product functional at the least, and beneficial if the process is to continue.

 

That is only a fanciful analogy to evolution, but it gives us an idea of how random chance is incorporated into the theories of evolution.

 

Of course, the analogy has to be extremely simplified, because even the simplest living cellular organism is astoundingly complex.  The diagrams found in biology text books cannot begin to describe its complexity.  It contains vast numbers of interdependent components, each working with all the others.  Even the most rudimentary cell could be compared to a bustling city with its factories, supply chains, power grids and communications with the outside world, et cetera.  How it is that such an amazing thing could have randomly evolved from nonliving molecules is beyond the expertise of even the most expert biologists.  They can speak of it only in generalities, and even when they are more specific, they certainly cannot duplicate it in the laboratory.

 

Could random changes to a one-celled creature lead eventually to an elephant?  Evolutionists say, yes; proponents of intelligent design say, no—or at least that it is so unlikely as to be utterly unreasonable to propose the idea.

 

Without a rigorous statistical analysis of all the relevant factors involved, there cannot be a consensus between evolutionists and proponents of intelligent design.  Either evolution can reasonably happen by chance, or not.  Either way, of course, there will be dissenting views, but at least the statistics will provide a reference point.

 

An alternative to “unguided” evolution is the idea that nature is imbued with something like a “life force,” a natural principle that inherently pushes molecules to arrange themselves into living cells, and incrementally, into ever more evolved creatures.  Hypotheses proposing such a life force might be considered natural, or supernatural, satisfying both atheists and theists alike.

 

More expansively, the existence of a cosmos in which life, consciousness and technology can exist, might be attributed to a “creative force,” whether God or natural.  At that point, however, atheists might find it increasingly uncomfortable to oppose theories of intentional design.

 

An additional consideration regarding the theory of evolution is that it applies not to merely one species, but to all species now in existence.  Each and every one of the millions of extant species, according to evolution theory, is (so far) the end product of a very long chain of unlikely mutations. All of them.  If that seems unimportant, consider also that the survival of each species depends on how every other species has evolved.  For example, if a predator evolves into one with the ability to eat all of its prey animals, those prey animals will eventually vanish, leaving the predator to starve.  The example is too simple, because in reality, every plant and animal in the vast ecosystem must evolve in a way not only to survive for itself, but for the entire ecosystem to survive.  Moreover, earth’s ecosystem has survived many catastrophic events, requiring new and successful (and unlikely, random) survivable mutations if evolution were to progress. 

 

It must also be mentioned that each “improvement” to an organism (such as stronger legs) must also be a “good fit” for all the other parts of that creature.  A stronger leg needs stronger muscles, thicker bone, better tendons, and even better blood flow, better heart and lungs. A better nut must fit the better bolt, so to speak.

 

A statistical analysis might find all of this so unlikely as to suggest that divine intervention, purposeful guidance, is the most likely explanation.

 

Every Time I Write About Science, It Changes!

 

From:  msn.com/en-us/news/technology/dark-energy-debunked

 

Dark Energy Debunked: Scientists Claim Accelerated Expansion of the Universe Is Just an ‘Illusion’

 

Two of the most intriguing theories in physics concern dark matter and dark energy.  When I initially wrote about these theories in a previous book, I accepted them as fact.  It now turns out that there is considerable doubt about both.  Could one or both of those theories be wrong? 

 

From:  msn.com/en-us/news/technology/dark-energy-debunked

The Timescape Model: Gravity’s Hidden Trick

The timescape model proposed by Wiltshire and his team suggests that gravity affects time flow differently across the cosmos. Here’s how it works:

・Galactic regions, where matter and gravity are denser, experience slower time flow.

・Cosmic voids, vast empty regions, allow time to flow faster.

This disparity creates what researchers describe as a “grumpled” structure of space-time. Light passing through these regions is stretched, mimicking the effect of accelerated expansion. As a result, the universe might not be accelerating—it’s simply expanding at different rates depending on location.

 

The preceding excerpt from msn dot com, refers to the currently accepted cosmology, a cosmology which Wiltshire et al are challenging.  In doing so, they are challenging not only a few details, but whether they intend it or not, the entire structure, right down to the so-called Big Bang Theory.

 

There have long been questions regarding the Big Bang.  As one physicist stated it, we have not answered what it was that “banged,” or what made it bang.  A paradoxical question is, “What was there before. . .”  Can there even be such a thing as before time began?  The paradox here is that there cannot have been a time before time.  Thus, the most basic structure of the universe is a baffling mystery to the greatest human minds.

 

The bottom line here is that, as JBS Haldane said,

“Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. I have read and heard many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and theosophy to the Christian system or that of Kant, and I have always felt that they were much too simple. I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy.”

 

If our brains are the product of a purely physical universe, with no supernatural component, then our brains are inherently incapable of comprehending that of which our brains are only a fragment.  If so, then our brains can produce only those thoughts which nature compels them to produce, regardless of whether those thoughts are reasonable or not.

 

The only things which we can know with certainty are those limited things which God has both revealed to us, and given us the capacity to understand.  He has given us consciousness, free will and reason, but those are not produced by the brain.  The brain is but an instrument of those things.

 

Scientific progress is a marvelous thing, but it often changes course.  It is not a defeat to learn that we were wrong about something.  Rather, it would be a defeat to deny our errors.  That error would prevent us from learning new things.

 

A quote from the Bible provides a sense of awe and wonder:

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.  1 Corinthians 2:9

 

Debunking Darwinism is Easy.  Replacing it is the Hard Part.

 

As the weaknesses in Evolution Theory become increasingly problematic, the question arises, can it be salvaged?  Must parts of it be discarded?  Or, will the entire theory collapse?  If evolution theory must be abandoned, then what will replace it?

 

The most likely replacement is so unacceptable to physicalist scientists that they continue to cling to Darwinism at any cost.  That replacement requires a new paradigm, one that demolishes traditional physicalism.

 

Where does Evolution Theory stand now, how did it get here, and where is it going?

 

Despite its reputation for explaining speciation in terms acceptable to mainstream physical science, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is full of holes.  Even physicalist biologists recognize that.  The updated versions of the theory fill some of those holes, but there still remain serious flaws in evolution theory.  Even so, it remains a deeply embedded idea, a strong bias, in the minds of many scientists.

 

There are two related aspects of the problem:  origin of life, and evolution.

 

Origin of life theories are based on the theoretical work of Aleksandr Oparin, and later experimentation by Miller and Urey.  They claimed to show that life on Earth could have originated billions of years ago in the form of organic molecules, and gradually evolved into all the life forms we see on Earth today, including humans.

 

The first defect in that idea is that there is a huge gap, a Grand-Canyon-sized gap, between amino acids and proteins.  Proteins are made of amino acids.  Proteins are complex molecules that are the basic building blocks of any living organism, from the simplest one-celled creature, to the most complex multi-cellular being.  Yet, the proteins found in living creatures are not only immensely complex, they behave in extraordinary ways.  From the most complex, known, naturally occurring amino acids, to the very simplest proteins formed by living cells, the gap is huge. 

 

The second defect is that the very simplest cellular life-forms are vastly more complex than most textbooks are able to convey.  A bacterium cell has a myriad of parts, all of them working in coordination with each other, in a system more complex than any human could design.  Each cell is enclosed within a cell wall that acts not only as a boundary, but as a sophisticated import/export mechanism.  The cell wall is multi-layered, and regulates the inflow of materials needed by the cell, as well as controlling the outflow of waste products.  How such a system came about, by chance, from amino acids, is more difficult to explain than it would be to describe how a jet airliner is manufactured, including all the peripheral industries and supply chains that are involved.

 

Consider also that proteins, the very complex, very necessary components of living cells, are made by those exact cells in a very complex procedure involving many proteins.  How, then, were the first protein molecules made?  It is as if a factory could operate only if it could make the parts which it uses to make those parts, from other parts it needs, in a convoluted chain of parts and processes—that were never intentionally designed.

 

Nothing in physics adequately explains how all of this could be brought into existence, much less, any principle that explains why nature would bring this about.  Without conscious intent, it all seems to be so unlikely as to be considered impossible. 

 

Once the problems of the origin of life have been considered, the next problem is to explain how the simplest cell gave rise to all the complex life forms we see in existence today.  According to evolution, the progression of life forms (from one species to another) occurs by chance mutations, changes, that are passed on from one generation to the next.  Each change occurs in one tiny part of an organism (a gene in a strand of DNA) at a time.  That genetic change must benefit the next generation if it is to be passed on.  Most changes are harmful, or for other reasons, are not passed on.  The changes add up, and over billions of years, result in us.

 

Even over billions of years, these beneficial changes must be exceedingly frequent, in order to result in the millions of changes that are needed to produce even a slight improvement in the survival prospects of a species.  This frequency of changes is required, because evolution does not allow for the planned, coordinated kinds of changes that would have to appear, not one-by-one, but in coordinated groups.  A single change might be potentially beneficial, but only if paired with related changes.  To use a mechanical analogy, a modified nut is useless without a bolt that is also modified, and modified in a way that fits the bolt.  Both modified components must also be beneficial.

 

As we observe the universe, we find evidence that it is an intentionally designed hierarchy of structure.  The cosmos is not a chaotic jumble of incongruous parts.  It all fits together.  The various kinds of subatomic particles (leptons, and various kinds of quarks) form atoms.  Protons in the atom must be of equal but opposite charge relative to electrons, even though the proton mass is 1800 times that of the electron.  The nucleus must contain protons and neutrons with specific strong and weak forces to hold it together.  Atoms are enormously complex and they are precision structures.  Different kinds of atoms combine to form molecules, of which there are an enormous variety.  Electromagnetism holds molecules together.  Atoms and molecules are drawn to each other by gravity to form larger objects, including planets and stars and galaxies.  All of this is governed by mathematical constants which must be precisely configured, or else, the universe would either spray outward into a frigid mist, or collapse into a fireball.

 

There seems to be an organizing principle, but from where does it arise, and for what purpose?  Evidence of that purpose is that the universe is meticulously configured to support life, to support conscious life, and thereby, life that is capable of intent and purpose (i.e., free will).

 

It is this combination of observations that requires a paradigm shift in science to explain it. That paradigm shift will include the following principles:

Life is not its chemistry, but rather, a life force that orchestrates biochemistry.  Consciousness is the only known phenomenon that observes itself.  Free will provides us with the power to freely investigate nature, and to make moral decisions that would be impossible in a deterministic universe.  A deterministic universe would have no inherent moral principle.

Behold, the work of God.

 

Human Intellect and Learning, Compared to Divine Revelation

 

As Bishop Fulton J Sheen (1895 – 1979) wrote so eloquently:

The great arcana of Divine Mysteries cannot be known by reason, but only by Revelation.  Reason can however, once in possession of these truths, offer persuasions to show that they are not only not contrary to reason, or destructive of nature, but eminently suited to a scientific temper of mind and the perfection of all that is best in human nature.

 

Bees do not learn how to build hives.  They do it by instinct.  Whether it is in their DNA, or some other reason, hive-building is an automatic behavior.

 

Human babies have a suckling instinct.  Most parents seem to have an instinct to protect their young.  For the most part, however, human behaviors are learned.  Learning can be on a simple level, such as observing and imitating, or on a much more complex level, involving teaching and education.  Scientists typically graduate from universities, and then go to work in laboratories, where they study nature, and make discoveries, adding to the sum total of human knowledge.

 

Physicalists generally agree that instinct and education are the two ways in which we develop complex behaviors, including the practice of science.  Physicalists tend (by definition), not to agree, that much of human knowledge is imparted by divine revelation.  They deny it.

 

Facts can be learned, but Truth is divinely revealed.  Truth can come to us from no source other than God.  By divine revelation we know that, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”  We know that the universe is not an accident, and that we are not merely happenstance assemblies of atoms in a purposeless cosmos.  We know that we are not products of physics, but beings of spirit.  We know that each of us is loved by God, and that if we are willing, our destiny is eternal life with Him, a life of unimaginable joy.

 

As Bishop Sheen intimated, we know these truths by divine revelation, and though they cannot be evinced by the scientific method, they are fully within the purview of reason.  Indeed, reason cannot get us anywhere worthwhile unless we begin with revealed truth.  This is why it is said that “Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.”  (Proverbs 9:10) Fear of God. and respect for Him, and a desire for Him—these set us firmly on the path to truth.  “Unless God builds the house, he who builds it labors in vain.”  (Psalm 127:1) All else is futility.

 

We know that we were created by God for perfection, but that we have fallen into sin and corruption.  We are helpless to rescue ourselves from an unimaginably hideous fate, the permanent separation from God.  “But with God, all things are possible.”  God sacrificed His only son, our Lord and Savior Jesus, so that our sins are washed away, and our destiny is secured forever.  We can forfeit that immeasurable treasure only by knowing, willful and persistent rejection of God—by taking the mark of the beast, that is, by blaspheming God’s Holy Spirit.  It is spiritual suicide, an utter perversion of the precious gift of free will.  It is an act of utmost evil, meticulously premeditated and stubbornly carried out against every effort of God to save us.  No one goes to Hell by accident or ignorance; they insist upon it.

 

We can learn spiritual truth by studying the revealed truth in the Bible (intellect and spirit), Christian fellowship and prayer.

 

Multi-verse, The Must-Be, Can’t-Be, Theories

 

In nature, we often find that, as in a dictatorship, nothing is optional.  In nature, the alternatives are always clear.  There are only two of them, required or forbidden.  Any good hypothesis begins with uncertainty, but with further discoveries, it eventually becomes apparent that, either the hypothesis must be true, or else, it cannot be true.

 

Of course, that uncertainty phase can linger for a long time, especially when those further discoveries have not yet been made.  Therefore, complex arguments can be made, some of them promoting the hypothesis, some of them contradicting it.

 

One of the most significant, and most important of these controversies involves the multiverse hypothesis.  It is often called a theory, but in science, the word, theory, requires a great deal of certainty, not quite proof, but very strong evidence at the least.  The multiverse hypothesis lacks some of the most important ingredients of theory, most importantly, observation.  It does have explanatory value, which is important, but the explanations it provides border on speculation.  No one has ever seen another universe, nor any persuasive physical evidence of one.  Without direct physical evidence, we must view the multiverse hypothesis with healthy skepticism, which is a vital feature of science.

 

Even so, great minds have found the hypothesis to be compelling and thought provoking.  We must ask, why. 

 

The basic underlying concept in multiverse theory, and indeed in standard cosmology, is chance.  It has been found that there are so many parameters in our universe, that one must wonder how they came about.  Many of these parameters must be within very narrow ranges to make life possible, and not only life, but civilization, technology and science itself. 

 

One explanation for the multitude of these precise parameters is, intentional design by a conscious, creative force, which many people call God.  The other explanation is chance, but if one is randomly to achieve the extremely unlikely set of parameters that make possible life and civilization, then one requires more than one chance—unimaginably large numbers of chances. That is where the multiverse hypothesis comes to the rescue.  (Or does it?)  The multiverse hypothesis proposes that there are so many universes, that by random chance, at least one of them is very likely to have these parameters.  Problem solved.  (Or is it?)

 

The first difficulty in resorting to random chance is that there is no evidence that the parameters in our own universe came about by random chance.  Quantum physics offers some support for this idea, since many phenomena at the subatomic level seem to operate at random.  However, even that support is tenuous, because random chance requires nonrandom parameters.  The random phenomena at the quantum level are not entirely random, since they are constricted to the precise properties of subatomic particles, and the properties of space-time.  Are these also entirely random?

 

In order for a theory of multiverse to be established based on random parameters (such as physical constants), there must be a framework in which those parameters come about.

 

For example, if our universe has twenty-seven physical constants, must we assume that all the universes in a multiverse have twenty-seven physical constants?  Must we assume that, among those constants, there are some that dictate the speed of light, and the mass of the electron (must there be electrons?), the strength of the nuclear forces and so on.

 

If there is such a template for what a universe must contain, what determines the structure of that template?  Randomness?  Can there be universes without space-time?  Can there be universes that have components and constants for which we have no concept?

 

As you can quickly see, the multiverse hypothesis, instead of explaining our universe, undertakes to explain an infinite number of them, with no clear basis for any of them. 

 

What are the properties of the multiverse?  What determines what those properties are? What generates those properties? What defines their scope and range? What enables it to contain, and produce, other universes?  What properties must those universes have?  What limitations?  What structure?

 

There is a simple, but popular, analogy of dice rolls.  If the properties of a universe are determined by dice rolls, then how many dice must be used?  How many sides does each die have?  How do the dice come into existence?  Are they produced at random, or by intentional design?

 

In short, the multiverse hypothesis has no potential to solve problems, but only to create infinitely more of them.

 

The Computer Simulation Paradox

 

There is a very peculiar hypothesis that keeps recurring in public discussions among science writers.  It is very speculative, but also, very thought-provoking.  It concerns the idea that the physical reality in which we live is a computer simulation.  By extension, we ourselves could be simulated creatures, products of a computer and the simulation program it runs.

 

While that notion is preposterous on many levels, it is seriously discussed by many people whose intellects dwarf mine, and so, it deserves discussion, if only as a philosophical exercise—a useful one at that.

 

One of the first questions which challenges the Computer Simulation Hypothesis is, if we are simulated creatures, then who simulated us, and to a further point, are they themselves simulations?  To ask another way, is there an ultimate Simulator? 

 

It all comes down to questions of the ultimate, absolute fundamental reality of, well, of reality itself.

 

One of the supporting arguments for our being in a simulation, is that the physical universe we observe, does behave in many respects as if it were designed, as if it were programmed, as if it followed rules and instructions.  Dr. Max Tegmark, a physicist, has remarked that the universe obeys mathematical rules so thoroughly, that he concludes that reality is math itself.

 

In regard to discussing such rules, however, we diverge into the theory of Intelligent Design, specifically design by a fundamental creative force or agent, and then we quickly merge into theology, a field at which physicalist theory scoffs. 

 

The greatest obstacle to the computer simulation hypothesis is the fact of our consciousness.  It must be clarified that the term consciousness is used here in the very specific context of our inward consciousness, our self-perception of our self-perception.  Inward consciousness is the only observed reality which perceives itself.  It does so from within itself.  Physics has no explanation for it beyond some vague concepts of emergent properties, but such concepts are far removed from our experience of consciousness.

 

As the late JBS Haldane said, paraphrasing, if our consciousness were the product solely of physical matter, then we would have no way of knowing that.  That is because physics, not conscious reason, would determine our every thought (and word and deed).  We would think and believe only according to the dictates of unconscious, deterministic laws of physics, whether or not those thoughts and beliefs were correct.  Were such the case, we would be observers of, not volitional participants in, our own lives.

 

The paradox would be, that the very fact of something being true, would prevent us from knowing that it is true.  Truth itself would obscure truth.

 

Consciousness, its inward reality, is a perplexing mystery.  It is not only the greatest unsolved question of science, it is arguably, by its very nature, forever beyond the ability of science to understand. 

 

The famous phrase of Renee Descartes, “I think, therefore I am,” has many levels of meaning.  One of them is that, the one and only fact of which we can be absolutely certain is that we are conscious.  Every other fact comes to us through our senses, such as sight and hearing, but all our senses are subject to error, such as optical illusions.  Nobody, however, can think he is conscious unless he is. (Although a computer can be programmed to claim that it is conscious, it does only what it is forced by its program to do.  It has no independent agency.)

 

The philosophy of Idealism goes so far as to claim that the only fundamental reality is consciousness itself.  There are many branches and implications arising from that claim, but let us return to the simulation hypothesis.

 

How did the simulation hypothesis ever become a matter of serious discussion?

 

With the advent of the computer revolution, technology has changed so dramatically that it is difficult to overstate the effects of computerization.  Computers can process tremendously vast amounts of data in fractions of a second.  They can work on difficult problems 24 hours a day without pause, producing vast amounts of accurate, calculated results.

 

One category of the projects that has been tackled by computers is that of simulations.  For example, weather forecasting involves calculations using complex bodies of atmospheric measurements.  Another project has been to predict the movements of planets within our solar system, and to predict the movements of stars within our galaxy, and even the motions of galaxies throughout the observable universe.

 

As our knowledge of astronomy has increased, it has been discovered that there are many billions of planets in our galaxy, and presumably in other galaxies.  It naturally follows that we might expect some of those planets will contain technologically advanced life forms.  If that expectation is justified, then we may speculate that some life form somewhere has developed a super-computer, one so unimaginably powerful, that it can simulate not only the movements of planets and stars and galaxies, but even of atoms and their subatomic particles—and do so on the scale of our known universe.

 

It is in this context that some scientists have developed the idea that, not only do we produce simulations (however primitive by comparison), but that we might ourselves be the product of hyper-advanced simulations.

 

The human brain has been compared to computers, and like computers, the brain can create models of reality.  These mental models might loosely be compared to simulations.

 

Physical science regards the human brain as being the seat of conscious thought and perception.  There is, of course, a clear correlation between the brain and thought.  Far less clear, however, is whether the brain gives rise to consciousness, or just hosts it.  The brain is composed of atoms, and atoms are not considered to be conscious.  Science has not been able to bridge the gap between unconscious matter and consciousness, so the role of the brain, in inward consciousness, might be as a repository rather than as a source.

 

Regardless, it does seem likely that the brain’s mechanism for understanding our physical surrounding is to simulate it.  How the brain might do this is poorly understood, if at all.  Can the brain understand itself?  Can the brain simulate itself?  Might the principle of self-similarity have something to do with it?

 

One might say that our understanding of the universe itself is based in a mental image, a mental simulation of the cosmos.

 

All this, of course, forces us to ask what, exactly, is a simulation?

 

Skipping over many important unknowns, we might ask, can the universe be a simulation of itself?

 

Why computers Can Never Become Conscious

from an American Thinker

commentary by Robert Arvay

 

Consciousness is the only known phenomenon in the universe that observes itself.  It does so from within itself.  This fact is the one that the experts cannot explain in physical terms, and will never do so, because consciousness cannot be merely physical.  It requires something more, something that no computer can ever have.

 

It is important to recognize that, whereas the outward form of consciousness can be measured by medical science, the inward experience of consciousness cannot.  Indeed, there is no completely satisfactory definition of inward consciousness.  As is consciousness itself, all definitions of consciousness are recursive. They use various synonyms of consciousness to define it. It is the property of being aware of one's own awareness. It is useless to define a word by using the word itself.

 

Attempting to find consciousness in the brain is like trying to find music in a violin.  Music requires a composer to write it, a musician to play it, and a listener to appreciate it.  The brain is the instrument of thought, not its source.  Damaging the brain can damage consciousness, just like damaging the violin can decrease its usefulness as a musical instrument, but the violin is not the music itself.

 

Physical science is a wonderful tool for understanding the physical world, but the adage is apt:  when one’s only tool is a hammer, every problem is seen as a nail.  Physical science is not the problem, physicalism is.  Scientists sometimes are.  Physicalism involves the circular reasoning which says that everything in physics can be explained by physics.

 

The fact of consciousness breaks that circular trap.  While physicalists might say that consciousness is an illusion, they cannot define what it is that is having that illusion.  Can an illusion have an illusion?

 

In order to begin to understand consciousness, one must place it in its natural context.  It is part of the triunity of life, consciousness and free will. 

 

Life is not the chemistry that biologists study, it is the elan vital, the life force, which arranges chemicals into living creatures.  That life force is why living creatures become conscious.  Human consciousness is unique in the physical world, because it can exercise independent agency, free will.  Our free will is the ability to make moral decisions, decisions that the physical principle of cause-and-effect would otherwise prevent.  Free will is why we are accountable for our deeds.  Without it, we would be helpless observers of our own lives, but not active participants.

 

There is more.  The very existence of the physical universe requires a creative force.  That creative force does not merely say, “Let there be,” it also organizes what otherwise would remain “formless and void,” into an intricately designed, coordinated and finely tuned symphony of natural law.

 

It is that creative force which breathed its divine life into the first man, and which we all have inherited as a free gift, to do with as we will, whether for good or evil.

 

Good and evil have no physicalist definition.  A purely physicalist science says that they do not exist, that they are merely the subjective and tentative opinions generated by purely physical neurons.  They are, in physicalism, as illusory as music would be were there no soul underlying it.

 

An enormous avalanche of physical evidence is increasingly being recognized by a new generation of scientists, which is leading inexorably to the conclusion that you are not your DNA.  Indeed, DNA is now known not to be the blueprint of your body, as geneticists once claimed it was.  It merely codes for proteins, the building blocks, so to speak, of living creatures.  Even so, DNA is a miraculous molecule, within which are written incomprehensibly complex instructions, more complex than any computer could ever execute.

 

Why it is that some of your cells become bone cells, some become brain cells, and so on for every tissue of your body, is a complete scientific mystery.  Not even DNA can explain it.

 

It is one of a myriad of mysteries that are forever beyond the ken of physicalism.  It is time for physical science to turn the page.  A good place to begin would be Genesis 1:1. [End of commentary]

 

The Entire Cosmos is Pervaded by an Unknowable Force, that of Spirit

 

This claim does not pretend to be scientific, but it most certainly is not speculation.  When one has a continuing personal encounter with a reality that has no physical explanation, but cannot be denied, then that person must accept it as fact, despite all the seemingly logical arguments to the contrary.

 

One of those continuing experiences is one that we all have, that of the physical universe.  It may seem paradoxical, but the physical universe has no physical explanation.  It just is.  It has many secrets, which scientists attempt to unravel, to varying degrees of success.  No one can explain how it came to be, or how it continues to exist.  Those are matters for philosophy and religion.  Science concerns itself with observation, repeatable experiments, and reason.  Nothing more.

 

Another continuing experience that we all have is consciousness.  It cannot be fully defined nor explained, but neither can it be denied.  Consciousness is the only known phenomenon which observes itself.  It does so from within itself, by means of itself.  While the outward appearance of consciousness can be defined, the inward experience cannot.  It seems to be of a recursive nature, wrapping inward on itself.

 

The inward experience of consciousness has no physical explanation, even though physicalist scientists seek one in the brain.  Is that not like seeking for music inside the violin?

 

The revered physicist, Stephen Hawking, who rejected the idea of a personal God, famously asked, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations [of science] and makes a universe for them to describe?"

If ever a question contained its own answer, perhaps this one comes closest. 

 

Each of us has his own personal, inward experience of existence.  As Renee Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am.” 

 

The universe is in a fallen state, and within it are sad and terrifying examples of unspeakable suffering.  Yet, at the same time, it bears the benchmarks of a benevolent Creator.

 

All of existence is saturated with that creative force, that conscious, purposeful and living spirit of God.  All we can know is that which is divinely revealed, and only to the extent that we are given the capacity to know.  A cup can be filled, but beyond that, it is pointless to pour more into it.

 

May you be fulfilled with the Holy Spirit of God.

-

Is the Bible Reliable?

 

The Bible is considered by many to be the most controversial and most consequential document ever written.  It has been called mythical, but it also has been called historically accurate.  Scientists, however, have been skeptical of its account of miracles.

 

Many people believe that the Bible is the Word of God, written by human hands but under the guidance of the Creator.  If so, then it has no mistakes, no internal contradictions.  Others point out that there do seem to be contradictions in both the Old and New Testaments.  Are they correct?  If so, do those invalidate the entire Book?  Do they make it unreliable?  Do they make it the word of men, but not of God?

 

One of the first purported inconsistencies has to do with whether Adam was the first man.  Yet, the Bible also says that to the east of Eden there was the Land of Nod.  That land was apparently populated by people, whom Cain feared would punish him for killing Abel.  One could explain this apparent discrepancy by various means, but those all appear to be more awkward than should be the case.  The Bible does not specifically state that Adam was the first human, but only that he was specially made

from dust.  Many Christians say that where the Bible is silent, we should not infuse our own ideas as fact.

 

A significant issue concerns the Flood of Noah’s time.  The Bible says that a worldwide flood covered the entire earth.  Geologists say that they find no evidence of that, but evidence against.  What they do find is that there were many localized catastrophes, including massive flooding.  Worldwide, there are many legends of such catastrophes, including from sources outside of the Bible.  They infer that the Bible writers adapted those legends and inserted forms of them into scripture.

 

The historical accounts in the Bible seem to be accurate.  Repeatedly, new archaeological discoveries seem always to confirm them, never to disprove any of them.

 

The greatest controversy concerns the Resurrection of Jesus, both scientifically and archaeologically.  Physicalist scientists dismiss out of hand that a person, after death, can be restored to life.  Moslems say that Jesus did not actually die.

 

Perhaps the strongest physical evidence of the Resurrection is the famous Shroud of Turin, the burial cloth of Jesus.  It bears what appears to be a full scale, photographic negative of the crucified corpse of Jesus.  Much has been written about it, but as of this writing, all of the credible evidence favors the Biblical account, none disproves it.

 

Opponents of the claim of Biblical divine inspiration, cite many and various reasons to reject it.  The Bible contains numerous accounts of brutality, violence and horrific crimes, often in shocking detail.  It regards the condition of institutional slavery without seeming to specifically condemn the entire practice. 

 

Yet, the Bible does not whitewash any of that.  Its human writers put it all to the pages.  Even its greatest heroes from Moses to the Apostles are regarded as having faults and flaws, some of them shocking.  I am not aware of any other major religious texts doing anything comparable.  Indeed, the Bible portrays only God Himself as being absolutely perfect in every way, and that includes Jesus, one person of the triune God.

 

There are many volumes of Bible commentary, some supportive, some opposed.  To my mind, the best way to decide is to read it oneself, and then to observe whether doing so improves one’s life or not.  That is the most useful test.  For myself, I have found that prayerfully studying it has transformed my life for the better.  The criticisms are interesting, pro and con, but at some point, one has to make a decision.  I am firmly convinced that God has led me to the correct one.  May He do so for you.

 

 

 

EPILOGUE

 

 

Why the Scientific Establishment Desperately Needs to Adopt the God Paradigm

 

 

Metaphysical questions such as, “why is there something instead of nothing,” deserve more than just a shrug from scientists.  There is an actual answer, and it is not random chance.  If the two possibilities are that physical reality arises either from random chance, or intentional design, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of conscious plan and purpose.  That answer cannot be contained within physical science, because it is the beginning point of science.  Without that beginning point, scientists are left to wander about without direction, exploring a physical reality which many of them already believe is meaningless and without purpose.

 

Blinded by physicalism, the institutions of science are helping to steer an entire civilization toward destruction.  Their inevitable fate is to dominate a techno-barbarism which will devour science itself, and the scientists, along with the rest of us.

 

There is no excuse for doing this.  Whereas it was once religionists who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, it is now those who wear the vestments of science, who evade the obvious.  They demand proof, but they seek a proof requiring rules that are already skewed toward physicalism.

 

This book has presented an overview of the evidence, scientific and otherwise, for the God paradigm, which can be accepted even by those who hesitate to acknowledge “nature’s God.”  That overview includes what might be called a Creative Force, but which otherwise is known as God.  With that as a starting point, genuine scientific inquiry can proceed.  Techno-barbarism can be, if not avoided altogether, attenuated in its effects on those who worship God.

 

God is personal.  While this book has properly focused on science and reason, God is not a formula, not a principle, not merely an explanation.  He is not distant.  He is right here, right now, with you.  He is intricately involved in your life. He loves you, and me, beyond what we can imagine. No scientific endeavor can achieve its potential without an appeal to Him.  Prayer, scripture and communal worship are vital bases of any human life.  They are omitted at grave peril, that of spiritual starvation, a branch cut from the plant which sustains it.

 

I will concede one point to physicalism.  If we are mere phenomena of the universe, then none of this matters.  As St Paul said, if Jesus did not rise from death, then our faith is fruitless. 

 

Science cannot lead us to faith, but faith can make sense of science.  It is the beginning point.

 

 

---

[1] Atlantic Monthly, April 1993, viewable online at http://www.mpomerle.com/Politics/Atlantic.shtml

[2] See also http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/search?fulltext=apotemnophilia&submit=yes&x=15&y=10

[3] http://jme.bmj.com/content/28/5/283.full