Replies

Hi TXnMA! Long time no see!!!

Sparklite2 wrote: On a related note, wouldn’t it be nice if we could append the [caucus] designation on some physics threads to forestall the pumping of Jesus and Creationism where they are not wanted?

To which you replied: Actually, as a physical scientist, I find zero conflict between science and belief in the Creator and His works -- or in His Son, as well.... Therefore, I'm perfectly comfortable discussing matters of science (cosmology, in this instance) completely independent of matters of faith.

Just some observations. Science cannot be done without faith, though not necessarily of the specifically religious type. (Take away all the religions in the world, and God is still there.) The faith of many scientists today is that one can explain universal reality completely without reference to God, divine creator, in any way. The scientific method alone suffices to explicate nature and its workings: "We don't need God."

I'm reading an interesting book -- The Theory of Nothing, by Russell K. Standish, 2006 -- that perfectly illustrates my point. This book purports to be an explication of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In it, Standish attempts to refute biblical scripture to "clear the decks" so his complete faith in the omnicompetence of science can dominate. He opens some chapters of his book with direct quotes from scripture, only to denigrate them. Two examples:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -- John, 1:1.

To which Standish retorts,

In the beginning, there was Nothing, not even a beginning. From out of this Nothing, emerged everything we see around us today.

To me, this statement is tantamount to declaring that the universe had no cause. This is a notable departure from standard scientific practice, in which it is assumed that all existing things have causes. They don't just simply appear out of thin air, out of Nothing at all. Plus there is the question: How can something "emerge" when the alleged emergence is out of a state of Nothing? What physical principle, what law of logic can account for this?

A second example:

And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. -- Genesis 1:3-5.

To which Standish writes:

In this book we examine a truly preposterous theory, a theory that all of the reality we see around us, the animals, plants, rocks and seas that make up our planet Earth; the stars and galaxies that make up the entire visible universe; is but a speck in a truly vaster realm. A realm of parallel realities, in which you and I exist, but chance events have different outcomes, and indeed others in which you and I were never born.... I shall argue that the burden of proof is actually with the singular view of reality. For there to be a unique strand of reality with but a unique strand of history is actually less plausible than for all possible histories to exist side-by-side, and of our only being aware of the one history that we each experience.

As observers, we each of us can see only what is visible from our POV. Thus I find it odd that Standish claims to "see" multiwords which, by definition, are never direct observables for observers on our "world line."

TXnMA, I agree with your statement, "the view of our universe from this third-rate ball of mud is infinitely far from the only one" in principle. Anyhow, in the original creation event, God made everything that exists, not just our planet Earth, but the entire universe, including any multiworlds it may contain. Without a beginning, nothing comes into existence. Nothing happens without a cause. Or at least, this has been a long-held belief of physical scientists down the ages.

As to whether the universe is bounded or unbounded, it seems to stand to reason that it must be the former. An "unbounded" universe is said to be "infinite." But infinity is a mathematical concept that does not "construct well" in physics. What notion do we have in our minds that could describe infinity? We humans have absolutely zero experience of infinity. Plus the Logos -- which is eternal, not infinite, of the beginning (think of this in the Greek sense if you prefer to avoid the religious one) is a kind of specification or blueprint for all things "visible and invisible" that come into existence in time.

In short, Standish argues that our cosmology or description of the universe and its evolution is merely one "description" among an infinite number of other possible descriptions. He seems to think all are equally valid, sight unseen. One does not know on what basis he knows this. It looks like an act of faith to me. In his book, Standish proposes

...a Plenitude of all descriptions, containing at least one that is a conscious observer. At first blush this seems strange, it looks like a category error -- confusing mere description of the real thing, confusing the map with the territory. However, this is the only way of closing the ontology, otherwise there is forever something else breathing "fire into our equations" as Stephen Hawking put it. It should be treated as a working hypothesis until either it is demonstrated as clearly false, or a more detailed theory of conscious[ness] tells us how consciousness comes about....

Standish really lets the cat out of the bag in this statement. This scientist is attempting to explain the universe (including the hypothetical multiverse) using scientific means alone. God is ushered out of his reasoning altogether. But in order to do this, he has to commit what Whitehead called the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness: This fallacy precisely describes a situation where one has sacrificed any notion of actual "territory", and is raising the "map" of it to the status of truth. The map eclipses the real, which is made unreal in the process.

However, it seems clear to me that the denial of God does not eliminate God. You can deny Him all day long, but He IS, with or without your recognition of Him. And to the extent that science supposedly deals with direct observables, God does not lie within its field of competence anyway. Science is the wrong tool for understanding God. But God is implicit, behind everything science does. Unless one is prepared to believe that human consciousness and reason itself are the result of a "random" evolutionary process initiated in the Nothing at all. Which strikes me as completely nonsensical, implausible.

Well, must run for now, off to a PT appointment. But I hope to return to this fascinating subject later today.

Thanks so much for writing, dear TXnMA!