WELCOME TO THE "SOL SCIENTIA," a fictional journal about
a physicist and philosopher of science, who is on a pilgrimage--
walking down the paths of Cosmology, Code, and Consciousness,
seeking the Plenum of the Universe, the GodHead.
Go to the very last post, which is the Introduction and work
your way forward.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
(1) Coda
Chapter Eight. CODA
I have at last come to the end of my pilgrimage. Need I say that
I have spent a goodly number of years, covering a lot of territory
during this quest of mine. As for gaining more insight, more
knowledge, I guess I have--mainly via the work of other scientists
who have struggled long and hard to understand their subject:
the universe.
After all this, however, I have reached that juncture as to what I
think about the universe, about the possibility of a Cosmic Plenum
that I prefer to call "Sol."
Basically I think that we are dealing with what I call the three "I's."
• Intelligence
• Information
• Intuition
Though I definitely realize that we are dealing only with
possibilities, only through speculation, it's scientific speculation
in that at least some of our scientific luminaries do dare to wonder
that our universe might be an Informed Universe. And where there is
Information, well there has to be Intelligence that stands behind it.
As for Intuition, we conscious humans--being part and parcel of the
universe--logically are recipients of this Intelligence and the
Information that it evolves. Through our minds, we are receivers
of Such.
Nevertheless, I realize fully that we good Homo Sapiens are not
exactly on the edge of Total Breakthrough, if you will. We folk
have been a long time coming; and, quite frankly, I believe we
are barely fledglings. But there are those among us who are
questers, who are on pilgrimage. And some have committed
their whole life towards trying to understand what stands behind
the universe in which we live.
As for me, my small journal serves as an infrastructure for my
"opus." Lots of research stands behind this journal, and now I
need put it together in a serious scholarly way. Such an effort
will probably take the rest of my life, but I'm not complaining.
Can't think of anything better to do!
Now concluding, I do hold hope in "Sol." I do believe there
surely is a LIGHT that stands behind Life and the World. Perhaps
this is my faith unfurling, but I don't think such a hope is totally
unfounded.
I have at last come to the end of my pilgrimage. Need I say that
I have spent a goodly number of years, covering a lot of territory
during this quest of mine. As for gaining more insight, more
knowledge, I guess I have--mainly via the work of other scientists
who have struggled long and hard to understand their subject:
the universe.
After all this, however, I have reached that juncture as to what I
think about the universe, about the possibility of a Cosmic Plenum
that I prefer to call "Sol."
Basically I think that we are dealing with what I call the three "I's."
• Intelligence
• Information
• Intuition
Though I definitely realize that we are dealing only with
possibilities, only through speculation, it's scientific speculation
in that at least some of our scientific luminaries do dare to wonder
that our universe might be an Informed Universe. And where there is
Information, well there has to be Intelligence that stands behind it.
As for Intuition, we conscious humans--being part and parcel of the
universe--logically are recipients of this Intelligence and the
Information that it evolves. Through our minds, we are receivers
of Such.
Nevertheless, I realize fully that we good Homo Sapiens are not
exactly on the edge of Total Breakthrough, if you will. We folk
have been a long time coming; and, quite frankly, I believe we
are barely fledglings. But there are those among us who are
questers, who are on pilgrimage. And some have committed
their whole life towards trying to understand what stands behind
the universe in which we live.
As for me, my small journal serves as an infrastructure for my
"opus." Lots of research stands behind this journal, and now I
need put it together in a serious scholarly way. Such an effort
will probably take the rest of my life, but I'm not complaining.
Can't think of anything better to do!
Now concluding, I do hold hope in "Sol." I do believe there
surely is a LIGHT that stands behind Life and the World. Perhaps
this is my faith unfurling, but I don't think such a hope is totally
unfounded.
(4) Considerations
Nonetheless, I delved into other books that talked about the scientific
quest and the idea of God. By this time, I even ran across some
theological treatises devoted to wondering what the universe might
offer in relation to their religion. Most were written by priests, who
also happened to be scientists. But I decided to avoid these tomes,
in that they tried to "fit" scientific data into their specific faith systems.
Probably pursuing the idea of a Cosmic Plenum, or the Solar Logos,
was bad enough I suppose. But this idea incorporated a much more
universal approach to God or the Creator or the Sustainer of the World.
Anyway, I found here and there more major scientists who talked about
the possibility of a Plenum, if you will. Or at least they scooted around
the topic.
There's Eric Chaisson, an astrophysicist connected with Tufts University.
Previously he served as senior scientist and division head at the Space
Telescope Science Institute of Johns Hopkins University and was also
affiliated with the Harvard- Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
Chaisson believed that the very expansion of the universe generates
*information.* But for information to occur, there has to rise an order
out of chaos. In the very earliest moments of the universe, it seemed
chaos reigned. But within a few next moments equilibrium occured,
allowing neutral atoms to move into a re-combination phase--a phase
of some half-million years that allowed energy and matter to couple.
Chaisson felt this cosmic evolution was a result of information that
"drives order from chaos." And at this point, I would like to inject a
small explanation of Chaos Theory.
[Chaos Theory tell us how the cosmos and we *create.* Chaos is
necessary for order! We go through periods or levels of chaos, and
(if we are fortunate) we move away from that path and rise to a higher
level of order. This is called "bifurcation" by the scientists. On the other
hand, precious order can not be allowed to remain stagnant. We have
to engage in that intermittency of chaos and order in order to evolve to
higher levels of creativity and being. If we don't, we would be aiming
towards total equilibrium--which, according to scientists, equates with
death.]
Paul Davies is another scientist who I selected. He is a Professor
of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia.
In one of his earlier books he immediately proposes that there is no
positive scientific evidence for a designer and creator of cosmic order.
However, as Davies put, there is more to nature than its mathematical
laws and its complex order. A third ingredient requires explanation too,
the so-called fundamental constants' of nature. "It is in that province
that we find the most surprising evidence for a grand design."
[By fundamental constants, physicists mean certain quantities
that play a basic role in physics, and which have the same
numerical value everywhere in the universe and at all moments
in time. All nature's forces contain numbers like this that determine
their strength and range.]
And, finally, I found a small selection of earlier scientists, now dead,
who pondered the great question over which I struggle. For this
journal I'll mention Werner Heisenberg, a Nobel Prize winner in
physics, famous for his Uncertainty Principle, who discussed the
motivations behind much scientific discovery and technological
innovations. As he nicely put it, "the development of science and
technology has produced, for example, the IDEA of the airplane."
Heisenberg was talking about that which is *a priori.* To quote:
"At that moment...when the true Ideas rise up, there occurs in the soul
of him who sees them an altogether indescribable process of the
highest intensity. It is the amazed awe that Plato speaks of in the
Phaedrus, with which the soul remembers, as it were, something it
had unconsciously possessed all along."
quest and the idea of God. By this time, I even ran across some
theological treatises devoted to wondering what the universe might
offer in relation to their religion. Most were written by priests, who
also happened to be scientists. But I decided to avoid these tomes,
in that they tried to "fit" scientific data into their specific faith systems.
Probably pursuing the idea of a Cosmic Plenum, or the Solar Logos,
was bad enough I suppose. But this idea incorporated a much more
universal approach to God or the Creator or the Sustainer of the World.
Anyway, I found here and there more major scientists who talked about
the possibility of a Plenum, if you will. Or at least they scooted around
the topic.
There's Eric Chaisson, an astrophysicist connected with Tufts University.
Previously he served as senior scientist and division head at the Space
Telescope Science Institute of Johns Hopkins University and was also
affiliated with the Harvard- Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
Chaisson believed that the very expansion of the universe generates
*information.* But for information to occur, there has to rise an order
out of chaos. In the very earliest moments of the universe, it seemed
chaos reigned. But within a few next moments equilibrium occured,
allowing neutral atoms to move into a re-combination phase--a phase
of some half-million years that allowed energy and matter to couple.
Chaisson felt this cosmic evolution was a result of information that
"drives order from chaos." And at this point, I would like to inject a
small explanation of Chaos Theory.
[Chaos Theory tell us how the cosmos and we *create.* Chaos is
necessary for order! We go through periods or levels of chaos, and
(if we are fortunate) we move away from that path and rise to a higher
level of order. This is called "bifurcation" by the scientists. On the other
hand, precious order can not be allowed to remain stagnant. We have
to engage in that intermittency of chaos and order in order to evolve to
higher levels of creativity and being. If we don't, we would be aiming
towards total equilibrium--which, according to scientists, equates with
death.]
Paul Davies is another scientist who I selected. He is a Professor
of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia.
In one of his earlier books he immediately proposes that there is no
positive scientific evidence for a designer and creator of cosmic order.
However, as Davies put, there is more to nature than its mathematical
laws and its complex order. A third ingredient requires explanation too,
the so-called fundamental constants' of nature. "It is in that province
that we find the most surprising evidence for a grand design."
[By fundamental constants, physicists mean certain quantities
that play a basic role in physics, and which have the same
numerical value everywhere in the universe and at all moments
in time. All nature's forces contain numbers like this that determine
their strength and range.]
And, finally, I found a small selection of earlier scientists, now dead,
who pondered the great question over which I struggle. For this
journal I'll mention Werner Heisenberg, a Nobel Prize winner in
physics, famous for his Uncertainty Principle, who discussed the
motivations behind much scientific discovery and technological
innovations. As he nicely put it, "the development of science and
technology has produced, for example, the IDEA of the airplane."
Heisenberg was talking about that which is *a priori.* To quote:
"At that moment...when the true Ideas rise up, there occurs in the soul
of him who sees them an altogether indescribable process of the
highest intensity. It is the amazed awe that Plato speaks of in the
Phaedrus, with which the soul remembers, as it were, something it
had unconsciously possessed all along."
(3) Considerations
The scenario totally shifted when I approached the thought of
David Bohm. He was a protege of both Einstein and Robert
Oppenheimer (the Father of the Atom Bomb) when he was at
the Institute for Advanced Study. In due course, Bohm moved
on to positions in Brazil and Israel--and eventually became the
Chair of the Physics Department at the University of London.
Known as the "Father of Quantum Mechanics," Bohm died in
1990.
But it was what Bohm did *after* he retired. Essentially he
became a philosopher, espousing an incredibly interesting
theory about what he called the "Implicate Order. What Bohm
was suggesting, strongly, is that there is an Inner Aspect of the
universe as well as an Outer Aspect that we normally study.
He based his theory on his knowledge as a physicist, especially
specializing in quantum physics and mechanics. But he inputted
lots and lots more into his theory. Bohm's universal system was
a *Whole,* if you will, seamless, with the Inner playing into the
Outer. Our's is a holistic universe, and the process is holistic.
Bohm believed that there was a Plenum, if you will, which he
called the "Holomovement."
Without going into a lot of seriously sophisticated physics, I'll just
make mention in this journal that Bohm's basic assumption is that
"elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated
internal structure, acting essentially as amplifiers of *information*
contained in a quantum wave." As a consequence, he evolved a
new and controversial theory of the universe--a new model of reality
that he calls the "Implicate Order."
The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic
view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any
individual element could reveal "detailed information about every
other element in the universe." The central underlying theme of
Bohm's theory is the "unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence
as an undivided flowing movement without borders." Hence the
Holomovement.
At last I had found a scientist--a great scientist, too--who dared to
suggest that there is actually an Inner that feeds out *information*
to play into the Outer part of the universe.
However, excited as I may be, I knew that I had to be practical in
my quest. I just could not latch onto a theory without more under-
standing. Consequently I spent lots of time delving into Bohm's
thought, and I must say that the man was knowledgable. He really
knew his science! And he dared to say what he thought about the
nature and process(es) of the universe.
In the end, what I really latched onto when it came to Bohm's theory
was the focus on *Information.* By sheer happenstance, a friend
of mine back at the Plasma Physics Laboratory came across a
scientific article by John Wheeler, now gone but then known as
one of the greatest physicists in the world. Quoting Wheeler, here
is what he said: "the quantum teaches us that the world at bottom
has an information-theoretic character."
Wheeler continued, proceeding with the idea of an observer-participant
universe. "Participation reveals itself in the demand for choice. In this
game, as in quantum physics, no question, no answer."
Thrilled after reading Bohm's theory, after reading Wheeler's comment,
I couldn't help but think that their thinking presupposes an intelligent
universe that has to grasp information and creativity as its primary
process.
David Bohm. He was a protege of both Einstein and Robert
Oppenheimer (the Father of the Atom Bomb) when he was at
the Institute for Advanced Study. In due course, Bohm moved
on to positions in Brazil and Israel--and eventually became the
Chair of the Physics Department at the University of London.
Known as the "Father of Quantum Mechanics," Bohm died in
1990.
But it was what Bohm did *after* he retired. Essentially he
became a philosopher, espousing an incredibly interesting
theory about what he called the "Implicate Order. What Bohm
was suggesting, strongly, is that there is an Inner Aspect of the
universe as well as an Outer Aspect that we normally study.
He based his theory on his knowledge as a physicist, especially
specializing in quantum physics and mechanics. But he inputted
lots and lots more into his theory. Bohm's universal system was
a *Whole,* if you will, seamless, with the Inner playing into the
Outer. Our's is a holistic universe, and the process is holistic.
Bohm believed that there was a Plenum, if you will, which he
called the "Holomovement."
Without going into a lot of seriously sophisticated physics, I'll just
make mention in this journal that Bohm's basic assumption is that
"elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated
internal structure, acting essentially as amplifiers of *information*
contained in a quantum wave." As a consequence, he evolved a
new and controversial theory of the universe--a new model of reality
that he calls the "Implicate Order."
The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic
view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any
individual element could reveal "detailed information about every
other element in the universe." The central underlying theme of
Bohm's theory is the "unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence
as an undivided flowing movement without borders." Hence the
Holomovement.
At last I had found a scientist--a great scientist, too--who dared to
suggest that there is actually an Inner that feeds out *information*
to play into the Outer part of the universe.
However, excited as I may be, I knew that I had to be practical in
my quest. I just could not latch onto a theory without more under-
standing. Consequently I spent lots of time delving into Bohm's
thought, and I must say that the man was knowledgable. He really
knew his science! And he dared to say what he thought about the
nature and process(es) of the universe.
In the end, what I really latched onto when it came to Bohm's theory
was the focus on *Information.* By sheer happenstance, a friend
of mine back at the Plasma Physics Laboratory came across a
scientific article by John Wheeler, now gone but then known as
one of the greatest physicists in the world. Quoting Wheeler, here
is what he said: "the quantum teaches us that the world at bottom
has an information-theoretic character."
Wheeler continued, proceeding with the idea of an observer-participant
universe. "Participation reveals itself in the demand for choice. In this
game, as in quantum physics, no question, no answer."
Thrilled after reading Bohm's theory, after reading Wheeler's comment,
I couldn't help but think that their thinking presupposes an intelligent
universe that has to grasp information and creativity as its primary
process.
(2) Considerations
As for Freeman Dyson, he is a declared non-denominational
Christian--but I believe he qualifies his Chistrianity when he
said that (for him) it is a "community that preserves an ancient
heritage of great literature and great music, provides help and
counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates
children in moral responsibility, and worships God in its own
fashion.
However, as Dyson puts: "as a scientist, I live in a universe of
overwhelming size and mystery. The mysteries of life and
language, evil, chance and necessity, and of our own existence
as conscious beings, in an impersonal cosmos are even greater
than the mysteries of physics and astronomy. Behind the
mysteries that we can name, there are deeper mysteries that
we have not even begun to explore."
Well Dyson said it: the universe remains very much a mystery for
us. And he said what I was trying to understand that there are
mysteries that stand behind the obvious mysteries we have only
begun to encounter about the universe--and our place in it.
I've heard it said that when a priest cannot explain a complicated
theological subject, he oft says it's a "mystery." Well it seems that
scientists get into this habit, too! Still Dyson has a sense of a
Deeper Mystery, though vague. He's not willing to speculate
much beyond this.
Thus far fairly discouraged, I felt more and more bereft. My
pilgrimage was approaching "empty." Still, something within
me kept prodding to keep on going.
Christian--but I believe he qualifies his Chistrianity when he
said that (for him) it is a "community that preserves an ancient
heritage of great literature and great music, provides help and
counsel to young and old when they are in trouble, educates
children in moral responsibility, and worships God in its own
fashion.
However, as Dyson puts: "as a scientist, I live in a universe of
overwhelming size and mystery. The mysteries of life and
language, evil, chance and necessity, and of our own existence
as conscious beings, in an impersonal cosmos are even greater
than the mysteries of physics and astronomy. Behind the
mysteries that we can name, there are deeper mysteries that
we have not even begun to explore."
Well Dyson said it: the universe remains very much a mystery for
us. And he said what I was trying to understand that there are
mysteries that stand behind the obvious mysteries we have only
begun to encounter about the universe--and our place in it.
I've heard it said that when a priest cannot explain a complicated
theological subject, he oft says it's a "mystery." Well it seems that
scientists get into this habit, too! Still Dyson has a sense of a
Deeper Mystery, though vague. He's not willing to speculate
much beyond this.
Thus far fairly discouraged, I felt more and more bereft. My
pilgrimage was approaching "empty." Still, something within
me kept prodding to keep on going.
(1) Considerations
Chapter Seven. CONSIDERATIONS
After reviewing selected data on the New Cosmology, on Smart
Code, and Consciousness Research, I simply had to sit back
and take some deep breaths. Before I started out, I knew that the
universe would not readily present nor provide specifics when it
came to a Godhead--or the Cosmic Plenum, known as the
"Logos" in Western philosophy.
But I guess I must have had some hidden hope that I might see
more clearly. After reviewing my journal up to this point, I didn't
see many clues that uniquely suggested a Cosmic Plenum. Yet,
both my heart and my mind kept demanding that I continue to
investigate.
So I decided to read those listed books by scientists who leaned
towards a spiritual view of the universe. I wasn't hopeful, but
after all the Institute for Advanced Study had provided me with
this book list. And I remembered that one of the faculty members
had specifically mentioned three of their own star scientists:
Albert Einstein, Freeman Dyson, and David Bohm. So I began
reading into what these scientific luminaries had to say.
I gleaned through as much as I could about the late Albert
Einstein's religious views. He did admit to a "cosmic religious
feeling." From what I could tell, he was a deist under the skin.
He certainly was adamant that he was *not* an atheist nor
a pantheist.
Much to my amazement, I discovered a talk Einstein gave at the
Princeton Theological Seminary. He said that there "is no room
for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual."
With this, he was certainly not proclaiming any revealed religion!
Rather he was in awe of that he called the "spirit manifest in the
laws of the universe," of a "God who reveals Himself in the
harmony of all that exists."
I certainly had to agree with Einstein when he proffered the
following analogy: "The child dimly suspects a mysterious order
in the arrangement of books but doesn't know what it is. That, it
seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human
being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged
and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
At least Einstein refers to a God that he believes stands behind
Universal Law(s). Was he thinking of a Cosmic Plenum? The
question remains, however, how orderly the universe might be.
Quantum Theory took the punch out of Einstein, as he declared
that "God does not play dice." Turned out that that the universe
might be rolling the dice after all, especially if you have an
observer-participant universe.
After reviewing selected data on the New Cosmology, on Smart
Code, and Consciousness Research, I simply had to sit back
and take some deep breaths. Before I started out, I knew that the
universe would not readily present nor provide specifics when it
came to a Godhead--or the Cosmic Plenum, known as the
"Logos" in Western philosophy.
But I guess I must have had some hidden hope that I might see
more clearly. After reviewing my journal up to this point, I didn't
see many clues that uniquely suggested a Cosmic Plenum. Yet,
both my heart and my mind kept demanding that I continue to
investigate.
So I decided to read those listed books by scientists who leaned
towards a spiritual view of the universe. I wasn't hopeful, but
after all the Institute for Advanced Study had provided me with
this book list. And I remembered that one of the faculty members
had specifically mentioned three of their own star scientists:
Albert Einstein, Freeman Dyson, and David Bohm. So I began
reading into what these scientific luminaries had to say.
I gleaned through as much as I could about the late Albert
Einstein's religious views. He did admit to a "cosmic religious
feeling." From what I could tell, he was a deist under the skin.
He certainly was adamant that he was *not* an atheist nor
a pantheist.
Much to my amazement, I discovered a talk Einstein gave at the
Princeton Theological Seminary. He said that there "is no room
for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual."
With this, he was certainly not proclaiming any revealed religion!
Rather he was in awe of that he called the "spirit manifest in the
laws of the universe," of a "God who reveals Himself in the
harmony of all that exists."
I certainly had to agree with Einstein when he proffered the
following analogy: "The child dimly suspects a mysterious order
in the arrangement of books but doesn't know what it is. That, it
seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human
being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged
and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
At least Einstein refers to a God that he believes stands behind
Universal Law(s). Was he thinking of a Cosmic Plenum? The
question remains, however, how orderly the universe might be.
Quantum Theory took the punch out of Einstein, as he declared
that "God does not play dice." Turned out that that the universe
might be rolling the dice after all, especially if you have an
observer-participant universe.
(4) Consciousness
What to do? Like my quest towards understanding Code, I felt that
there really was no solid door to walk through when it came to the
issue of Consciousness. At least there was Genetic Code, a physical
reality in the life-forms we know on Earth. But with Consciousness,
it's not always apparently physical.
Some researchers believe the "materialist" approach is the way that
we can ultimately understand Consciousness. Conversely there's the
"idealist" approach that thinks otherwise--that Consciousness is
somehow non-material, perhaps even ethereal.
From what I could tell, we humans have not yet even come to any
conclusive understanding of Consciousness. All we know is that it
*is.*
Somehow this mystery of Consciousness brought to mind a lecture
I once attended by a famous astronomer. Discussing recent
cosmological discoveries, he stopped suddenly, grew silent, and
then said the most interesting thing. He had realized that our
mind, our consciousness, must somehow be connected with the
universe--because astronomy is not a bench science, where we
can touch and feel. Rather we seem to understand our observations,
distant and complex, when it comes to Cosmology. We seem to
be able to do this naturally, and more than often we are right
when it comes to our analyses. It's as if we are part and parcel
of the universe, and our consciousness is somehow connected
to Such.
It made me think that, yes, just maybe we are possibly what I have
come to call "Consciousness Points" rising forth in the universe.
I have to wonder whether that throughout the millions of galaxies,
there are Consciousness Points, pondering upon the meaning of
All this that Is.
there really was no solid door to walk through when it came to the
issue of Consciousness. At least there was Genetic Code, a physical
reality in the life-forms we know on Earth. But with Consciousness,
it's not always apparently physical.
Some researchers believe the "materialist" approach is the way that
we can ultimately understand Consciousness. Conversely there's the
"idealist" approach that thinks otherwise--that Consciousness is
somehow non-material, perhaps even ethereal.
From what I could tell, we humans have not yet even come to any
conclusive understanding of Consciousness. All we know is that it
*is.*
Somehow this mystery of Consciousness brought to mind a lecture
I once attended by a famous astronomer. Discussing recent
cosmological discoveries, he stopped suddenly, grew silent, and
then said the most interesting thing. He had realized that our
mind, our consciousness, must somehow be connected with the
universe--because astronomy is not a bench science, where we
can touch and feel. Rather we seem to understand our observations,
distant and complex, when it comes to Cosmology. We seem to
be able to do this naturally, and more than often we are right
when it comes to our analyses. It's as if we are part and parcel
of the universe, and our consciousness is somehow connected
to Such.
It made me think that, yes, just maybe we are possibly what I have
come to call "Consciousness Points" rising forth in the universe.
I have to wonder whether that throughout the millions of galaxies,
there are Consciousness Points, pondering upon the meaning of
All this that Is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)