Priest-Cosmologist Wins $1.6 Million Templeton Prize

New York Times ^ | 03/13/2008 | Brenda Goodman

[iowamark]

The $1.6 million Templeton Prize, the richest award made to an individual by a philanthropic organization, was given Wednesday to Michael Heller, 72, a Roman Catholic priest, cosmologist and philosopher who has spent his life asking, and perhaps more impressively answering, questions like “Does the universe need to have a cause?”...

Much of Professor Heller’s career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God.

In doing so, he has argued against a “God of the gaps” strategy for relating science and religion, a view that uses God to explain what science cannot.

Professor Heller said he believed, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.”

In a telephone interview, Professor Heller explained his affinity for the two fields: “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence.”

Professor Heller said he planned to use his prize to create a center for the study of science and theology at the Pontifical Academy of Theology, in Krakow, Poland, where he is a faculty member....

On returning years later to Poland, where Communist authorities sought to oppress intellectuals and priests, Professor Heller found shelter for his work in the Catholic Church. He was ordained at 23, but spent just one year ministering to a parish before he felt compelled to return to academia....

The prize will be officially awarded in London by Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, in a private ceremony on May 7 at Buckingham Palace.

[Alamo-Girl]

Correction:

In this case, Bayesian works for the theist argument. And to rebut it, the atheists likewise do a 180 degree reversal and advance combinatorics – that this universe is equally probable to any other universe. They support this claim with the anthropic principle (retroactive amazement) plus the plentitude argument (everything that can happen, did) plus infinity past (that there was no beginning of real space or real time.) And we, of course, rebut each of those on the merits.

[hosepipe]

[ And we cannot say that something is a straight line if we don't see the hole line. Do you see the problems with your statement? In the physical world, there is nothing we know to be a straight line - and there is nothing we know to be random. Doesn't stop us from doing geometry or probability theory - and geometrical or statistical physics...

Ah! the observer problem again.. In all the great big relativity telescopic view or in the little bitty Quantum Physics microscopic view of stuff, geometry is twisted like a pretzel.. in a three(some say four) dimensional sense.. You know the world of flesh and bone..

If there is a fifth(n#) dimension say a Spiritual Dimension as meta-physicists suppose then geometry could be obsolete.. Maybe SHAPE could be a 3D concept.. if "spirit(s)" could morph into whatever shape.. i.e.. geometry would be silly in that dimension.. There the father son and holy spirit (and others) could merge or separate for some function.. and then re-merge.. Are we merging here? LoL.. Anyway.. my observations go along those lines.. Locked into a geometrical flesh box is just not my cup of tea.. You know sense we're "if'n"...

You see the way I see/observe it.. Humans obsess on shape.. Everything has to have a shape and lines of demarcation.. When that may not be absolute.. Male, female, tall, short, animal, rock, or plasma.. Quantum Mechanics can compute plamoid.. What if spirits are shape shifters.. plasmoidal.. It could then be "relatively" easy for God to become Jesus.. or for Satan to become Hillary Clinton(sic)..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[bezelbub]

Moreover if the correspondent advances “randomness” or “equal probability” in one instance – e.g. quantum mechanics – and then decries it in another, e.g. in Schroeder’s analysis of the probability of proteins – we will call him on the inconsistency and ask him to justify how in one instance each possibility is equally probable while it is not in the other.

One cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is.”

We'll never know a system that well that we can say it is random - as we will never know that a line in the real world is a straight line.

And we don't have to know this: we apply mathematics to our realities as long as this application works, i.e., leads us to predictions.

And out of convenience, we'll say that radioactive decay happens randomly - and a beam of light is a straight line.

[bezelbub]

And to rebut it, the atheists likewise do a 180 degree reversal and advance combinatorics – that this universe is equally probable to any other universe.

What do you mean by "this universe is equally probable to any other universe"?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

We'll never know a system that well that we can say it is random - as we will never know that a line in the real world is a straight line.

Both are mathematical structures. In Max Tegmark’s Level IV universe model, mathematical structures actually exist outside of space and time. What an observer "in" space/time would consider to be “real” is an illusion of that reality.

Tegmark’s is the only closed physical cosmology known to me. All of the others get twisted pretzel-like in an attempt to explain the beginning (and end) of space/time and therefore, physical causality itself.

And we don't have to know this: we apply mathematics to our realities as long as this application works, i.e., leads us to predictions. And out of convenience, we'll say that radioactive decay happens randomly - and a beam of light is a straight line.

In General Relativity, a beam of light follows the curvature of space/time. And both radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations (classic examples of “random” phenomena in nature) are physically caused. They cannot be isolated as a self-contained theoretical “system.”

Radioactive decay is an event caused by a collapse of the interplay between the strong nuclear force, electrostatic force, and weak nuclear force (perhaps also involving the gravitational force). It requires an activation energy to initiate (i.e., cause) the collapse. Quantum fluctuations are more interesting, because they are virtual particles which come into and out of existence in a vacuum. Nevertheless, neither event can occur in the absence of space/time.

One form of causality can be stated: But not for A, C would not be. If A is removed, C cannot/does not exist. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

Thus I find Tegmark’s Level IV universe a superior physical cosmology.

What do you mean by "this universe is equally probable to any other universe"?

The atheist counter-argument to the theist observation that this universe is finely tuned for life is based on multi-verse physical cosmologies which conclude that all possible universes came into existence (plentitude argument, anything that can happen, did.) Their claim is that our universe is but one of all possible universes, equally probable to exist because all have existed - and therefore, that it happens to be finely tuned for life is moot.

As one of them explained in a metaphor, for a customer to walk into a store where all possible sizes of jeans are stocked and find the one that fits him precisely is no big deal.

Their appeal to the plentitude argument (the fully stocked store) is a statement of faith - it cannot be supported by observation.

[hosepipe]

[ Both are mathematical structures. In Max Tegmark’s Level IV universe model, mathematical structures actually exist outside of space and time. What an observer "in" space/time would consider to be “real” is an illusion of that reality. ]

True, reality is an "observation".. Especially to humans.. Some humans "think" they are Napolean.. Second realitys of all kinds exist just as bizaar... What is first reality?.. Who can say they have no part of a second reality?.. Can second reality be in degrees?..

Could be that Jesus(and OT God) in his/their metaphors was/were weening us from our second reality(s).. Spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh it is said.. That could be a hint to reality.. A trail of crumbs(the metaphors thru various prophets).. through the trees of the forest..

Maybe thats what Tegmark hinted at.. as he followed the trail of crumbs.. Trying to find his way out of the forest.. That the illusion(s) we think is/are real are really pointing toward>> a reality we as humans cannot concieve of(fully).. [that we see darkly]..

[hosepipe]

If, so, Tegmark was on to something..

[MHGinTN]

Tegmark shmegmark, I wanna know why I seldom get pinged to these threads and have to stumble onto them? ... And ‘at present’ we observe nothing in the actual present of the phenomenon, only in the wake or past of the initial/initiating event. Time is linear, planar, and volumetric, and we exist/experience in the planar frame of reference receiving only linear data impacting on our ‘plane’.

[MHGinTN]

Hmmm, maybe that last post is why I don’t get pinged to these ‘rational’ threads.

[hosepipe]

[ Tegmark shmegmark, I wanna know why I seldom get pinged to these threads and have to stumble onto them? ... ]

I'm gonna tell you.. Your handle is too complicated.. I cant remeber how to spell it.. many toimes I would ping your ugh.. lower quarters but cant remember the spelling..

Others may have the same problem.. I was a genius when I was 20 but have grown progressivly more stupid over the years..

[MHGinTN]

Riiiiight, it's all so clear now ... :^)

[hosepipe]

[ Time is linear, planar, and volumetric, and we exist/experience in the planar frame of reference receiving only linear data impacting on our ‘plane’. ]

Good subject time.. Could be in the scale of eternity time is relativly meaningless.. Its timing thats important.. for all we have is the moment.. Linear time is only important to things that can DIE...

[MHGinTN]

... But ‘I don’t know’ inhabits the tertiary position.

[hosepipe]

Very good variation of Who's on first.. thanks

Forsoothe the Susquehanna Hat Company bit might be good in iambic pentameter..

[hosepipe]

[ ... But ‘I don’t know’ inhabits the tertiary position. ]

A duckett for your efforts, sir..

[YHAOS]

LOL!

[Alamo-Girl]

Could be that Jesus(and OT God) in his/their metaphors was/were weening us from our second reality(s).. Spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh it is said.. That could be a hint to reality.. A trail of crumbs(the metaphors thru various prophets).. through the trees of the forest..

Indeed, it is not "about" this life.

Oh, and I definitely think Tegmark was onto something.

Thank you so much for all of your insights, dear brother in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

I wanna know why I seldom get pinged to these threads...

My bad, dear MHGinTN! I should have pinged you. Sorry about that....

[betty boop]

Thus whenever a correspondent advocates that a certain thing in nature is “random” we hold his feet to the fire. He is using combinatorics to make that claim – all possibilities within the scope of the investigation are equally probable - a uniform distribution.... Nor will we stand idly by while he attempts to project the observation in a sample to the whole. (An element of the "observer problem.")

There is no basis to project an observation in a controlled experiment to the whole of the universe. The experiment itself is an artificial construct, and what is viewed is abstracted from the context in which it naturally occurs. In a laboratory, our sample may well be "a uniform distribution." But this does not allow us to say that all of nature is a uniform distribution (all possibilities equally probable, so that everything happens sooner or later, or has already happened in the past).

Dearest sister in Christ, thank you oh so very much for your excellent essay-posts on this subject!