Thursday, May 16, 2024

The Goldilocks Enigma – Part Two

 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,  for Goff, the Wave Function is something like a deciding god who then castrates himself and Goff gives us no idea where the wave function comes from, nor what gives particles ‘agency’.

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?

And so, Davies sets himself the task of explaining the Universe.   We'll begin synopsizing next post.

P.S. 21-05-24 9:04 (A.J.)
Part two of the series of six:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment..

Sunday Special - From Fairy Tales to Math: The Power of Threes

  Ever noticed how many things come in threes? Like in a story, three chances always seem just right, or in comedy, the third punchline real...