[Dialogue] The Grand Design

Thu May 17 10:49:27 PDT 2012

John,

That (where did they come from?) is one of the issues regarding values as well.  If it all started as "nothing" then there is no reason to say there are any absolutes regarding values.  Nothing has value, including us.  That is why they can talk about a "selfish gene".  

But there are more serious problems with the the scientific theory as it is presently modeled.  For one, they speak of space and time as a continuum separate from the creative process.  It is stated that everything started from a "place" of infinite density and singularity of space.  A theory that can never be proven but only is a mathematical equation.  The same thing for "time".  To speak of what "started" something is to see time (like space) as something independent of matter, like "Everything exists in a space and time continuum".  So if we exist "in space" and space is expanding (like a balloon), like the Big Bang says we are all growing away from each other, then why aren't the parts we can see like atoms etc. (which also exist in this independent space time continuum) expanding?  

The third problem area is "causality".  Something outside (of what?) must have caused things to happen if it wasn't the Big Bang, an intelligence, which if followed to infinite regression leads to no answer.  

So we are left with the scientist saying "accept the Big Bang" and YOU deal with all the questions that arise.  But think for a moment of what you're being asked to take on "faith" (science would say "almost confirmed theory").  It all started from singularity, (and we can tell you within a billion years of so) of "when" that was, that every morsel of "stuff" was somehow compacted in some way so that it all fit in basically no space at all, and, oh by the way, there is also 95% of it we can't see, identify, detect only by inference or indirectly, but our model tells us exists and we'll call that "dark matter".  Talk about a leap of faith!!!

No, there was no "beginning" and there is no "end".  The creative process is inherent in the universe and is present everywhere (and nowhere).  Space and time are an integral part of the creative process.  All "things" exist in space and time, but they also exist in the void that transcends space and time.  That is what the quantum reality is.  GOD is not "outside" of anything, because there is no outside, but there is a void, which is just another aspect of what is.  If you only base all your knowledge on the ability of left side of the brain to "understand", that is, language and mathematics, you get these contorted expressions of explanations that require alternative universes, 10-11 dimensions of reality, and stories that everything came from nothing.  But we have access to another side of the brain, the intuitive side, one that is capable of direct knowledge of the void.  

People from the beginning of civilization have struggled with understanding the purpose of it all, the Mystery, the wonder, the awe of life.  And it cannot be reduced to "Oh, we just haven't had enough time to figure it out, or the mathematics to confirm".  "If you only knew the "facts" then the "unknown unknown" as a friend once put it in a poem, would be known and understood".  No!!  GOD is not that which we haven't quite figured out yet.  To be "made in God's image" means that we have the inherent capacity to directly know, to access the Void and to be part of the one and only creative process.  Indeed, that one creative process, like a fractal, can be seen and understood to be a system that operates at any level you want to focus on; the atom, the cell, the body, the community, the organization, the biosphere, the earth, the solar system or the galaxy.  

It is so easy for people like Bill Maher to destroy religious statements or beliefs.  But if you want to counter his stupid put downs, you have to play only on the field of his (and scientists) definition; objective, explicit causality.  But there are alternatives to this field, which take into account both objective and subjective, explicit and implicit reality and allows one to understand how the creative process unfolds.

That is why our work on The Other World (in the midst of This World) is of such earth shaking importance.  We are not talking about how we found some words to hold awesome experiences and that can really be helpful.  No, we (and many others) stumbled upon a reality that was hidden from us for centuries because of giving credence and truth only to objective, explicit and verifiable dimensions of reality.  Everything else was just waiting its turn to be understood and figured out.  The Universe is just a gigantic bake shop and us muffins are just random products of a rather wild cooking process.  No recipe, no cook, just rather marvelously looking and behaving "accidents" of a whirling soup.  Get over your importance, your sense of purpose, your sense of awe and wonder.  These are just psychological inventions we have created to deal with that which we don't know and they really don't exist except as helpful coping concepts.

I won't go on, this is far to much already.  But let me conclude with the following.  Most physicists and mathematicians would have you believe that the Big Bang theory is the only real game in town.  But if you Google "Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory" you'll see there are many other answers.  I think most are still trying to play on the Objective, Explicit playing field (because that is the boundary science has put on understanding reality) but it ain't quite the consensus that you would be led to believe from most people.

Peace brother,

Jack
On May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:

> Thanks Jack.
> 
> I don't think the book characterizes reality as the result of mindless randomness. But here's a question: if the universe is an "intelligent system," how did it get started? Was the big bang caused by something else? This can lead to infinite regression. 
> 
> My argument with scientists is not with what they do or how they do it. It's when they step outside their own discipline and attempt to argue theology which is difference from science. Us theologians also need to be careful in evaluating science! Galileo found that out the hard way! 
> 
> Saying "God created heaven and earth" is not a statement about science. it's a faith statement that accords value to all of creation, whatever it looks like. 
> 
> Thanks again for your comments.
> 
> John
> 
> At 08:30 PM 5/16/2012, you wrote:
>> John,
>> 
>> I appreciate your insights regarding the book.  I have no real interest in debating string theory or Theory M.  There are those whom I respect who have profound questions regarding them and certainly they struggle with any ability to confirm the theory in practice, instead relying on mathematics to "prove" their points.
>> 
>> It is easy for secular scientist to pooh pooh the intelligent design arguments as they are, for the most part, presented by those who are more literalist in their theology.  They tend to externalize God which is just another form of the two story universe.  But for me, the intelligent design is really about the entire universe as an intelligent system.  It is not a mindless result of random collisions.  I won't go into the depth that is required to present the alternative, but it is there.  
>> 
>> The more interesting point is that mindless randomness means there is no basis for the emergence of values.  In deed, there is no meaning nor purpose for anything.  But our personal experience tells us something else.  And is not simply a way for us to live with meaninglessness of reality.  I won't expand on this because this is not the forum for a long discussion.  But we shouldn't allow the scientist to set all the rules for how to debate these questions.
>> 
>> Thanks for the review!
>> 
>> Jack
>> On May 16, 2012, at 5:52 PM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>> 
>>> Some thoughts you might enjoy:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Reflections on “The Grand Design[1]”
>>> 
>>> May 2012
>>> 
>>> Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinov have undertaken to challenge the “Intelligent Design” theory of creation with the latest science from Quantum Physics and the M-Theory. In my opinion, they deserve each other. One says an intelligent being created and runs the cosmos. The other says no such being is necessary to account for reality as we know it scientifically. 
>>> 
>>> Neither “side” seems aware of the distinction between faith statements as expressive vs. faith statements as explanatory. The former occurs in rituals, creeds, worship, and hymns and is primarily intended to express one’s interior posture of affirmation. They are poetic and not intended to be taken as literal. The latter can be found in theological formulations that attempt to provide a rational understanding of that posture. Theological formulations are intended to be taken literally and tend to provide a viable model of reality (“model-dependent realism” is the mode of Hawking and Mlodinov) which is compatible with contemporary scientific understanding. 
>>> 
>>> The Intelligent design movement misses this distinction and tends to take expressive statements as literal, sometimes even missing the deep truth they express. The scientists also miss the distinction and wind up creating a straw man which they demolish with considerable relish and humor. 
>>> 
>>> The book, however, is a useful history of scientific achievement, and filled with informative and entertaining graphics. When compared with the works of Brian Greene[2], the book seems a bit simplistic; still it’s a useful introduction to the present state of physics.
>>> 
>>> Particularly interesting is its perspective of “model-dependent realism.” Instead of attempting to establish the external reality of anything outside of the viewer, it says that what we perceive is shaped by the brain which uses a model to coordinate and make sense of our perceptions. Whether or not the model accords with some external reality is beyond the possibility of establishing. Instead one establishes the usefulness of the model in accounting for experience. There are four criteria a model must meet to be regarded as accurate: 1) elegance; 2) contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements;  3) agrees with and explains all existing observations; and 4) makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out (p.51). Unfortunately the book does not show how intelligent design fails to meet those same criteria for validity. Still, the authors insist that no God hypothesis is required to account for all we observe, including creation ex nihilo (which, though we do not observe it, seems to be the way things got started). 
>>> 
>>> It may be that the book is most useful if the reader dispenses with the theological issues the authors purport to raise. It is indeed a useful capsule of string theory and M-theory along with quantum physics, and provides a useful look into a model of reality that may hold possibility for the future. Maybe the theology was just a gimmick to attract readers to a subject that is covered more adequately elsewhere, and is essentially uninteresting to most. It seems to have succeeded as a marketing effort since the book is currently on the NY Times best seller list at #18 of 20.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2012)
>>> [2] See his The Elegant Universe (New York: Vintage Books, 2000), The Fabric of the Cosmos (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), The Hidden Reality (New York: Penguin, 2011). He also has fascinating presentations on TV, the Discovery Channel. 
>>> 
>>> Your responses are more welcome.
>>> 
>>> John
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dialogue mailing list
>>> Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>>> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dialogue mailing list
>> Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20120517/6f28d4d9/attachment.html>