Loading...

"God does not play dice...". Could a higher ontological being be explained at hand of scientific phenomena?

Essay 2014 35 Pages

Philosophy - Miscellaneous

Excerpt

Contents

Introduction
1 À suprême
2 Different flavors of ’suprême’

Thesis
3 The cosmological approach
4 Rationale in science
5 Predetermined time
6 The beginning
7 To be, or not to be
8 Information gathering
9 Fallacious death
10 Dreaming
11 Genetics versus the Theory of Evolution
12 Dark Matter
13 The Idea of mankind
14 The Watch Analogy

Conclusion
15 Subject to supremacy
16 Disclaimer

References

Annotations

List of Figures

0.11 Sandro Botticelli - Tempara della Madonna del Magnificat - ca. 1481

2.11 The measurements of Newtonian G from 2009, before and after correction.

3.11 The temperature (time as supposed to movement) during the development of the universe.

5.11 Particle sprays are measured in two distinct spots at the very same moment.

5.12 Incoherence in time.

5.13 The expansion as supposed to the acceleration of the universe we inhabit.

5.14 The structure of a star.

6.11 The (E = mc 2)-graph of four-dimensional time, where light can only exist in a direction synchronous with time itself.

7.11 An object’s fall towards the surface of the Earth, mind the curve’s shape at heights.

7.12 An estimate frequency, versus the number of trails, only a certain percentage is picked up at the same moment.

7.13 The eye picks up light under angles only. It is transported via the optical nerve, downwards.

12.11 A film of the Higgs-collision at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. The forcefield extends fróm the kernel.

Sources for the Graphics

0.11 wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Botticelli_Uffizi_37.jpg/300pxBotticelli_Uffizi_37.jpg

2.11 http://journals.aps.org/prl/article/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.240801/figures/2/medium

3.11 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/History_of_the_Universe.svg

5.11 http://www.hansentek.com/images/detect_zone.gif

5.12 http://media1.break.com/breakstudios/2013/5/10/1447069175_1361365343.jpg

5.13 http://www2.astro.psu.edu/∼mce/A001/lect23_fig2.gif

5.14 http://www.keepbanderabeautiful.org/oxygen-star-fusion-shell.png

6.11 http://www.einstein-online.info/images/elementary/lichtkegel.gif

7.11 gravitywarpdrive.com/General_Relativity_Images/Falling_Ball_Graph_Distance.gif\

7.12 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/files/2013/08/flicker_hz.png

7.13 http://people.cornellcollege.edu/dsherman/illusions/inverted-image.png

12.11 wordpress.com/2013/12/a-higgs-boson-candidate-observed-in-an-8-tev-protonproton-collision-in-the-atlas-detector.png

Abstract

This thesis paper attempts to introduce the world of science to a rather rehabilitated concept of the suprême. With the uprising of science, we abandoned the idea of a God, while many physical theories actually seem to plea for the existence of such an entity. This paper will be largely hypothetical and rather speculative, however, the basis for it is very much found in physics, wherefore the "proof" it provides will be more relevant philosophically as well as dogmatically. I first assess the posibility of a supernatural being, with its biblical background and the way in which mainly Genesis, which provokes the most discussions, can in fact be not contrary to the general scientific findings that are precieved as "true" or at least a more reliable source of information. Furthermore, I will assess general philosophical and physical theories and the similarities between them, where they collide, and where they actually have an unexpected coherence to the benefit of this supernatural being. Thereafter will be assessed the unexplicability of this being’s existence if at all, it is in fact so for a simple reason, it must be in order to be supernatural, it it were human, we would be able to grasp it likewise. This all done by researching past literature instead of focussing on conducting again practical research in the area or field of interest. After many revisions, the following will be the result of my thesis. It will be of significance for the effect it has on the interpretation of physical theories from a philosophical point of view.

Part I Introduction

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1 À suprême

Mankind has ever attempted to explain what happens at hand of a supernatural being. A ’God’ of some sorts. When everyday science became more accessible, this Idea was ceased from existence, or at least there was an endeavor to make that happen. However, many people retained the aptitude for such spiritual beliefs. At last, physics, and other sciences, were only able to measure and therefore explain results. Actual causation could not be discovered, not even slightly pointed out. Man needed and will very likely always need a supremus. Most theories ’work’ in the respective field of science, and are therefore exerted to be true, as they are the most viable for the time being. Many theories have therefore already been replaced by others, e.g. Newton’s Theory of Motion. But still many phenomena remain unexplained, and maybe unexplicable. No better alternative is present.

So, many people, and even scienists seem to indulge the feeling, the belief, and the desire for a controlling supernatural being. Even some animal species appear to behave in that way. But simply, if one were to wonder as to the fact that there is no motive, let alone proof, for there even being something like a God, there is a simple Newtonian explanation for that. A God would be a force so much greater and more intelligent as not to possibly able to be understood by human kind.

In this very paper I would like to argue on the basis of problematics with science and its general arguments against the existence of a supremus. After having conducted sufficient literary research it was safe to conclude that as far as science goes at this point in time, there may be ’reason’ to cherish belief or disbelief for that matter in a God, but there is not a way to definitively prove or disprove His existence. That is, there are no sufficiently concrete arguments in favor or against a following premise.

Anyway, there may be one other solution I will assess. That is, theologically a God confides the ability to support material existence. The other way round would thus be obsolete, but it may be able to function a means for the goal, to adequately point out his existence or nonexistence. The way I will assess is how phenomena will always resemble his ’creations’ future. Asserting the fact that he exists, since if he were nonexistent, there would be a giant hole in the medical theory I will discuss. Wherefore there may be a way to conduct material force to the construction of a plausible theory.

2 Different flavors of ’suprême’

I would like to begin deconstruction of the Idea by assessing an ’ontological’ God. According to the Oxford University of New English1 "God is a supreme being which created the universe and all moral." But when one of the greatest believers of all time, Charles Darwin, introduced his Modern Theory of Evolution, people started to doubt this ’blind-folding’ concept. I believe very firmly that there are at present many scientific theories that could be used affirmatively in this regard. By no means want I to insist on the Christian God, but simply a supreme being, briefly appealed by the name of ’God’. The semi-scientific, or rather philosophical, approach requires a restricted definition given to the subject of matter. Is He a force whom defines the world and all of its contents, or is he the creator only.

Going with the creator-premise, the assertion is presented that a God is intelligent, for thus far only intelligence in nature have been able to create. Consider man in the analogy, we have engineered, we have built, we have constructed, and we have created forms of the fine arts. All in all, intelligence seems a necessary evil for creation instead of solely procreation. Accordingly, defects come with this very intelligibility. After all, man have used their defects to create new and engineer better products. But lets for the sake of biology’s mystique, leave out the argument of an ’intelligent creator’ rather than an initiator. For one, viruses have been intelligently engineered, but themselves they are far from intelligent, they cannot even empirically think. Consider God such as a controlled being for defining the very beginnings of life and our surroundings.

Nowadays, looking at the world scientifically equals considering it from a purely aesthetic viewpoint. It does and is obliged to stress to much ’givens’, there are some things that are either inexplicable or just simply a fact. Prof. Dr. R. Sheldrake stated in a lecture once upon a time that people should recommence their proper process of consideration. With exertion follows science that explains rules in themselves, but not the essence of the conducted research.

2In 2009 was found that the gravitational constant was about 9 . 83 ms −2, which of course induced a huge shock throughout the scientific community. They decided the measurements to be wrong and were thereby done with the situation and simply called it 9 . 81 ms −2 again. However, later reassessing the evidence, the gravitational acceleration (constant named ’G’) had in fact fluctuated, what it was caused by remains unknown, but it did. What I am getting at is the unfortunate level of orthodoxy that may actually prohibit good science from being conducted.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.11 The measurements of Newtonian G from 2009, before and after correction.

Also, there is the concept of a cosmological suprême, which purposes the third main interpretation. Science can in this theory explain thát phenomena occur, but cannot do so as to why or how, for that matter. In the first section of my thesis I will emphasize this theory. Which is that phenomena described by science have always an origin. However, for some reason that is left out most of the time. Within the definition of ’relative’ lies that it should always appeal to all factors during conclusion. That is what we simply do not do when exerting the nonexistence of a God, we do not consider all possible outcomes of the theory. I would like to repeat herewith that I would like to not take into account the religious interpretation of this supposed suprême. The cosmological God solely assesses the answers to inquiries that have not been answered yet, cannot be answered yet, or may never be answered. This God is an answer for the very questions that perhaps should never be answered in a scientific manner.

Part II Thesis

3 The cosmological approach

The universe is the single most complex ’entity’, if you will, existent. Cosmology can describe her by applying laws of physics. We can look for causation and presume it, but as I have stated before, we will not definitively find it. We have not been able to find thé cause yet, for we cannot measure beyond the initial timeline, which was of course, at the start of it all, the Big Bang. The only logical hypothesis seems[1], that for time one needs matter, and if there is no matter, there is not time. Consider the following graph.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Consider this from a ’chance-vector’, using the all too well known earth-analogy. There is such a small chance that there would be even the possibility of life on earth, that it would almost seem more logical to be a distinctive creation by a certain ’artist.’ All factors count up to it, the distinct placement in the universe as a whole and in the Milky way, the just-right distance from the sun4, the fact that earth has one moon with the exactly right mass, and of course the gravitational pull that keeps us together in one piece. The chances of this occurring, taken the classical model of physics, are so slim, nearing a one in googleplexian number, that the creation-hypothesis might just seem very plausible. Only the mathematical calculation already proves that we are the only ones that came to be in this fashion.

Again am I not attempting to suggest the existence of an intelligent ’being’, we are still using the ontological definition of a force greater than all, which could be anything. Only this time round I apply it in a rather unorthodox cosmological way. As respectively5, more matter was able to come into existence by energetic collisions between particles. So the on-course diffusion of singleelectron-elements such as hydrogen and helium was a self-reflecting process to the formation of heavier particles. Science, nor rationale would be able to disprove the fact that this ought to have had causation.

Let us re-assess the Aristotelian ’unmoved mover’. ’Unmoved’ defines the mover to be motionless and therefore to a measurable extent, timeless. However, General Laws of Physics require an entity to be subject to time, in order for it to change in ’form’. A possible, resemblant Newtonian solution to this problem could be that the ’mover’, created the Laws of Physics by its movement, and is therefore the ontological greatest power of all. A suitable analagy is the Higgsboson, a quantum mechanical particle hypothesized by Cambridge Prof. Dr. P. Higgs. It has respectively, a relatively high mass, as supposed to a relatively low energetic density. It creates ’supersymmetry’ (which defines that it gives contra-dimensional symmetry, in other words, gravitational ’pull’). Consider it a particle, which lay at the basis of the universe’s vast, with an extraordinarily large power over all the other. Perhaps we can consider a God something such as this, as well.

4 Rationale in science

In the following passage, I will try to dissect the contradiction that follow from this argument. To begin with, the initiation of the universe according to an ontological theory is mostly based upon assumptions following from its unaccountability6. Even though, this, seems to be the most plausible solution. There would not follow an irrefutable argument if we were to presume the Platonic World of Ideas. In that case, the argument would become completely obscure, as the World of Ideas would function a suprême. However, this World exists only in the realm of rationale, and is not irrefutable for the fact that we can discover by practice, and not solely by the cognitive process.

Let us for once consider foreign life. There have been several mathematic functions allowing more than one form of intelligent life, spread out over vast distances in the universe. Karl Popper, under whom, considered the Dragonic equation, telling us that there is a chance, actually close to 0.88 to co-exist with other intelligent life-forms. But as there is no way to empirically prove this, we shall consider a more literary form, "The Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy," a book that considered us the third most intelligent life-form, of course after mice and dolphins. I am not trying to convince you mice are smarted than man, but perhaps, as the analogy suggests, we are simply too blind to be able to comprehend a supposedly more intelligent life-form. But referring to our distinct placement in the galaxy, we are thus far thé only ones, at least empirically.

Genetics provide some proof. From objects from outer space, such as meteorites, contain genetic material. At first, scientists thought that life, as on earth, should therefore have come from space to earth. The hypothesis has no ground, but it seemed for the time to be the most rational solution. However, now we have been able to prove by way of sequencing, that the genetic material has rudimentary connections to the first life forms on earth. Not meaning that we indeed came from space, but rather that life existed on earth far before we initially thought. Therefore somehow the material could have been ejected into space as there was no sophisticated atmosphere yet.

Now I would like to assess the ’Adam’ that supposedly lay at the basis of man. As the origin of life, the bible proposed an ’Adam’. Life was exerted to begin with mankind itself. Of course there was no one human from which all are offspring, but there is a certain sense of truth in this. However, Dr. W. Wells, working for National Geographic found a groundbreaking piece of proof that there must be an ’Adam.’ This is, there is an alteration in the Y-chromosome of many descendants of Genghis Kahn have. It is a mutation that often occurs with sporadic population degrades. There were at a time two general groups of people, the Dovinians in the North of Russia and the rest, the rest was on the verge of extinction and was rescued from this by this genetic alteration. The method for discovery was, that billions of people around the globe share rudimentary traces to this mutation. After all, the hypothesis of a centralized breed seems not at all that unlikely.

5 Predetermined time

Some general interpretations of Quantum Mechanics insist on a predetermined plan, "the universe is never so lazy as for coincidence to occur." Based on Einstein’s relative randomization, the balance of probability should always come to one conclusion. There is in a sense, always one event bound to happen. I will try to explain this at hand of an analogy of a contradictory, the multiverse theory. Therefore, I will first briefly explain the two mainstream theories of time.

There is a theory of parallelism in time and a theory of split-off universes. The first one describes that there are several timelines, that however sometimes intertwine, usually stay separate but have a largely equal status. The other theory enjoys the power of timeline branches for other ’altered universes’, that could however theoretically rejoin and fix time as a whole again. Consider the following picture, where two electron sprays are managed at the same time through a window. There is indeed some irrefutability to the theory of rejoined parallel timelines.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

5.11 Particle sprays are measured in two distinct spots at the very same moment.

Also there is another slightly modified version of this last theory, which is that there are different timelines in one single universe. Mind the following image wherein we see how to different points in the universe are in some way connected, the light takes time to travel. However, this graphic shows that the time it takes for the light to travel in a straight line, does not at all correspond with the distance it has to go. Therefore, what is happening in one place in the universe can happen synchronously with another event, that happens at an entirely different moment in time, not just to the perception.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

5.12 Incoherence in time.

I would like to take the detour to perception anyway, as this most resembles the concept of a suprême.7 Take it this way, time and space are inherently connected in terms of ’motion’. This is the only way in which we can perceive the definition ’time’. While as I pointed out, one cannot be entirely sure of their account, since different points in time might intertwine without synchronicity.

Let us examine the Schrödinger-analogy. If one cannot make an account, the object subject to reference is stateless. Let us suppose two phases, α and β, and two objects, A and B. If object B were defined with state α, then object A would within the same window be transformed into the set state β, and so on. Everything in one time-dimension is therefore relative to the other. Schrödinger meant that an object has either no state - it is irrelevant, it is (pre)determined from past experience, or it is simply to be determined afterwards - it will be acknowledged when it needs to be. Briefly, an object’s state will never be definite. Physics can only predict the chance of one state over the other, and shape with the balance of probability, a reliable conclusion.

So, if time could overlap or connect in any way, the discontinuous time would have to be predetermined, after the account of all other vectors. A cosmological argument is the rejection of the theory of time-travel. If one were to travel back in time, and kill their own Grandfather. (The Grandfather Paradox is not yet out of the game). The person killing their own grandfather could not have existed, that is simple logic, there must be two opponents for reproduction. There would be an endless regression of reversions. However, this defies the concept of causation. But if one were to go back in time, and impregnate their own mother, before their father could, could one not technically be one’s own cause? As Aristotle argued, can that not be the same case with a higher power? At last, it would not have existed before itself, as well is it is supreme over human kind, wherefore there is no reason IT cannot travel through the time it created itself. The point is, that it does not have to BE subject to time. Consider it a mathematical calculation. For the sum of 1+1, there is an infinite amount of outcomes, however, there is only one answer, and in rare cases two or three, suitable for the equation. In the same way, movement cannot be in a ’totally random’ direction. An equation can never calculate the infinite amount of randomization, wherefore it presumably did not exist to begin with. The beginning of the universe would therefore not be a simple mathematical coincidence either. Thus, it could have had a supreme cause. Likewise, everything that happened afterwards, could have been subject to causation.

Furthermore, there is has recently been introduced one more possible solution. Oxford University physicists hypothesized that we could be living in a mirror universe, where time runs backwards. This theory could only possibly explain the rather awkward way in which the universe is expanding. Consider the graph below.9

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

5.13 The expansion as supposed to the acceleration of the universe we inhabit.

This would imply the Big Bang not being the beginning, but rather the end. Logically, the inhabitants would not notice the fact that time runs back, although unconventional, we would know not any better. The universe would than expand and eventually implode in the same way a star does. A star consists of an atmosphere, a gas shell, and a metal kernel. The temperature rises à cause the diffusion near the kernel. And at one point, the graviational pull transcend the relative mass, and the kernel implodes upon itself, creating such a force that the gas-shell can extend further outward, and eventually implode back in from the cluttered kernel. Meanwhile, the atmosphere has spread out so far as for the light to create and illuminated nebula. The universe could work in the same way.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

5.14 The structure of a star.

Now, if our universe is a mirrage of another, time would necessarily have to be predetermined, otherwise the mirror symmetry would simply be impossible. Consider a real-life mirror, the ’mirrage’ one sees is a direct reflection of the real ’image’. The same could be with time. Moreover, this theory could also support the theory of time’s incoherence which we discussed earlier.

You might now start to wonder how this would be conclusive regarding the inquiry of a suprême. Now, let us pull out the Dutch theologist Martin Calvin’s theory, where the biblical God, is the controller of a certain predetermined plan for the universe. In his theory, the future will always need to resemble past events. They are subject to one another. As, for a fact, motion does not exist throughout a single moment, but rather throughout the course of time. Besides, if time travel were possible, tourists from the future would not have come to us already, since travel beyond point ’zero’, would be logically impossible. Martin Calvin as well based his argument upon the concept of a cosmological God. The balance of probability was conclusive to him. Nobody has as of yet been able to eliminate Immanuel Kant’s argument regarding the nonexistence of free will, based on, yes, Newtonian Mechanics10.

As well, biological studies have only been affirmative of this theory. Once a neurotransmitter has been sent on its way, i.e., the action following is irreversible. Perhaps analogically, time would work in the same irreversible way. At last, the past events need always be resembled in the future, and vice versa. Respectively, once energy is set in motion, that motion is irreversible, it can solely be ’stopped’. Although this is a bigger scale, there is no reason while such an account would be not asserted here.

6 The beginning

We have thus far discovered that the the future as well as the past should correspond in the properties matter supports. We have also seen that in the theory of parallel time, or universes, if you will, the future will thus have to resemble the past. Hence, the equation has per time scale only one - or a select number - of outcomes, events and clauses to happen. From the balance of probability follows that given the past, the future is predetermined. With assumptions about one of the two, one cannot be said. Let us assess the effect of negative time. Let us say, ’before’ the Big Bang.

Prof. Dr. S. Hawking11, numerously claimed the universe needed not a beginning. However by definition one cannot give a definitive answer to this inquiry, there is no radiation from before to measure. Anyway, Prof. Hawking suggests that time is not running in one direction, as the relative moment, can be negative in a graph. Therefore, the universe would not nééd a beginning. However, there was not matter before the Big Bang. Without matter, there is not ’temperature’, one cannot account time, for time is movement, relative motion. The only profoundly the only non-presumptuous conclusion would be that the dimension of time existed not before the beginning of matter. Of course, this premise is still profoundly refutable. Moreover, time itself cannot be negative. We can only assume a negative amount of time versus the place, ultimately forming the motion. If time were negative, look at the effect. In the following sequence, Einstein’s, energy (E) is represented by the mass versus the speed of light (c = 2 . 99•109 ms −1), which is ultimately subject to time (t) in the form of the distance (s) traveled.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Given negative time (t = −1, m = 1 and s = 2 . 99•109):

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

If the energy (E) is negative, there would not be conservation of energy, and since mass is the same entity as energy (if c = 1, there is no other option), the time can never be negative. Or this would entail rather radical alterations to the classical way of thinking in physics. Also, one could consider the graph following from the above formula, implying that time can only run in óne direction.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

6.11 The (E = mc 2)-graph of four-dimensional time, where light can only exist in a direction synchronous with time itself.

Moreover, Prof. Hawking claimed as an objection to this, that if there was no time before the Big Bang12, there would have been no room for a God to have created it. However, science may not be able to prove the absence of time before the Big event, does not render it unreasoned. On top of that, the throws in the claim that than that God ought to have had a cause itself. In other words he decided for an endless causal regression. That than must be also an external factor from space-time, but than, is that not an ontological suprême? At least, an endless causal chain would need an external power for their self existence. Mathematical proof against the regression-argument is fairly easily attained.

Imagine X the cause of Y, but if X collapses before Y comes into existence, Y cannot logically be conceived as existent at the particular point in time in question. Although, when the construction of space-time has been mapped out before-hand, this will not be able to logically happen. X will have to have been in existence before Y becomes, X can only collapse after Y has become. While assuming that X is the causal cause of Y. Concluding to (X,Y) their inherent connection, time must only run in one direction.

Mathematically, the Y-vector could not at all exist, but lets call that the energy from which matter came, there would have been nothing to create the universe from. Thus, Y, being the second factor, must have existed. Only the theory of a causal loop remains to be viable, but then still, there would presumably be ’time’ before the event. There could still be discussion as regards a suprême.

At any rate, time will always have to synchronize eventually.

7 To be, or not to be

On the basis of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity11; energy was once, then matter came, electrons can transport energy, in the form of photons, thus the purest form of energy in a material form is a photon, a light-transmissive particle. But could a thought be material, at last, spirituals constantly discuss the energy and energetic interactions formed by our very minds. Let us consider this from a space-time perspective. Maybe this could also help us explain a certain ’Walhalla’. Respectively, we interact with our environment, the universe, by way of energy.

How does time versus gravity work? Well, the further one gets from á gravitational center point, the further time slows down. Hence, as we concluded before, time is only relative to temperature and thus equals motion. One can in fact travel larger distances in less time. Consider the following graph. Taking into account the expansion of the universe, conclusively the movement is influenced by this, in terms of time relative to the place in space.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

7.11 An object’s fall towards the surface of the Earth, mind the curve’s shape at heights.

For what was just seen, scientists have concluded that the feet are after seventy years, eight-hundred milliseconds older than the head, of a general-sized human being. This slight delay, also influences the effect of neurotransmitters from the brain on limbs. One experiences a feeling, before it actually happened for the brain. As relative to the lower limbs, time proceeds slower up there. A great example of this, would be an optical illusion. The Harry Houdini-trick with lights, i.e. There is a round board, with lights on top, and every time an arrow passes by the light, the light flickers, at the èxact same time. However, one would perceive it as to be afterwards. In the following two graphs, there is an image with the perception rate of the human brain versus the starker gravity, and in the second picture, there is an explanation regarding the way the eye picks up the light and transports it to the brain.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

7.12 An estimate frequency, versus the number of trails, only a certain percentage is picked up at the same moment.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

7.13 The eye picks up light under angles only. It is transported via the optical nerve, downwards.

Going with the given that one would perceive an event before occurrence. There can only be a predetermination for that moment, otherwise, the experience would be entirely fallacious. Time is therefore a linear constant, and needs a start, a point zero, which reflects back to Prof. Hawking’s argument. Time is independent of matter, temperature, and velocity. Time is only in inherent factor in the existence of those vectors. That is one definition of a suprême.

8 Information gathering

Calculation by the balance of possibility if an event is going to take place, does not equal finding factuality regarding its nature. Unless it has happened before hand. Such as with drug treatment, or extraterrestrial life. Schrödinger is once more right, the discussion is obscure unless there has been a phase and definition allocated to the object of matter. In this way we practice assumptionproof science. One is to construe a hypothesis by reason, by rationale. Then one is to check whether the practice resembles the hypothesis. However, oftenly the problematics are not logged and the scientist retrials until the desired outcome is presented. Let us consider Einstein’s analogy of the dice.

One rolls a dice, the chance of it landing on either of the sides is one in six. But there is another grand factor, the mass of each side. Therefore, the chance of it landing on the one-dotted side becomes by far the largest, and the chance of it ending up on the six-dotted side by far the smallest. But then still, we have not accompanied all other factors in yet, e.g.: the air-pressure, weight itself, mass, the gravitational acceleration, the acceleration and accordingly, velocity ..., and so forth. However, if one were to account for all these vectors, the equation would eventually be overly complicated. We may therefore exert a certain amount of mathematical randomization. I would like to call it a ’significant randomness’, it is a necessity of some sorts. However, it remains theoretical, the practice, also balance of probability educates us that an entirely nonrandom outcome is physically impossible. The following formula, will learn us that there is even in a form of chance, a limited number of possible outcomes. Hence, Schrödinger’s experiment for objectivity.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Now, how does a brain process a ’limited’ amount of information? We are more intelligent than the computers we have thus far created, so would we not be in need of an infinitely more intelligent creator? A suprême that is so powerful to create us. The obvious argument would be that our intelligence consists of matter just the same as that of a computer’s. However, a computer’s was created likewise, was it not? Thus, we may conclude that the argument can yet turn out both ways, and is therefore non-definitive as well. Perhaps in the future science will learn us differently, but for the time being, this is the only palatable solution.

9 Fallacious death

Contrary to the common belief that death is the end, Prof. Dr. R. Lanza has found proof, that death is not necessarily the end. Prof. Dr. R. Sheldrake has trailed a similar claim before, based on rather physical arguments regarding the universe, but that brought lots of resistance with it. This theory might too be able to explain the way we perceive of time15. The moment one experiences as ’now’, is technically the future, as I had previously pointed out. It is only a matter of a few millionths of a second, but as we will see, this can make quite the difference. Using an analogy of Prof. Lanza’s, when a ball is dropped, and suddenly decides to continue its direction floating upward one would still perceive it as falling down, simply because past experience has learned that. 16The space-directionality would otherwise make not any sense to us. There is as of yet no irrefutable way to verify this argument. However, it would radically defy the way we have always considered the universe. It would even be more supportive of the theory that space and time do not at all exist. At any rate, it seems a counterintuitively viable solution for many biological principles, I have previously discussed.

Putting this story into perspective, if one is told to die from birth and on, one will believe that as a simple fact. Therefore, environmental changes will remain unbeknownst to the subject. Sophism, not only in political terms, can apparently control the way matter ’seems’ to develop. In the way time works, as explained before, one might not actually die like this. If perception as well as opinion are the key to ’what’ happens at the moment of experience, one might be able to alter the effects. If one would be able to believe that life does not simply end, one might be able to sophistically prolong their life. While, perhaps, in physical terms, the time bound to life, remains the same.

Consider this: in any good book, a person announces their death before it has actually happened. And, you guessed it, accordingly dies. But if they would not have believed so, would they in fact have? They might just simply live on somewhere else, at last, space can bend... We will never be able to be sure of this theory, at this point, it is nothing more than a theory. There is however, one piece of biological evidence for this premise, for the possibility that an animal is not simply dead, but solely in one part of the multi-verse. I would like to cite:

If a dying animal is observed; the body functions cannot completely terminate before the brain has actually done so - while it is believed to be the mind which has the perceptive functions for beliefs. This means that when the brain shuts down, the physical function must already have been terminated in order for the matter to get back into nature, purely.

The counterparts, morphic resonance and morphic fields17 are vague and rather questionable phenomena, it can be a great way to argue favorably of sophism in this context. The context of the fashion in which people learn as well as the way in which nature itself seems to learn and evolve accordingly. Therefore, e.g. the gravitational constant can differ throughout the course of time. Not only being dependent of the environment, but also of the age it is measured in itself.

Morphic fields are imposed energetic fields that function as universal memory for all living, even matter itself. It is a sort of relative constant for the universe as a whole, only visible in one particular situation. The easiest form of proof is, and I quote, ’the sense of being stared at’. Everybody seems to be subject to some kind of telepathy if being looked at. Interconnectivity of dimensions in Quantum Physics, seems a good start, moreover the cosmic web. Prof. Sheldrake analogized it with crystals. Every time one crafts a crystal, it would go a bit easier than the first time, if it was a novel crystal to begin with. Carbon atoms seem to more easily bind and intersect with other molecules. Analogically, the electrostatic forcefield of a magnet reaches far beyond the boundaries of the magnet itself. Too the earths gravity reaches far beyond the face of the earth, even to other planets. A theological being might reach far beyond itself as well.

In other words, a universal internet that can be utilized by literally anything telepathically. Quantum Mechanics actually entirely approve of this, these definitions are not simply defined within our brains. The mind could according to Prof. Sheldrake’s lecture have a prolonged life in this network. Now getting to the point, this could explain why the bible was believed to have come literally from God, at last, a person cannot have a greater intellectual capacity than a suprême. The suprême might here coexist with every human.

10 Dreaming

Where consciousness is housed is an all to familiar discussion. The brain is the organ which controls the entire animal body. René Descartes posed the argument that an immaterial entity cannot interact with a material one - monism versus dualism. To him, consciousness was not equal to the material form of a substance, it was non-energetic. But then why can we share information via Prof. Sheldrake’s morphic web? Perhaps the mind is energy, energy is the most purified form of matter. A morphic field is an energetic field, neurotransmitters are energetic, thus the body is controlled via energy. Having perception of consciousness should according to Descartes be part of true consciousness. So an account of the environment is not necessarily profoundly part of this knowledge.

We can prove this theory by the way in which dreams develop. There are five general stages of sleep18, the NREM (Non Rapid Eye Movement) when information is processed, and REM (Rapid Eye Movement), are the most important. One can have a conscious dream only in the REM stage, one’s body is then fully activated. However, if for some strange reason parts of the brain are deactivated, the ability to dream can be completely disabled. So if we can alter what happens in the mind by affecting the brain, can we not better conclude that there is only one form of substance? The afterlife can therefore as well only be materialistic, hence, the Quantum Mechanics argument.

11 Genetics versus the Theory of Evolution

Genes function completely unexpected as to their molecularly linear compound structure. A single strand of a few DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid) compounds can have multiple layers of effect through transcription and translation. As of yet, only ten percent of the human DNA has been identified with a set function. E.g. a dsDNA (double stranded-DNA) strand can have proteinic functions on a total of five levels. Via sequencing, inferring, introns and exons, IRESs and miRNA strands for the mitochondria. As previously discussed, matter does not at all function linearly through the course of time, but with the right components, there is only a select number of outcomes.

Even though the Darwinian Theory of Evolution19 is often thought to eliminate the Biblical perspective for a suprême, genetical research gave it new life. Which seems logical as Charles Darwin had no knowledge of genetics over the course of the early nineteenth century. 20The universe is as well based on a molecular foundation, could it therefore not as well evolve? Even though only two general groups of basepairs limits the DNA recombinant vastly, there are still over ten billion possibilities for a 1 kbps strand to eventually form a great number of proteins and other miRNA strands. Even so, Darwin was thinking in a same way as Aristotle, "... a new heritable property comes into play when the environmental change is pushing its likelihood. Then genetics posed an interesting nuance, if the cellular replication machinery (polymerase) accidentally makes a rearrangement or two, a mutation appears. A new protein comes into existence, which by so much bad luck might have unanticipated effects. Here the Darwinian Theory of Evolution completely failed.

Albeit, Darwin did have one thing straight. The phenomenon of ’survival of the fittest,’ a species with better, more stable and reliable genetic composition is more likely to eliminate the others and become predominant. Because of this, development is a constant process and every species that was once so powerful will eventually be ruled out, so it goes for man. There is a very simple explanation for this, when times are good, animals tend to party a hot-season reproduction scheme, the outcome of that is extinction, too wide a genetic variety will arise. The nonrandom polymerase activity errors become fatal to the species. This happens every time. Would that not seem supportive of a suprême power?

12 Dark Matter

Then there is the mirror image of matter itself. 21The Higgs-Boson (Godparticle) is the key factor in the theory of dark matter. As the universe expands, a large quantity of mass is required to sustain the enormous amount of matter in space stably. However, if we map the approximate amount of mass in space, we have a leakage of about seventy percent, that cannot simply be a mathematical mistake, the quantifier is way too small. The mass needed should be somewhere to find against that giant cosmic microwave background, but we cannot see it, therefore, we name it Dark Energy. But for so much matter to be supported at the same time, there must be another four counterfactual dimensions. The lepton’s (massless neutrino) counterpart, the tachion was supposed to solve this problem. What the boson does precisely we do not know yet, however, it can give mass to matter, and do so at will. It prevents by force the outward acceleration of particles’ nuclei. Hence, particles with larger nuclei have a larger gravitational strength. This creates for sustainable life. According to Schrödinger’s theory, time could not have existed without a particle such as this to begin with. But if this particle was a counter-cause of the Big Bang, than what created it? We have already argued that there was no place, or rather time, for a causal loop. A still greater force could be a solution... This suprême being would therefore be infinite too.

The Higgs-boson22 is a factor that particles are subject to according to the Standard Model of Physics23 - which describes how matter’s filaments interact. The boson could not have formed the matter from the Big Bang, as it consitsts itself of energy. But matter itself is energy as well, so it could not consist without the boson. So are particles without mass not simply Ideas to fill memoires? A massless particle can hence be experienced by man only, not machines. A God could just as much have created the Big Bang, or closed it for that matter.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

12.11 A film of the Higgs-collision at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. The forcefield extends fróm the kernel.

13 The Idea of mankind

Using a ’fork’, David Hume distinguished two general groups of matter. "Relations of Ideas," and "Matters of Fact". The problem of induction, mathematic finiteness defies the theoretical truth of a premise formed within Hume’s Fork. 24In Relations of Ideas, an a priori statement is either true or false. E.g. the sum 1+1 = 2, has a given factuality. But if ’=’ was given a different meaning, ’equals divided by two’ instead of ’equals’, the outcome ’2’ would be empirically incorrect. However, this is a non-material truth. We perceive material truths only true when they correspond with the human rationale. "The book is heavy," i.e. The fact that it has weight being subject to gravity is true, but the notion of it being ’heavy’ is an opinion. If we were to compare it to a car, the book would not at all be ’heavy’, but rather light. We may appeal this phenomenon by Descartes’s ’Evil Deceiver’, a power implanting in our minds untrue Ideas.

On the basis of this theory, Hume suggests that we never no for certain that our rationale is the correct one and should therefore never simply rely on our proper reason in conclusion about nature. If it turns out differently, the future would be ignorant of the ’matters of fact’ from the past, and that is logically impossible. However, if no preset Ideas, natural phenomena would be described differently. Thus perhaps there is a certain degree of predetermination in this26. Furthermore, fossils presumably prove the linearity in time, and so modern evolution, et cetera. But if we suggest parallel evolution upon the basis of how we expand time, the concept would be quickly rejected. Though Hume’s matters of fact suggest this is not all that far-fetched. Consider evolution to be a mirage therefore as well, then it would be predetermined. How otherwise could exist such a seamless follow-up of dominant species in nature? Thus, evolution again proves that there could in fact be a suprême.

14 The Watch Analogy

Using the Watch Analogy27, William Paley in 1802 proposed a theory likewise grounded on the way time and the universe finely cofunction. He succeeded very well for his time in pointing out that one cannot deny the sustainability of a God-argument using these points. The following quote is the most influential passage from his work:

“... suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place... when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive... that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it... the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker... every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.”

This does indeed not simply prove that a suprême irrefutibly exists. It is a so that the creator of the watch ought to have ’discovered’ the laws of time and gravitation in order to be able to explain it and craft something novel out of them. However, it is no facile necessity for the creator to be intelligent to describe the laws of nature, they are in essence simply handed to them. A creator of the laws has only to be ’more’ intelligent than the creatures that will be discovering it.

A suprême inventing the laws is compared to the creature that will find them, the suprême has therefore to be infinitely more forceful. This is indeed no conclusive argument upon the very existence of God for there has been plenty reasoned critique. However, it does very well show that it is not out of reason. The analogy describes the ’Creator’ an inventor, and not a coordinator, as the Bible also does. This does make it in his theory more likely. As Paley himself stated, the very reason we cannot prove Him, is that we are less entirely.

Part III Conclusion

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

15 Subject to supremacy

In my quest for proof for a God’s existence, I have found nothing conclusive. I have however, as Descartes stated, found that material findings are not enabled to definitively prove a cosmological suprême, only the other way round is possible through philosophical argument. Scientific arguments cannot conclude upon this matter, that would defy the meaning of the whole cause. Furthermore, a God as suggested in the Old Testament is neither out of reason, we perceive matter in a somewhat unreliable way, as well as we seem to utilize Prof. Sheldrake’s morphic network. As well Hume’s Fork with Relations of Ideas seems to prohibit total eradication of the hypothesis.

One analogy to stress is how time cannot be proved to have existed before (or after) the Big Bang, time is only visible when an object, one needs temperature to see time. The initiation of what we live in, is essentially immeasurable, so one cannot prove it being without a cause. Compare the Big Bang to a situation where the temperature in Kelvin resembles this: T 0 = 0 K. Time exists NOW because one can create an account of motion. On the absolute point zéro, one is physically unable to determine the time, movement is disabled. The idea of time existing in this total vacuüm will always remain doutful. So it is with a suprême in this very milieu. They could have shaped the universe to what it is nowadays, as we have seen in the thesis, there is a lot of reason for this belief. Though we cannot observe it empirically. Mathematics cannot form a definite answer if there is one factor in the fraction that counts up to zero. And yet, every physical law seems to eventually rely on time.

Hereupon follows a finite number of outcomes. Moreover, finiteness must be created by infinity. As proposed before, in the sum 1+1 = x, x has only√ a limited n√umber of outcomes, in this case three, being: x = 2, x = 4, or x = −(− 4). The physical world works in the same fashion, objects can only be used finitely. At last, there is only a

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

limited quantity of energy, thus matter, available in the universe. With a force that created it, that force should always be more infinite than the creation itself, robots are less intelligible than man is. This force is the suprême, in my definition. Even though it all comes down to the interpretation given to the theory, there is still no clear way to eliminate the possibility. Scientific theories can be favorable as well as disfavoring to the theory of God. That is my point.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

16 Disclaimer

During the creation of this paper, new insights have taught me a lot. My belief in God has not only strengthened, it has changed as well, in a positive way. Part of my belief in the Father was replaced by a belief in an extra spiritual dimension, one that we should just as much nourish. I grew to believe that God is not an almighty person, it is more of a natural force, at last, most biblical stories are values for a nomad society rather than a literary history. Though, I have remained the idea that one should pray to an almighty rather than a force, the Church was meant to be supportive to a persona, science should never be able to undermine that. Let us honor what he might have shaped.

References

[1] 1999 - New Oxford Dictionary of New American English;
[2] journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.240801;
[3] everystudent.com/features/isthere.html;
[4] volkskrant.nl/dossier-archief/of-is-de-maan-gewoon-gemaakt-van-aarde;
[5] National Geographic - 2007 - Inside the Milky Way;
[6] National Geographic - 2009 - The Search for Scientific Adam;
[7] NOVA - 2010 - Brian Greene - The Fabric of the Cosmos;
[8] ibtimes.co.uk/big-bang-not-beginning-we-could-be-living-parallel-universewhere-time-runs-backwards;
[9] Leiden University Press - 2012 - Quantum Mechanics 1;
[10] informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kant/;
[11] dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311168/Stephen-Hawking-says-The-Big- Bang-didnt-need-God-set-off.html;
[12] theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/stephen-hawking-god-could-notcreate-the-universe-because-there-was-no-time-for-him-to-do-so/;
[13] huffingtonpost.com/peter-baksa/who-is-god-can-he-beexpl_b_894003.html;
[14] NewScientist NL/BE - 2014/01 - George Ellis - Time File;
[15] dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2503370/Quantum-physics-proves-ISafterlife-claims-scientist.html;
[16] Robert Filkin - 2010 - Stephen Hawking’s Universe;
[17] sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html;
[18] NOVA - 2009 - What are dreams?;
[19] ucg.org/science/hey-hey-dna-proving-gods-existence-genetically/;
[20] Joël A.C. Baum & Jitendra V. Signh - 2003 - Evolutionary Dynamics and Organization;
[21] cbsnews.com/news/god-particle-why-the-higgs-boson-matters/;
[22] theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2013/nov/26/higgs-tau-taulepton-masses-cern;
[23] cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model;
[24] Hume’s Fork (PDF);
[25] Essay on Descartes’s Viewpoints about God (PDF);
[26] blogspot.nl/2012/05/it-didnt-end-with-sophists-richard.html; [27] sevenoaksphilosophy.org/religion/existence-of-god.html.

Annotations

- The phrase referred to by the title, was the opinion Albert Einstein formed as he was very much skeptic about the Quantum Mechanics: "God does not play dice...";
- A special thanks to: E. Woldhuis, PhD. MSc. BSc. - Doctorate Physicist from Leiden University, to: R. Sheldrake, PhD. MSc. BSc. - Doctorate Biologist and author from Cambridge University for his personal help and commitment, and to: S. Magnus, PhD, MA, BA. - doctorate theologist and priest from the University of Toulouse, for his personal help and commitment.

[...]


[1].11 The temperature (time as supposed to movement) during the development of the universe.

Details

Pages
35
Year
2014
ISBN (Book)
9783656864905
File size
1 MB
Language
English
Catalog Number
v286177
Grade
B
Tags
God Phenomena Science Ontology Religion

Author

Share

Previous

Title: "God does not play dice...". Could a higher ontological being be explained at hand of scientific phenomena?