May 07, 2006

Mathematics, the Universe and God

Ra In ancient Egypt they worshiped the Sun God, Ra. Various religions have worshiped the sun. In ancient times they didn't know that the Milky Way galaxy, our home galaxy even existed. They didn't know that stars were actually suns like our sun, and they didn't know until recently that there were other galaxies in the universe, in fact billions of other galaxies each containing billions of stars or suns, assorted black holes, and other junk like asteroids, comets and dust. In addition they didn't know about the existence of sub-atomic particles like quarks until recently. If the ancients had known all this, the tremendous span of dimension from sub-atomic to the dimensions of the universe in space and time (a diameter of some 28 billion light years and 13.7 billion years, respectively), the ancients might well have worshiped the universe itself, the reality of which is beyond anything we possibly can even conceive of. Hence reality itself outstrips anything we possibly could conceive of in all its facets. When you add to this the fact that life exists within the universe, you have something pretty spectacular indeed, a complete miracle outstripping any miracles ever claimed to be such by anyone.

It's amazing how in one age people will claim that something is miraculous when, in a later age, the principles behind it are understood and the miraculous turns into the mundane. For instance, a hundred years ago people gazed into crystal balls and claimed to see things going on in some other locale. Well, today we can gaze into a modern day crystal ball otherwise know as a TV set and see instantaneously scenes that are happening on the other side of the world or even on the moon! The march of science guarantees that the miraculous will become the mundane. Religions have struggled to keep up with reality as the knowledge of it has unfolded. For instance, the Catholic Church did not admit until the 1950s that Galileo was in fact right. The earth does go around the sun. Other religions still haven't admitted that the earth is more than 5000 years old as it says in the Bible while in fact carbon dating has placed it at about 5 billion years old.

Church7

I start from the premise that no one really knows certain things like whether or not God really exists, what happens to us after we die, the meaning of life, the meaning of the universe etc. Religions have claimed to know these things, but in essence anything that any religion claims is merely a belief, and a belief can be right or wrong. Anyone, in my opinion, has the right to speculate about any of this stuff, but most people don't because they accept what their religion tells them without question. Why? Because they're afraid if they don't, bad things will happen to them either in this life or the next. However, most, if not all, human progress has been achieved by those who've had the guts to get beyond these fears and ask what might seem to some to be sacrilegious questions. Some like Galileo have been considered to be blasphemous. Organized religions have the power to invoke fear if you don't do what they tell you to do or don't believe what they tell you to believe.

Church4

I reserve the right to speculate about the "eternal" questions because I think I have about as much chance of being right about them as anyone else including those who claim to know everything since "God told them it was so." I start with the assumption that there is a God since, if nothing else, the miracle of the existence of the universe, in and of and by itself, would qualify as a God if God were nothing more than that. So I start with the assumption that, much like the ancients who worshiped the sun, the universe itself is worthy of worship if God is in fact nothing more than the sum total of everything that exists in the universe. However, I will in this forum speculate about the nature of God since, if God exists, we might ask what is his or her nature. It's a legitimate question. I will use the pronoun He to refer to God. Hope no one is offended by that.

Now there is speculation and there is speculation. One might ask is there such a thing as intelligent speculation and, if so, what are its parameters. When creative people do science or art or mathematics (here's where the mathematics come in), they always speculate according to their personal values. Einstein said "God does not play dice with men." That was a personal value. Of course, scientists have to subject their theories (or speculations) to experiment before they are proven true or false. Mathematicians just have to have a consistent theory because their work is completely abstract and not subject to experimentation. Scientific values have to do with elegance, simplicity (you can't get more elegant or simpler than E=MC[squared]), and symmetry. So if pre-eminent physicist Stephen Hawking can speculate about what happened before the universe began, why the big bang did or did not represent a singularity, certainly there are criteria that might allow one to speculate about the Nature of God.

Church6 The mathematician, Cantor, developed a whole theory about infinity. In fact he proved to the acceptance of other mathematicians that there are many different kinds of infinities. Now most people can't comprehend even one infinity let alone an infinite number of different kinds of infinities. Some of these same sorts of considerations might be able to be used in speculating about God. A lot of the religious ideas about God are anthropomorphic. That is they assume God has human attributes. The ancient Greeks and Romans had many Gods, and they all had human attributes like jealousy, sexual desires, seeking after power and dominance etc. What if God is not anthropomorphic? What if God is more akin to the laws of physics and chemistry than He is to human nature? And if Cantor can speculate and even prove things about something we can have no real grasp of, might we not be able to speculate and even prove some things about God?

Church2_1 Now it has been said that God is all loving, all knowing and all powerful. My personal feeling is that God cannot be both all loving and all powerful because, if he were, he would net let the slaughter of innocents take place, and, as we know from history and from present day news reports, innocents are being slaughtered every day. There are both man made and natural disasters. If God were all powerful, he could tweak things a bit so that disasters could be averted especially for those who are on his good side - those who are evidently very "religious." For instance, why did God let 9/11 happen? Surely, a lot of good people were led to their deaths by madmen. This caused tremendous suffering. Why did God let this happen? This is the question that, in the aftermath of 9/11, all clergymen backed away from because they didn't want to come face to face with the implications. Either God is not all powerful or God is not all loving. Other disasters like the tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, genocides in Darfor and Rwanda, earthquakes in Pakistan and elsewhere leaving thousands homeless etc could prompt the same observation.

My personal opinion is that God is not all powerful. God is not sitting up there manipulating reality, granting favors to those who pray, granting more favors to those who pray harder etc. Jesus said that "the rain falls on both the good and the evil." Nature is what it is and natural disasters can occur for a variety of reasons. It is up to man (pardon the expression) to act in such a way as to prevent or ameliorate natural and man made disasters including the slaughter of innocents. I believe that God has delegated this authority to us. For instance, early warning systems, devised by man, can alert people to earthquakes, tsunamis etc. Evacuations systems, disaster relief etc are man made devices to ameliorate disasters. Man made disasters such as 9/11 can be prevented by providing security systems to protect from such things ever happening again. We learn from disaster and we can take steps to prevent future disasters. The criminal justice system is supposed to provide justice and deterrents when criminals act in such a way as to deprive people of their rights, property or life.

Church5 So I think that God is not all powerful. I agree with the Deists to the extent that I think God set up the universe much as a watchmaker makes a watch, wound it up and let it go, subject to the provisions of the laws of nature supplemented by man made laws and subject to the constraints of the design aspects of the universe. What these design aspects are are not entirely clear. Einstein postulated a cosmic constant. The speed of light and other things could have been designed differently. What kind of universe we would be living in even if life were possible at all if some of these design parameters were different is the subject of more hopefully informed speculation by physicists.

January 23, 2006

In the Beginning, God...

God_1 Let us assume that God existed before the creation of the universe. I think most religions would agree with that because God is assumed to always have existed and to always exist. In the Bible in Genesis it says "In the beginning, God..."

By the same token, if we assume that the universe has a finite existence, we assume that God will still exist after the universe has ended. "In the beginning, God..." is balanced by "In the end, God..." We assume the general acceptance of the Big Bang theory of the universe: the universe started at a finite point in time. It is more argumentative whether or not the universe will end in a Big Crunch or will continue to expand forever ending in a heat death: matter will have become so spread out and the average temperature so cold that no life could exist. I happen to believe that the universe will end in a Big Crunch because of symmetry and the esthetic consideration that a neverending universe consisting of space junk is not pleasant to contemplate.

What Happens After the Universe Ends

From considerations of symmetry again, I assume that God will be in the same configuration after the universe ends as He was before the universe began. Looked at in this light, the universe is simply God's experiment. I assume that before the universe began, God was One or unified. After the universe ends God will be the same One. During the course of the universe, I think that God has changed form and actually become the universe, but this assumption is not necessary to my thesis that individuals will cease to be individuals by the end of the universe since, if God is all that there is, the existence of individuals in some form would be extraneous. I think that the universe is God's experiment with individuality. We have individal agglomerations of matter, individual life forms etc. In particular human beings take the form of individuals. So the question is do we survive as individuals in some form after we die and after the universe dies? I would say no since then God would have created something which is eternal the same as God is and I don't think that God needs to have anything that's eternal other than God Himself. Therefore, I think that when the universe ends or when an individual life ends, it gets reabsorbed back into God. If the universe and life within it represents God in a different form than the form He was in before the universe began and after the universe ends, then the universe and everything within it will simply change form and become God again in the form He was in before the universe began. Therefore, our life as individuals may end when we die, but our life in some sense may not end since we may be reabsorbed back into God.

My Photo

Please Donate by Clicking on the Picture Below

Social Choice and Beyond

Honors and Accolades

  • "Best Grandpa Ever"
    --Monique Wynn, age 3.

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Judy

John

John and Judy

Justine

John and Justine

Quartez

Jasmine and Monique

Monique 2006

Jasmine 2007

Clifton E Lawrence 1972

Florence E Lawrence 1958

James S Lawrence 1945

Pearl Van Gelder 1909

Pearl and Jeanne Lawrence 1962

John and Alice Clark

James and Pearl Lawrence 1941

George and Edith Leatham 1942

Sisters Florence Lawrence and Winnie Cole 1942

The Newest Arrival: Baby Huck!

Vernon Station 1942

Vernon Station 2004

Quotations

  • Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.
    --Stephen Leacock Canadian economist & humorist (1869 - 1944)
  • They can't put you in jail for what you're thinking.
    --Clifton E Lawrence
  • If we can't create a good impression, we can at least try to create a bland impression.
    -- Ben Weinbaum, my supervisor at General Dynamics
  • Men are generally idle, and ready to satisfy themselves, and intimidate the industry of others, by calling that impossible which is only difficult.
    -- Samuel Johnson

  • There's a vas deferens between us.
    --Paul Desmond to a girlfriend

  • Lawrence, how do you manage to go through so much shit and come out smelling like a rose?
    --a college classmate
  • Lawrence, you're better on paper than you are in person.
    --Guy Carlisle

  • Lawrencie, you're smart in school, but dumb in life.
    --Arthur Hill

  • In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves.
    --R. A. Butler

  • Don't put off till tomorrow what you can do today.
    --Florence C Lawrence

  • There's no time like the present.
    --Florence C Lawrence

  • One hand washes the other.
    --Clifton E Lawrence

  • You have to take the bitter with the better.
    --Clifton E Lawrence

  • An inventor is simply a fellow who doesn't take his education too seriously.
    --Charles F Kettering

  • A problem well stated is a problem half solved.
    --Charles F Kettering

  • Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    --Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law) English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )

  • The least of learning is done in the classrooms.
    --Thomas Merton

  • Tastes pretty good for an old dead cow.
    --Clifton E Lawrence at a family picnic

  • If the shoe fits, wear it.
    --anonymous

    If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
    --John Lawrence

Books

  • Harold Lasswell: Power and Personality
  • Wilhelm Reich: Mass Psychology of Fascism

    Wilhelm Reich: Mass Psychology of Fascism

  • William Glasser: Positive Addiction

    William Glasser: Positive Addiction

  • Abraham Maslow: The Psychology of Being

    Abraham Maslow: The Psychology of Being

  • Herbert Marcuse: Eros and Civilization

    Herbert Marcuse: Eros and Civilization

  • Doug Ramsey: Take Five: The Public and Private Lives of Paul Desmond

    Doug Ramsey: Take Five: The Public and Private Lives of Paul Desmond
    This is a great book! Paul Desmond and Dave Brubeck formed the heart of one of the best all time jazz groups. Paul was the quintessential intellectual, white jazz musician. A talented writer, he never published anything. However author, Doug Ramsey has collected Paul's letters here. How ironic that now his writing in the form of letters to his father and ex-wife, among others, is finally published showing another window on the mind of this talented person. A sideman, for the most part, his entire life, the Dave Brubeck Quartet might never have happened at all due to the fact that Paul had managed to offend Dave to the point where he never wanted to see him again. It had to do with a gig that Paul actually was the leader of. Paul wanted to take the summer off to play another gig, and Dave wanted Paul to let him take over the gig at the Band Box in Palo Alto, CA. Paul wouldn't let him and Dave, married with two children, proceeded to starve. Due to an elaborate publicity campaign, when he realized the error of his ways, Paul managed to worm himself back into Dave's good graces. The rest is history. This book is remarkable for the insight it gives into a working jazz musician's mind, wonderful pictures and interviews with the significant figures in Paul's life. Author Ramsey, not a remarkable penman himself, has nevertheless done a magnificent job of assembling all these various materials. Unlike a lot of jazz authors, he doesn't overly idolize his subject with the result that you get the feeling that you have met a real person and not a idealized version. That's high praise indeed for any biographer. (*****)

Blog powered by TypePad

People

Search this blog

Technorati

Search

NO QUARTER