by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
In the previous post where I introduced
Paul Davies book “The Goldilocks Enigma” which appears to be one of the sources
of Philip Goff’s rather shallow musings on ‘The Purpose of the Universe’, I
cited Davies’ briefly from his discussion about ‘The Big Questions’. There he noted that “The ancients were right: beneath the surface
complexity of nature lies a hidden subtext, written in a subtle mathematical code. This cosmic code contains the secret rules on
which the universe runs.”
I added the context
that the ancients thought that knowing
or inferring something about ultimate reality can help an individual to live a
better life in some sense, thus, the development of various religions, though I
mentioned Christianity specifically.
What developed
from this drive to understand ultimate reality, within the parameters of
science as we know it today, was the materialist assumption that the physical
world is causally closed and free will is just an illusion. I then noted that, for
this belief system to make any sense, materialists needed their own creation
myth to explain the complexity of human life, experience and consciousness
which Philip Goff was exerting himself to provide based on Darwinism. Goff struggled with the fact that, if the physical universe is
causally closed and we have no free will, then our consciousness is entirely
useless and certainly not advantageous for survival. He did some fancy cogitation in an effort to
overcome this implication, suggesting that the Universe can have ‘purpose’ even
if it is a materialist universe. He
combined his ‘pan-agentialism’ with ‘teleological laws’ to come up with ‘Cosmic
purposivism’ which just happens to coincide nicely with liberal-left political
aims. In short, Goff described a Big Bang that was as much Creationism as the “God
did it” version. As I noted,
As I noted, based on research in mathematics and physics, there is clearly much more to our reality than the naive realism upon which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is based. And it’s not that there aren’t some elements of natural selection in play; clearly there are. But it is the way that the principles have been applied: Natural selection was seized upon as the one and only underlying law of our reality as a whole: random processes of matter, no consciousness needed. And it has been the steady application of this materialistic evolutionary thinking that is behind the explanation of the order of the universe that prevails today, which underpins the chaos and disorder we see in a world devoid of information and organization.
How can this be in a world where science has uncovered the existence of
a network of complex coded mathematical relationships beneath the diverse
physical systems making up our reality? Paul Davies writes:
How has this come about? Somehow the universe has engineered, not just
its own awareness, but its own comprehension.
Mindless, blundering atoms have conspired to make, not just life, not
just mind, but understanding. The
evolving cosmos has spawned beings who are able not merely to watch the show,
but to unravel the plot. What is it that enables something as small and delicate
and adapted to terrestrial life as the human brain to engage with the totality
of the cosmos and the silent mathematical tune to which it dances. … Could it
just be a fluke?
Here we encounter the concept of Laws of the Universe or Nature. These laws did not develop in a void. In earliest times, people observed the cycles
of nature and the stars. Religions
posited a created world order. The
Greeks proposed that the world could be explained by logic and reason. Modern science emerged from the Christian
belief that there was only one true god, one Truth, and the Greek philosophical
position that logic and reason could get us there. And so, as Davies points out, the founding
assumption of science is that the physical universe is neither arbitrary nor
absurd, but rather underpinned by a coherent scheme of things, a system of
well-defined laws. Davies writes:
Right at the outset we encounter an obvious
and profound enigma: Where do the laws of nature come from?... If they aren’t
the product of divine providence, how can they be explained?
In earlier times,
these laws were seen to be ‘thoughts of God’ or derived from God’s role as
law-maker and keeper of order. After Darwin, of course, it could be suggested
that nobody needed God to create things; natural selection did that very
well. Of course, as I have noted, that
just put the problem off several steps.
But in any event, today the ‘laws of physics’ are central to science and
foundational to physical reality. These
laws have been discovered and described bit by bit over hundreds of years.
Galileo supposedly
dropped balls off the tower at Pisa and discovered that the distance the ball
falling increases as the square of the time.
Davies asks the obvious question: Why is there such a mathematical
rule? Where does the rule come from? And
why is the rule as it is and not something else?
Why does the force
between magnets diminish with the cube of the distance between them? Why is it so that if you double the volume of
a fixed mass of gas while keeping the temperature constant, its pressure is
halved? (Boyle’s Law) Why is it so that
the square of the period of an orbit is proportional to the cube of the orbit’s
radius? (Kepler’s law) Why is it so that
the force of gravity diminishes with distance as the square of the separation
between the two bodies?
We could say that
the physical world conforms to mathematical laws or that mathematics and laws
emerge from the behavior of objects in the physical world. Chicken or egg? Does it matter?. By using Newton’s laws of motion and
gravitation, engineers can figure out when a space craft will arrive at point B
after departing from point A. And it always works. Whatever the origin of the world – matter or
mind – the mathematical models of reality appear to always describe what
actually happens in the real world.
Davies captures the deep mystery: “Why is Nature shadowed by a mathematical
reality?”
So, the next
question is: How many laws are there? It turns out that many of the laws are
not independent. Davies writes:
Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion explain Kepler’s three laws of planetary
motion, and so are in some sense deeper and more powerful. Newton’s laws of motion also explain Boyle’s
law of gases when they are applied in a statistical way to a large collection
of chaotically moving molecules. … The
laws of electricity … were found to be connected to the laws of magnetism,
which in turn explained the laws of light.
These interconnections led to a certain amount of confusion about which
laws were ‘primary’ and which could be derived from others. Physicists began talking about ‘fundamental’
laws and ‘secondary’ laws… This streamlining and repackaging process – finding links
between laws, and reducing them to ever more fundamental laws – continues apace,
and it’s tempting to believe that, at rock bottom, there is just a handful of
truly fundamental laws, possibly even a single super-law, from which all the
other laws derive.
The idea of Laws
of Nature resulted from recording and codifying observations of patterns in nature,
i.e. physical events. Somewhere along
the way, the laws themselves became the reality rather than the events they
described. The laws of physics became
abstractions within their own realm and only touch our world when they ‘act’. Davies writes:
It’s almost as if the laws are lying in wait, ready to seize control of
a physical process and compel it to comply… So we have this image of
really-existing laws of physics ensconced in a transcendent eyrie, lording it
over lowly matter.
Of course, that
means that the ‘laws of physics’ are part of the impersonal forces and natural
physical processes rather than the observed expressions of purposive
supernatural actors or events. Note what
I wrote above: “We could say that the physical world conforms to mathematical
laws or that mathematics and laws emerge from the behavior of objects in the
physical world. Chicken or egg?” Scientific explanations seem to win hands
down. Science tells us that the madness of rabies is caused by the cascade of
events resulting from an infection by a virus rather than possession by a
demon. But for all we know, (and I’m
only being partly facetious here), the rabies virus is merely the agent of a
devil.
There is a lot
that science doesn’t know and cannot explain. Davies tells us:
Many scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive
theory of the physical universe openly admit that part of the motivation is to
finally get rid of God, whom they view as a dangerous and infantile
delusion. And not only God, but any
vestige of God-talk, such as ‘meaning’ or ‘purpose’ or ‘design’ in nature. These scientists see religion as so
fraudulent and sinister that nothing less than total theological cleansing will
do. They concede no middle ground, and
regard science and religion as two implacably opposed world views. Victory is assumed to be the inevitable
outcome of science’s intellectual ascendancy and powerful methodology. …
At the level of popular, Sunday-school Christianity, God is portrayed
simplistically as a sort of Cosmic Magician, conjuring the world into being
from nothing and from time to time working miracles to fix problems. Such a being is obviously in flagrant
contradiction to the scientific view of the world. The God of scholarly theology, by contrast,
is cast in the role of a wise Cosmic Architect whose existence is manifested
through the rational order of the cosmos, an order that is in fact revealed by
science. That sort of God is largely
immune from scientific attack.
So here, I would like
to include an exchange Ark had with Robin Amis, editor and publisher of the
three volumes of Gnosis by Boris Mouravieff.
In the exchange, Ark will cite what Amis wrote to him:
Ark to Robin Amis:
You stated that:
1) Scientific method has its limitations.
2) Knowledge should be understood in broader terms so as to include, for
instance “noetic knowledge”. In particular:
a) there is a true form of knowledge that is normally associated with
religion
b) those with intellectual training tend to regard it as not being
knowledge at all
3) That you - Praxis - teach this other form of knowledge, and the
conditions under which it can be understood.
4) The reason that Praxis (and other religions) depends on a suspension
of judgment is “that newcomers studying this material, despite quickly getting
confirmation of its reality, will not understand it deeply enough.”
I will try to address and expand the above points and, perhaps, try to
add some new ideas, if only for the future discussion.
Point 1) I agree. I agree completely. In fact it takes a scientist to
truly know the limitations and the weaknesses of science, as many of the tricks
and games and even lies are known only to the insiders - scientists.
Point 2) I agree that there is such a knowledge; I agree that is
important and, in fact, is crucial. It
depends on whether you start with a fact and follow the clues to real
knowledge, or whether you start with an assumption, and interpret all facts
based on what may, at the very beginning, be a lie.
a) Whether this “true knowledge” is, was, or should be “associated with
religion” is disputable.
The term “associated” is somewhat vague and can lead to
misunderstandings. Science is also associated with religion. The Pope has
scientific advisers; the Vatican supports scientific research.
On the other hand the greatest crimes of history have also been - and
probably are still - associated with religion, one way or another.
Religion, if analyzed sincerely and critically, has many dark spots, and
analyzing the reasons for this is not an easy task.
But I hope you will agree with me that one of the reasons why religions
have these dark spots is that people were lulled into believing that they have
(in opposition to others) the “true knowledge”.
So the very concept of “true knowledge” is risky. It is easy to imagine
that two different people will have different, orthogonal truths. For one the
truth may be that he needs to kill the other man, while for the other man the
truth may involve avoiding being killed. Every noetic truth has down-to-earth
implications. Or so I think.
b) Though I agree that what you wrote may describe a general tendency,
yet there are exceptions. History knows scientists - great scientists - that
were “mystics” at the same time. Pascal, Newton, Poincare - just few examples.
So, indeed, the term “tend to regard” that you used seems to be appropriate.
But for this present point, it is important to know whether there is a real
contradiction between being a scientist and appreciating other forms of
knowledge at the same time. It seems to me and, I believe, you will agree, that
there is no intrinsic contradiction.
Point 3) Here of course you are assuming that Praxis is already in
possession of such a knowledge. Perhaps this is the case or, perhaps, Praxis
has only “fragments of unknown teachings”, and not the complete picture.
Being a scientist I am always careful and I would never state that I
have the full and complete “knowledge” of something. I may know about tools,
theories, formal structures, data etc. But one day, all my tools, data,
theories and formal structures may prove to be wrong or useless with the
uncovering of a single datum that shifts the entire structure. A true scientist
MUST be open to this. What is important in science is being always open to
surprises, to new paradigm shifts etc.
So, I think, you - Praxis - are teaching what you BELIEVE to be, at the
present moment, “the true knowledge”, and you may have very good reasons for
such a belief. You may have very important pieces of knowledge but, perhaps,
you are still lacking some of other important pieces.
How can we know in advance where the next unexpected discovery will lead
us?
And here I would like to make some constructive - or so I think -
comments.
Looking at the history of our civilization, religion seems to have
been in existence much longer than science. And yet we see that religion has
failed. In spite of its teachings people are still constantly at war with each
other. Human beings have not become better, and they are often much worse than
animals. Gurdjieff described seeing the truth of our condition - the condition
of our reality in general - as the “terror of the situation.” It is terrible
because, when you really SEE it, you realize how great a failure religion or
the “powers” of the various versions of God really are.
Science, which came later and has exploded in the last millennium, has
failed too. It has brought mankind to the edge of self-destruction. Advances in
mathematical, physical and computer sciences have brought about “applied game
theory“, where “wars” are called “games”, and to “win the game” is to kill as
many people as possible with as little cost as possible.
Is there any hope at all? And if there is, then where?
Perhaps it is time to try something new? Perhaps a “marriage of science
and mysticism“ has a chance?
Why not take what is good from science and what is good from religion,
and discard what is wrong?
What is the best thing about religion?
Religion teaches us to be open minded and accepting of possibilities
which are far from being “rational”. Religions teach us to pay attention to
singular events, miracles, phenomena that are fragile and hardly repeatable.
Finally religion teaches us to look inside as much as outside: know thyself.
The strengths of the approach of religion just happen to be the weak
points in science.
Science is often narrow-minded and conservative restricting everything
to what is material and rigidly repeatable. Science teaches us that what is
“out there” is not connected to what is “in here,” that it must be captured,
weighed, measured and manipulated. That is why new paradigms are so painful
when they come - but they DO come in science, and they seldom come in religion
which is “fixed” and dogmatic and not open to discussion.
What is the best thing about science?
Science is open to criticism and discussion. Even if many forces on the
earth try to make a sort of religion of science, in general, scientific
theories must be published and publicly discussed. We can find an error in
Einstein‘s papers because these, as well as other papers, are publicly
available. Everyone can learn mathematics, as advanced as you wish, from reading
monographs, articles, going to conferences, and discussing with other
scientists.
The strength of science just happens to be the weakness of religion.
Religions are always “secret” in one respect or another - even if that secrecy
is only the declaration that no changes can be made, no questions asked,
because the ultimate truth about God is a “mystery,” a “secret.” That is why
the teachings of religion are so easily distorted and misunderstood. It is so
easy for the central “authority” to achieve the “pinnacle” of the religion and
declare to the followers the correct interpretation and that no other is
permitted.
Point 4) What you say about students not being able to judge for a long
time is certainly true. But whether discouraging them from such judgments is
the only solution - I am not sure.
Certainly that was the way it was done in the past. Groups were usually
small, whether exoteric or esoteric. Travel and communication possibilities
were severely restricted. But today a qualitative change has occurred: we are
now in the era of networking and instant communication on a planetary scale.
Therefore a different approach is possible: instead of having few
students and “teach them even when they are not yet ready”, we can address
ourselves to those who are ready.
This was not so easy to do in the past when teachers communicated, at
best, to merely hundreds of potential students. But it is possible now, when we
can communicate with millions.
Whoever is not yet ready for the next stage, let him stay where he is or
go back where he was. Those who ARE ready, will find you - if you take care and
NETWORK efficiently.
So, I would not discourage students from making early judgments and
discussing subjects that they are not prepared for. If they come to the wrong
conclusions and go away or attack you, that is their free will. Let them go
where their minds and their hearts lead them.
Coming back now to Davies,
he notes that even atheists can feel awe in respect of the cosmos. They even note that it does, indeed, appear
that there is a purpose that evolution is following. We certainly got that from Goff, though I
suspect he got it from Davies and others. As noted above, this is what inspired
his Cosmic Purposivism.
Davies points out that
that 1) the universe ‘obeys’ (or expresses?) mathematical laws; 2) these
mathematical laws underlie everything and some scientists think they are real
and inhabit a transcendent Platonic realm; 3) Science reveals that there is a
cohesive scheme of things, but they do not consider that to be evidence for
meaning or purpose. Davies writes:
Of course, scientists might be deluded in their belief that they’re
finding systematic and coherent truth in the workings of nature. Ultimately there may be no reason at all for
why things are the way they are. But
that would make the universe a fiendishly clever bit of trickery. Can a truly absurd universe so convincingly
mimic a meaningful one?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment..