 |
|
| Category: Metaphysical Publications |
Date published: June 15, 2004 |
(NOTE: this text originally appeared at http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/SoulStuff#1087111523, where various comments and replies were posted over the course of about four years. The posting has now been declared inappropriate and soon will be deleted. After deletion it may be partially retained by www.archive.org (depends on when they last took a snapshot of the page). It is assumed that because the entire page plus commentary was open to public view at the halfbakery (and also is mostly viewable at archive.org), there will be no objections if it becomes open to public view via "Metaphysical Publications". Thank you.)
---------------------------------------------------
SoulStuff
Quantum Metaphysics 101: How Evolution Created God
First, let's get hypocrisy out of the way. Suppose one contemplates the Earth, and asks, "What is it made of?" A problem arises in that the word "made" implies a Maker, which in turn leads to the question, "What is the Maker made of?" And that, of course, leads to the question, "What is the Maker of the Maker made of?" And that... well, you see the problem! In prior centuries, the typical solution to the problem has been to insist that the Earth was Made, but the Maker was not -- pure hypocrisy, since there remains the question, "What is the Maker made of?" A better solution to the problem is to use some other word than "made" when asking such questions, a word less associated with the notion of "making". For example, there is "comprised", or "constituents"... Then it becomes possible to ask questions in a more rational way: "What are the constituents comprising the Earth?" and "Was the Earth Made?" and "If the Earth was Made, what are the constituents comprising the Maker?" Thus disappears the hypocrisy associated with the notion that Item A can exist, be "made of" Item B, and therefore must have been Made, while Item C can exist, be "made of" Item D, but was never Made. Thus the task of this essay is to show how something complex can exist without being Made. It may take a while, since a lot of background material must be presented before all the pieces are put together.
The most important descriptions in Physics, concerning how the Universe works, are General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Of the two, Quantum Mechanics is probably the more important, because General Relativity depends on the existence of the Universe, while Quantum Mechanics operates in spite of the existence of the Universe. In other words, even if the Universe did not exist, (such as before the Big Bang), Quantum Mechanics can still describe the kinds of events which are possible. In a way, it can be said that Quantum Mechanics is a natural consequence of one single philosophical point: Consider the question, "Why is there Something, rather than Nothing?" (Even God must qualify as "Something".) Well, notice that the definition of "Nothing" literally is "No Thing" --in other words, Something must be able exist in order for Nothing to be defined! And, reversing the starting point, suppose that there was indeed Nothing: What would there be to PREVENT Something from existing? NOTHING! The purely philosophical answer to the question thus appears to be: "The non-existence of Something would be a paradox." And, returning to the questions asked at the start of this essay, we might instead ask, "What properties does (fill in the blank) have, which distinguish it from Nothing?" For anything/everything that exists, there must be an answer to that question! In Quantum Mechanics there is a concept sometimes called as "energy fluctuations in the vacuum". Particles of matter and energy are allowed to pop into temporary existence, and then vanish again before they can be detected. Every single type of particle known to Modern Physics, and any other particle which is able to exist, does exist, everywhere, temporarily, undetectably, and "all the time". (The popping-into-existence-and-vanishing is what happens all the time. In-between such random appearances, there is Nothing.) Even if the Universe did not exist, fluctuations of Space/Time/Mass/Energy would still be possible. Thus does Quantum Mechanics match philosophy: Both Something and Nothing Always Exist! (Some theorists consider the Big Bang to be merely a giant fluctuation, but that is irrelevant to the current discussion.)
In Quantum Mechanics a number of descriptions of interactions between small numbers of particles can be simplified by noticing that they have Symmetry. Most of the time, if you view an event, and view a mirror-image of that event, both events are quite possible and equally likely. This is called "Parity Symmetry" (or P-Symmetry), and it means that only half of all possible events need be described. Next, and also most of the time, if you consider an event among ordinary particles, the same event can also occur among particles of anti-matter. This is called "Charge Conjugation Symmetry" (or C-Symmetry), and it also is a way of cutting in half the total number of events which need be described. Third, and again most of the time, if you make a movie of an event (involving just a few particles), and play that movie backwards, then the portrayed event is also a possible distinct event. This is called "Time Reversal Symmetry" (or T-Symmetry), and again it allows the total number of events needing description to be cut in half. There are exceptions to the individual Symmetry rules. For example, some events among ordinary particles prefer to result in a "left handed outcome" rather than equal numbers of both left-handed and right-handed outcomes. However, it happens that those same events, among particles of anti-matter, prefer the right-handed outcome! Thus we see a broader kind of Symmetry, encompassing both Charge Conjugation and Parity. And some exceptions to "CP Symmetry" exist, but are balanced by including Time Reversal (into a grand "CPT Symmetry"). So the concept of Symmetry is important, and needs to be remembered.
In Quantum Mechanics, anything that CAN happen is given a particular statistical chance of happening. Everything is both uncertain and probable (of course, a probability of .00001 is perhaps better labeled "IMprobable", but the word "probable" technically includes the improbable). One interesting thing is that the probabilities themselves can sometimes be manipulated. It is known that under certain conditions, the probabilities associated with the "energy fluctuations in the vacuum" can be reduced. That is, the likelihood of certain fluctuations occurring will be lessened. The importance of Symmetry implies that under certain other conditions, the likelihood of certain fluctuations occurring will be enhanced.... The essence of those fluctuations is that particles of matter or energy appear from Nothing, persist for a short time, and then vanish again. When it happens, the temporarily-existing particles are called "virtual particles". WHILE virtual particles exist, they are identical in every way to ordinary, constantly existing particles. And ordinary particles are constantly interacting with the spontaneously appearing -- and disappearing -- virtual particles. (All known natural forces, such as gravitation and electromagnetism, are described in Quantum Mechanics as being logical consequences of those interactions.) Anyway, the current point to be remembered is the fact that the probability of appearance of virtual particles can be manipulated.
Consider a pond of still water. If one tosses a pebble into the water, waves ripple outwards from the entry point in classic fashion. In Quantum Mechanics, every single thing has a particle-like aspect and a wave-like aspect. And every event that occurs generates wave-like (and particle-like) results. Furthermore, there are two possible results for every event. One result is known as a "retarded wave" and the other result is known as an "advanced wave". The names refer to time.... The retarded-wave result proceeds from the moment of the event into the future, at the normal rate of sixty seconds per minute. Ripples on a pond are retarded waves. The advanced-wave result proceeds from the moment of the event into the past. Physicists have not yet detected any advanced waves arriving from future events, although Quantum Mechanics plainly permits them to exist. Now recall what was previously written about virtual particles, the energy fluctuations in the vacuum. They exist everywhere and all the time, but they are never allowed to be directly detected. So it is a simple step to conclude that while advanced waves MAY exist in real-energy form (the kind which can be detected), they almost certainly exist in virtual-energy form. (ANY simple thing that CAN exist in reality, WILL exist in virtuality.)
Mathematicians have a pastime/game/investigation generally known as "cellular automata". The game-form of this thing is called "Life". On a two-dimensional grid of squares, certain cells in the grid are arbitrarily filled, and the rest are left blank. Simple rules are applied to the pattern of occupied cells. Empty cells may become "birth cells" in which occupants will appear. Overpopulation and loneliness can cause filled cells to become empty. After the rules are applied, therefore, a new pattern of filled cells will exist. Then the rules are applied again (for the next "generation"). The patterns that can be generated are often very intriguing. Now consider the infinite and eternal VOID, which existed before the Big Bang, and which had 3 or 4 or 11 or 20-something or who-knows-how-many geometric dimensions. Consider virtual particles spontaneously popping into existence, everywhere and all the time. Consider that WHILE they exist, they are as real as can be. And most important, consider that existing particles can affect the spontaneous appearance of other virtual particles nearby. It sounds like a natural recipe for a game of Life, right? In the game of Life, patterns can appear which are dynamically stable. Some will take more than a hundred "generations" to return to the original configuration. Some take only two generations. Some can produce "offspring" of various shapes and activity...but our computer simulations of Life are limited. Two-dimensional, they are, and have boundaries, such as the time allotted to run the simulation, and the edges of the grid. The infinite and eternal VOID by definition has no boundaries to interrupt the course of the game. And Evolution is most certainly a consequence....
As random patterns of virtual particles pop into existence in the infinite and eternal VOID, some patterns which are temporarily dynamically stable are bound to appear. Some will move with respect to others, and collisions will usually -- and quickly -- rupture the stability of both. Consider more about how these groupings of virtual particles can form, break, interact, reform, re-interact, rebreak, and reform in multitudinous ways. Won't some of those groupings, by pure chance, be slightly more stable than those original temporary patterns? They would then tend to persist for a significant interval. A grouping that randomly acquired some small amount of self-repair ability could persist over the long term. Next, given enough opportunities for interaction, certain groups are GOING to happen to interact in such a way that neither is destroyed. Such "groups of groups" of virtual particles constitute a crude degree of organization. In an ever-changing envrionment, the current example being the unending appearance/disappearance of virtual particles, it is obvious that more-stable organizations will persist longer than the less-stable. Enter the next fact: The more stable an organization is, the more complex it is capable of becoming. Finally, note that "feedback" is a description of how these organized groupings of virtual particles, encountering each other and sometimes coalescing can eventually reach a point of enormously complex dynamic stability. This would likely include the ability to grow in an organized way, and perhaps even the ability to reproduce.
"Consciousness" appears to be based on patterns and flows of energy. Evolution of organized, dynamically stable patterns of virtual particles should eventually produce flowing patterns equating to consciousness. From there a battle for supremacy may have been inevitable...or not, depending on how quickly the first consciousness seized the initiative. The winner of that battle may be referred to as "God". Depending on the starting conditions and the outcome, other gods may exist, too. This chain of reasoning makes no claims concerning the thought-processes and desires (whether selfish or selfless) of any such entity or entities. Thus it is impossible to state, without supporting evidence, whether God is alone.... According to religious doctrine, "souls" are the offspring of God. What are the properties of souls, existing as seems possible in an environment of ever-changing patterns of virtual particles? 1) Being made of virtual particles, they must be directly sensitive to other virtual particles. The ban in Physics on detecting virtual particles applies only to things made of real particles. 2) Existing by manipulating the probabilities of appearance of virtual particles, souls are capable of many things in the real world. All the forces in Physics are described in terms of real particles interacting with each other through virtual particles. Control of virtual particles means control of natural forces, potentially. Telekinesis and levitation are two obvious possibilities. Occupying a physical body, the metaphysical soul can manipulate energy patterns and thus control a human brain -- but doesn't die with it. 3) Precognition means detecting virtual-particle "advanced waves". Psychometry means detecting virtual-particle "retarded waves". Telepathy can be the direct transmission of virtual particles between souls. Teleportation may be equivalent to a Quantum-Mechanical phenomenon known as "tunneling". And so on.... Vernon, Jul 26 2000
------------------------------------------- {related links}
A Dream Remembered http://www.nemitz.net/vernon/DREAM.htm A somewhat relevant pseudo-story written in 1980. Some of the science is a bit dated now, but it mostly has aged well.
The "game" of Life http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/complexity/life.html A small amount of cellular automata, for your edification, enlightenment, and enjoyment.
----------------------------------------------------------{Commentary begins. Some people deleted their posting accounts over the years, at the place where this essay first appeared, and their comments have been lost.}
The whole purpose of all the initial paragraphs was to explain how the last paragraph might make sense. If you have a logical error to point out, I would appreciate seeing it. Do keep in mind that this IS the metaphysical/philosophical region of the Halfbakery, so based on the title of the essay, there should be no complaints about the topic of the last paragraph. :)
Furthermore, there is a dichotomy concerning metaphysical stuff, and I do recognize it. Either it exists or it doesn't. IF IT EXISTS, THERE MUST BE AN EXPLANATION OF SOME KIND. The essay merely attempts to show that perhaps what is termed the metaphysical might in actuality turn out to be related to known stuff. That does not in itself prove that things labeled metaphysical actually exist. It does, however, provide notions that might lead to experiments... Vernon, Jul 26 - Jul 28 2000
(I don't have links to the articles I mention, but they're out there -- I read them over a year ago.)
I believe that telepathy is possible.
I read two articles which "prove" it to me. The first said that the human brain works not only on mechanical, electrical, and chemical principles, but also on quantum mechanical. So if we're going to develop a machine as powerful as the human brain, we'll have to understand quantum mechanical principles.
The second, unrelated article said that we had demonstrated a quantum effect in the lab -- entanglement. Researchers somehow (details in the article) got two particles to become linked, so that when one was changed, the other would change as well. This worked even when separated experimentally to distances of 10 miles!
So if the human brain works on quantum effects, and one quantum effect is the transmission of information at a distance, AND given that life/evolution tends to take advantage of natural phenomena, then it must be the case that our bodies make some use of the properties of entanglement.
It must be relatively new on the evolutionary scheme of things, as not all of us take advantage of it.
However, I'm sure all of you have heard anecdotal evidence of mothers knowing when their child is in danger. But... how many times do you hear that about FATHERS?
The developing child spends nine months in close contact with the mother. During this time, I would bet that there's some entanglement going on -- which would explain why "mothers know" but fathers don't.
This also fits evolutionary theory -- it is to the species' advantage to have the mother warned when the child is at risk of dying. It would be more advantageous for the father to be aware (in general he's stronger and more capable of defending the child), but the father does not go through the same bonding process that the mother does.
This kinda blows my mind -- and, logical a creature as I am, I cannot see a way to disprove it based on the evidence.
(I just tried searching google for the articles, but no such luck. Here's a link to a search that contains some interesting reading, though: [admin: see link to the left].) Thing 1, Jul 27 2000
Not to mention that you can't use entanglement (alone) for communication. egnor, Jul 28 2000
reensure, eh? Thank you, I think; it's kind of difficult to tell if you are poking a hole or two. Pehaps most apparently in p6? For a dynamically stable arrangement of virtual particles, I think it would NECESSARILY have to include some mechanism to induce fresh virtual particles to appear, to replace the ones whose alloted times have expired. If this is not unreasonable, then I think that the rest of the essay will hang together adequately.
As for what the essay tells us about God, I did sort-of deliberatly avoid that issue. However, I don't mind directing your attention to that thing known as the "vacuum self energy", which I think is the totality of all the virtual-energy in the Universe. The magnitude of the vacuum self energy is supposed to utterly dwarf everything else in the Universe put together. According to the essay, that vacuum self energy IS the "body of God".... Vernon, Jul 30 2000
The Gnostic term for it is "not nothingness". Just butting in for no good reason. Interesting theory. Scott_D, Aug 11 2000
Vernon, you kick ass. :)
[I didn't read the whole thing; but it's long so I'll assume it works]
>:)~ lucidish, Aug 21 2000
I'm on the opposite end of the scale, lucidish. If it needs so much space to explain, it hasn't been clearly thought out.
Stick with the KISS principle- keep it simple, stupid! BigThor, Sep 05 2000
Easier said than done, sometimes. A really unusual idea requires appropriate relevant background information. It would be nice if everybody already knew all the background info, but since it ain't so, the posted message tends to be large.
Try this analogy: You can't just build a machine gun from nothing. You need machines to make a machine gun, and machines to make those machines, for several steps in the direction of Background Preparation. Vernon, Sep 14 2000
*wunk* RobEC, Oct 27 2000
I would have read your writing if you had properly indented! for the love of god why didn't you indent? RobEC, Oct 27 2000
I see this as being more of the sort of arbitrary connection of mysticism and empiricism which has been carried on merrily for as long as the latter can be reasonably identified -- desperate or semi-conscious attempts to connect what is known with what we are conditioned to expect to find underlying all things. Is there any reason to look for consciousness in the universe? More tellingly, is there a reason for look for a universal helmsman, however abstracted, like one or another of the Gods which most people have always more or less accepted? Or to connect quantum mechanics with popular fantasies such as telepathy or, for that matter, astral photography, astrology, or divination through the reading of entrails? Why look for things that we happen to believe in for entirely unrelated reasons? (Anyone want to make the suggestion that we believe in these things because the universe has given our ancestors knowledge of certain truths through quantum tunnelling effects, or can we skip it?). The best reason to look for a God is to assign an ultimate First Cause, but this scheme lets that out entirely.
If you look closely enough at the universe, you will see your neighbour's cat, or your late grandmother, or a neon sign which reads 'God loves you, Monkfish. You're doing a great job.' Confirmation of whatever your preconceptions and deeply-held fantasies happen to be.
Physicists should be discouraged from becoming mystics. A scientist or philosopher of two or three hundred years ago would happily have described God as a clockmaker and the universe as his smooth-running masterpiece. Up until a hundred and fifty years ago, every philosopher in the history of the West had placed God, whether consistent with their own reasonings or not, at the centre of their systems, because God was the irremovable bedrock of all thinking and experience. The musings of physicists and others attempting to bridge the gap between their comforting spiritual assumptions and the current physical and mathematical models of the universe should be seen as part of this rather pointless tradition. Why let yourself be guided by some hazy notion of 'religious doctrine' and the absurd idea of the soul?
But, taking this on its own terms for a minute: I don't see -- I sincerely fail to understand, knowing nothing about these things -- that it's clear from the last two paragraphs that virtual particles are in individual communication in such a way as to be capable of forming a network capable of actively manipulating itself in such a way as to move information about, on the pattern of the brain, which is the example which has inspired this. I don't understand, to be more specific, the link between a 'stable pattern of virtual particles' and 'consciousness'.
My God, this is a long annotation. Sorry. Monkfish, Oct 28 2000
Any two particles interacting with each other counts as "communication" between those two particles. The notion presented here concerns, first of all, virtual particles that only exist temporarily. WHILE they exist, they can interact with neighboring virtual particles (or with ordinary real particles, of course). Now it is known that Empty Space can be influenced in a way that inhibits the random appearance of virtual particles; the assumption involving Symmetry is that it may be possible that some kind of influence upon Empty Space can encourage the appearance of virtual particles. A dynamically stable pattern, then, is one in which any particle in the pattern, about to disappear, can immediately be replaced by a newly-appearing particle. That's a pretty far stretch right there. However, IF it is possible at all, then between Infinity and Eternity, such dynamically stable patterns are bound to eventually appear.
As mentioned in the essay, "consciousness" appears to be explainable in terms of patterns and flows of energy. Very complex, of course. The link that you seem to be missing, Monkfish, is that keyword Evolution in the subtitle. Give those initial dynamically stable patterns Time, and EVENTUALLY they should be expected to mutate into something as complex as consciousness. Eternity is a long long time.... Vernon, Nov 20 2000
PeterSealy, when you wrote your annotation I had never heard of Philip Pullman and "His Dark Materials". Then, when I happened to encounter the trilogy, I had completely forgotton your annotation. Now, in reviewing this Idea to see if I needed to annotate, I can recall having enjoyed the trilogy, but don't recall much in the way of similarities between that and this. Certainly Pullman described a lot of fantastic stuff in a reasonably hard-science sort of way, mostly by taking advantage of the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
Anyway, if he had managed to independently duplicate some of this overall idea, about Quantum Metaphysics, I have no objection. And even if he happened to find an early version of the idea, which I posted on a BBS network several years ago (when the Internet was barely anywhere), and he used it in his story, I still have no objection. Vernon, Feb 27 2002
Your passage about the waves upon the pond remind me a lot of a passage in Glick's book "Genius," about Richard Feynman.
bristolz, Feb 27 2002
I like the story...
I'm really not sure about being able to get virtual particles to do anything though... aren't they just photons? RobertKidney, Feb 27 2002
bristolz, thanks. However I need to stress that I did not invent the notion of "retarded waves" and "advanced waves". I merely read about them, and tried to describe them here in an understandable way -- because Quantum Mechanics says they exist, and they happen to fit into the overall idea..
RobertKidney, SOME virtual particles are photons; virtual photons are responsible for the Electromagnetic Force. But plenty of other virtual particles exist, also: Virtual pions and virtual gluons are responsible for the Strong Nuclear Force that holds protons together in an atomic nucleus, against their mutual electromagnetic repulsion, and still other virtual particles are responsible for the Weak Nuclear Force, which is responsible for such events as the decay of a neutron into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Meanwhile, virtual gravitons are presumed to be responsible for the Gravitational Force, but experimental support of that idea is as yet lacking, due to the feebleness of the force.
And Quantum Mechanics has nothing at all in it to prevent any other type of ordinary particle, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons, from coming into temporary existence as virtual particles. Indeed, physicists fully expect that ANY type of particle that CAN exist in reality WILL exist in virtuality. Vernon, Feb 28 2002
i saved myself some reading and was able to fishbone this after only a single paragraph. the phrase "made of" is an idiom meaning "the substance(s) that is/are " the object. if you can't understand the language you are speaking, using it to discuss meataphysics isn't going to be possible.
so since the basic assumption for the need for whatever this line of thinking was is flawed, i think you need to go back and start over without trying so hard to make mountains out of nothing. efarns, Feb 28 2002
efarns, YOU know that "made of" is synonymous for "the substance that comprises", and *I* know it, but nevertheless there is still truth in the statement that "made" ALSO implies a Maker. Failure to deal with that implication would probably lead to far more fishbones (and argumentative annotations) than tackling it head-on, right off the bat. Vernon, Mar 02 2002
//mountains out of nothing//
I second that, efarns. neelandan, Mar 02 2002
well if god is a more complex organism than me, wouldn't I come about first?
Also: why is the "VOID" a given?
I am in agreement that cellular automata is our closest analogy to "the game of life", & even of the opinion that our universe is just a stable grouping of virtual particles, a virtual universe pending annihilation...
One more: "space time", & "energy mass"; & it seems to me that:
"space time" "energy mass"
Well?
& As for existence, I had a novel, tangled notion once: that we live in a computer simulation wherein we create a computer simulation of ourselves (replica or variant.) Still doesn't explain inexistence, but you only need to if you assume real, empty, nothingness as a starting point; & as illustrated: nothingness is actually virtual particles. "0 = 1 + -1". redundantly_redundant, Nov 16 2002
G'day, first time poster, however I noticed an inaccuracy or two in the annotations that I would like to point out.
While it is possible to entangle some particles in utero so to speak, the entanglement is not robust enough to last very long in that setting.
Oh and the space==time / energy==matter doesn't neccesarily imply that time==energy, if it did you would find that some areas of space were solid for no real reason.
Cheers Hulaciex Hulaciex, Feb 12 2003
[marked-for-deletion] Not a halfbakery invention. jutta, Jun 12 2004
..after FOUR years??? simonj, Jun 12 2004
I think it took that long to read... MikeOliver, Jun 12 2004
Just read this through--Vernon, this thing is so long and involved I can't be bothered to give you a detailed breakdown, but you make many assumptions that I think are flawed (the statement that is impossible to directly observe virtual particles, the statement that virtual particles can form stable structures that exist for long periods of time, many of the claimed properties of virtual particles; also, I thought the important part of Supersymmetry was that it was broken and the universe is NOT totally symmetrical?). The article also contains a lot of what I consider to be information that is unneeded to explain the idea itself. Finally, the idea itself is vaguely stated and difficult to pick out of the vast quantities of background information.
Haven't you ever heard of an introduction or conclusion? 5th Earth, Jun 13 2004
[5th_Earth], The statement that it is impossible to directly observe virtual particles is neither an assumption nor flawed. All virtual particles exist courtesy of a temporary loophole in the Energy and/or Momentum Conservation law(s). Detecting a virtual particle directly means that some ordinary real particle interacts with it in a way that permanently affects either the energy or momentum of the real particle. The Conservation laws forbid that.
In ALL cases where it might be said that some virtual particle interacts with a real particle for some real effect (such as particle-exchanges behind the manifestation of some Force), we observe Potential Energy being swapped for Real Energy. These only qualify as INDIRECT detections of the virtual particles, because we gain no information about them; we only gain information regarding changes in a ratio of potential to real energy. Even the most extreme variation of this theme, when a high-energy particle -- gamma ray for example -- interacts with and is absorbed by virtual particles -- electron and positron, perhaps -- all we are doing is converting forms of real energy (and proving that virtual particles exist) --because the gamma ray is replaced by the electron/positron pair. We acquire no information about those latter particles from their virtual state, BEFORE they absorbed the gamma ray.
Regarding the formation of stable structures, you have missed the crucial word "dynamic". I agree completely that any ordinary kind of stability is impossible for virtual particles, since all of them are constantly appearing and disappearing. BUT, if there is ANY special arrangement of virtual particles that can induce other virtual particles to appear (rather than waiting for it), then I maintain that between Infinity and Eternity, dynamically stable arrangements (not really structures) of virtual particles will be able to come into existence. Each particle in such an arrangement will be interacting with its neighbors in such a way that when "Time's Up!" occurs for any virtual particle, and it must NOW disappear...well, those neighbors will induce a replacement to appear in its place! THAT is dynamic stability!
The purpose of this Idea is to provide a resolution to the debates between Science and Religion. Why [jutta] might think such a Metaphysical notion is anything OTHER than half-baked is beyond me! (Note category at top-right of page.) See, Science got into the 20th Century (common era) by focussing on the consequences of the Law of Cause and Effect....which if taken backwards far enough, leads to the Big Bang, and the Origin of the Big Bang, and the Origin of the Origin of the Big Bang, and so on endlessly (I am reminded of phrase "turtles all the way down!"). Meanwhile, Religion declared the existence of an Originator that had no Origin, and counters the Law of Cause and Effect with Free Will (which nevertheless then suffers from Law of Cause and Effect, heh heh). And Science stumbled badly into Quantum Mechanics, where Totally Random Spontaneouty utterly defies Determinism. --Sorry, Einstein, but you can't have it both ways: If God does not play dice with the Universe, then why should God be thought of as having Free Will? Spontaneouty is REQUIRED for Free Will to exist! And all I am trying to show in this Idea, is that spontaneouty can yield such complexity that the Origin problem can be solved once and for all, among other mysteries (telepathy, etc.). Vernon, Jun 13 2004
|
[All work by author is copyright protected. If you would like to use this article, please contact the author for permission.]
Disclaimer: The Views and Information expressed on this webpage are that of the Author and do not necessarily reflect the views, data, policies, endorsement or support of HolisticJunction.com's Administration or its standards.
|
|
|
|
Articles
